Global Warming Science Developments

I am on the Union of Concerned Scientists mailing list for their Sound Science Initiative. Today I got a Global Warming update that discusses an aspect of global warming measurements that pretty much ends the debate on whether temperatures are actually rising. The gist of the debate is whether surface or tropospheric measurements are more accurate because these two measurements disagree as to whether temperatures are rising. You have probably mostly seen the dramatic rise in surface tempuratures. Satellite measurements have shown far less warming in the troposhere even though models suggest that the surface and troposphere should pretty much warm together. Obviously, the right wing oil whores have seized on this to claim global warming is still not known to be really happening.

Reinterpretation of the data has solved this by realizing that the interpretation of the tropospheric temperatures were inaccurate. To quote below the break:

"Only recently has this puzzle been largely resolved. Recent  work by Fu et al. (2004a) reveals a systematic oversight in previous analytic procedures -- an oversight that did not account for the inclusion of cooler stratospheric  (atmospheric layer above the troposphere to about 50 km) temperatures in data from a satellite sensor targeted for the troposphere. Reinterpretation of the satellite data after correction for this sensor feature shows that during the period 1979-2001, global mean tropospheric temperatures rose at a rate close to that of the surface temperatures, in good agreement with predictions of climate models."

I will skip over some details which I can forwad to folks who really want (or you can sign up for SSI updates on the Union of Concerned Scientists website).

Here are the conclusions:

"The apparent discrepancy between measured and predicted tropospheric air temperature trends-and the corollary discrepancy between measured surface temperature and tropospheric air temperature trends-has been a major justification for those skeptical of heat-trapping gas-induced surface warming and has been often interpreted to mean that either the surface temperature records are wrong and/or that there must be important and robust heat transfer processes in the atmosphere that are not well represented in climate models. That there is now a close correspondence of model predictions with the late 20th century air temperature trends increases our confidence in the physical realism of the models."

I am sure Rush "Gimme Drugs" Limbaugh and the like will continue to claim that global warming is unproven (much like many say that evolution is unproven). But remember Rush also claims that volcanos explain warming. His claim about the Pinatubo eruption being what is to blame for recent warming was a.) based on a 10-fold exaggeration in the amount of carbon expelled from  the volcano which he maintained even after being corrected; b.) ignores the fact that volcanic eruptions will cause global COOLING in the short term because the carbon it puts out is mainly particulate rather than CO2 so it blocks incoming rather than reflected heat; and c.) that the carbon that volcanos put into the air, being particulate rather than CO2, settles OUT of the air on a clearly understood schedule. So the volcano myth has long ago been debunked. Now the measurement discrepancy has been solved.

Finally, the Bush/Rush claim that atmospheric scientists disagree on global warming. This is misleading. Yes you can find some scientists who disagree with the models, BUT it is a ration of about 10:1 in favor of oil-emissions caused warming being true. Those who disagree are mostly either grand standers or paid by the oil industry. So some 90% of scientists AGREE that global warming is happening and that WE are responsible.

This scientific moment brought to you by the Union of Concerned Scientists (channeled by me):

http://www.ucsusa.org

•  Global Warming?

  Current global temperature is still within normal ranges and is changing at a normal rate.
  We are undoubtedly adding CO2 and other 'greenhouse' gasses to the environment.  What the effect of that is is still an open question to some scientists not paid by the oil industry
  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4203021.stm

  Given the sums of $$ agreements like Kyoto call for, it would be irresponsible of us not to ask "what else could be done with that amount of money that would benefit all humankind?"  

  One answer is "provide clean water to every person on the planet".  
  

  by Mosquito Pilot on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 12:18:19 PM PDT

  •  There are "historians"

    who deny that the Holocaust happened.  Should we believe them just because they happen to be historians?

    Similarly, just because a few scientists don't believe in global warming does not make their opinion correct or even remotely valid.  I'll take the word of the 2,000 scientists that signed off on the last IPCC report which stated that we are changing the climate.  The evidence gets stronger almost every day.  In science, just because there is a minority view doesn't mean that it's worth considering.

    And if you want to post more of this kind of stuff, I have some excellent recipes for you...

    by Scott in NAZ on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 12:28:20 PM PDT

  •  Pollution kills too

    Air pollution from power plants and other sources kills people and exacerbates problems like asthma leading to medical bills and lost productivity. Investing in renewable energy technologies will expand research opportunities and create local jobs.  Spin-off technologies from renewable energy technologies will have numerious uses and create new industries.  

    We know oil is a finite resource and located in unstable areas where we may or must have to intervene militarily in order to maintain our supply. (Plus our current venture in Iraq.)

    Add these reasons to the strong likelihood that global warming is man-made, and I don't need the proof to be 100%.  We gain more than we lose from moving to a cleaner, more sustainable society.

    by 2pt5cats on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 12:44:20 PM PDT

    •  Need to preview more

      Last sentence should read:  We gain more than we lose by moving to a cleaner, more sustainable society.

      by 2pt5cats on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 12:49:04 PM PDT

    •  Agreed

      I don't buy the "it's too expensive" line. Which is not to say it won't cost money in the short run. But it creates net jobs here in the US, reduces pollution (which, as you say, leads to lost productivity and, I would add, increases wear on buildings and cars) and would reduce our tendency to go to war for oil.

      And it may keep our coastlines from being eroded away and coastal cities flooded. New Orleans and chunks of Florida are in deep shit in the next 20 years I believe unless we slow the warming trend.

      by mole333 on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 01:08:51 PM PDT

    •  Power Plants

      Five years ago, EPA and DOJ started an aggressive enforcement campaign against power plants, seeking to hold them accountable for trying to pass of facility modifications (which would have ended their "grandfathered" exempt status under the Clean Air Act "New Source Review" program) as "routine maintenance" (which would keep them exempt).  Bush completely undermined that effort, and did so deliberately.

      Now, he touts his "Clear Skies" program as something BETTER than current enforcement vehicles, but is is not true.

      Even EPA's Inspector General has bluntly said that:

      the administration's policy changes had "seriously hampered" those cases, deterring companies from continuing settlement talks with the agency, undermining the agency's legal arguments in the cases that had reached court, and discouraging the agency from filing more cases.

      We NEED to make environmental issues more of a focus in national politics.  These issues resonate with Republicans as much as Democrats, as we all do, in fact, breathe.

      by NotFuzzy on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 03:20:24 PM PDT

  •  First post by a new ID

    My response to MP:

    Tom's quick baked potato
    ------------------------
    Preheat oven to 350.
    Add a potato.
    Wait 30 minutes.
    Add butter and salt to taste.  

    by Tom Frank on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 12:44:29 PM PDT

    •  Does that ...

      Does that come with fries?

      by Bob Love on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 01:25:14 PM PDT

      •  Recipe comes with trolls.

        Kos tradition.  

        by Tom Frank on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 01:33:00 PM PDT

        •  Uh ...

          I know.  I was being ... clever.

          by Bob Love on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 12:19:48 AM PDT

          •  sorry. late night at the lab.

            by Tom Frank on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 08:20:53 AM PDT

        •  don't eat billy goats

          It's not a troll.  Honest.

          Quite pleased to meet you all I'm sure.

          The global warming scientists publish the models with the most adverse results.  Actual warming is less than predicted by those models.  Gov't funding rewards researchers whose results scream 'gov't must do something'.
          smoke that.

          Undrinkable water is a solvable problem that we know exists.  People are dying today from this problem.  It could be solved for far less than the cost of the Kyoto accords.  IF global warming exists, is it solvable?  The only honest answer to that is WE DON'T KNOW.  

          I am trying to question the rationality of embarking on the world's largest spending program in an attempt to solve a problem that a) may not exist and b) may not be solvable.

          If that's a troll, I prefer cabrito.

          by Mosquito Pilot on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 04:53:07 AM PDT

          •  Billy goats gruff

            I agree that drinking water is a big problem...and will become bigger as time goes on. You know what will make it even worse? Flooding of coastal areas by rising sea levels due to global warming. These are not mutually exclusive issues.

            Scientists are not publishing the most dramatic models. Not at all. The media may report on those that either show the most adverse effects or no effects, but scientists aren't in that business. That would not be science. My wife in is the field we are talking about. If she were into blogging, she'd be covering this. The models show varied effects. The current warming trend closely fits the majority of models and this is made more robust by the reassessment of sattelite data that I report in the diary. Models are made not to give a certain result. They are made to reflect reality as much as possible. THey all make assumptions in order to estimate variables that are not directly calculable. That makes all of them deviate from reality. But they are not only reporting the most adverse effects. They are reporting whatever their models show.

            THe majority of evidence shows a clear warming trend. Hardly anyone disputes that. Only a small minority of scientists dispute that this is caused by us. The exact effects are still debated because the models do not completely agree. For example, the shutting down of the North Atlantic current is predicted by only some models, not all. If it happened, there would indeed be a paradoxical cooling in those areas currently warmed by that current. Will that happen? Don't know. It is one of the more dramatic adverse effects and different models predict different things regarding it.

            Most effects that are predicted by models are already happening. The receeding of glaciers worldwide, the break up of Antarctic ice sheets, the spread of tropical diseases northward, increased storminess in certain areas, etc. etc. etc. Most things predicted by most models have already started happening. This shows the models to be on the right track. They predicted it years ago...and they are happening. We can't ignore that.

            To say that global warming may not happen is to ignore the fact that it IS happening right here and right now. You are standing in the eye of a hurricane and claiming that the hurricane may not exist. But the hurricane is there. We don't know what it will do to us, but we do have predictions and so far those predictions have been pretty accurate.

            Don't know where you get your info from, but I get mine from the Union of Concerned Scientists (which is a lobbt group, so grain of salt), my wife (who is in the field studying actual sattelite data and working with models), and articles in Science and Nature (the two most respected scientific journals in the world). I am a scientist myself (not atmospheric sciences, though) so I understand how to read and interpret scientific data. Those are my credentials for saying what I am saying in this diary. What, other than apparant oil industry research that you cite, are you basing your claims on?

            by mole333 on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 05:12:48 AM PDT

            •  baaaaa

              I didn't cite the article as proof.  Your original post said, paraphrasing now, 'all right thinking people agree'.  I just googled the topic and found a group of scientists who disagreed who were holding a meeting on that exact day.  I was just pointing out that not everyone agrees.

              Temperatures rise and fall, no?
              Temperatures have risen and fallen more and faster than they have over the last decade/century (take you pick), no?

              Coincidence is not causation.  I'm not a scientist, but when I played one on TV they drilled that into my head.

              Your lobbyists, the union of concerned scientists, are objective, says you.  Scientists who disagree with the theory of global warming are not objective seems to be your claim.  Golly, I guess you won that round....

              Whaddya think of former global warming doom & gloomer Bjørn Lomborg?

              by Mosquito Pilot on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 07:23:52 AM PDT

              •  Well now...

                Now you are being misleading.

                First, no, I did not say "all right thinking people," I said "90% of of atmospheric scientists." There is a difference.

                Second, I did not call the UCS as completely objective. In fact I said "grain of salt." But I did call the 90% of atmospheric scientists and the scientific journals Nature and Science objective. The UCS statement I state refers to published work from actual peer reviewed data.

                In human history, there has never been as abrupt and sharp a warming as we are seeing now. Outside of our history, yes there have. But we have no evidence that our civilizations can survive climate change on this scale at this rate. In fact we have evidence (Jared Diamond has covered this in several articles and in his new book,as has Brian Fagen in his books) that slower and less dramatic climate changes have contributed to the collapse of many, if not most, human civilizations.

                The chemistry of CO2 effect on heat retention is pretty well known. We KNOW that increasing CO2 leads to a geenhouse effect. THAT IS A FACT BASED ON CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS. There are clear, parallel (correlated, to use the proper term) increase in both global temp and CO2 associated with first human clearing of forests, then, more rapidly, industrialization. The correlation we see agrees with the chemical and physical facts of CO2's effect on a planet's temp. Again, this can almost be taken as proof of prinicple rather than theory.

                NONE OF THE ABOVE IS SERIOUSLY DISPUTED. The increases in CO2, the unusually sharp and abrupt increase in temp, the correlation between the two, and the agreement with known chemistry and physics are virtually undisputed now that the satellite data and the surface data are in agreement. This alone destroys the bulk of your arguement.

                From here there is dispute. The exact effects the greenhouse effect will have on the global climate are disputed. The amount of warming, the effect on  ocean currents, the mitigating or amplifying effects of various factors like water vapor, soil, changes in photosynthesis, decay, etc. are uncertain and still active areas of study, including by my wife. THe various models suggest different things, but the bulk of them suggest some common things. And all of those are taking place.

                The most dramatic effects, which represent the straw man you put up, are unlikely to be exactly what happens. Woe to us if they turn out to be accurate, though the Hollywood version can never happen (spread that movie over about 10-20 years and you just might have an extreme end of the models' predictions). Similarly, the least dramatic ones, which still suggest we will have some major problems, which are the ones you seem to push as being the ones we should consider, aer unlikely to be what happens. The current conditions and rates of change suggest that the fairly dramatic, but not extreme, models are likely. BUT there are likely to be inflection points. If an ocean current shuts down or shifts, it is likely to greatly increase the severity of the effects.

                I have already said that not all things environmentalists warn of should be listened to. But when 90% of the experts agree we are heading for some deep shit, it is stupid to ignore them. That is what we are doing and that is what you are advocating.

                by mole333 on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 07:53:27 AM PDT

                •  ah, finally

                  to disagree is to be stupid.
                  That about wraps this thread up for me.

                  Cheers,

                  by Mosquito Pilot on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 08:13:24 AM PDT

                  •  Disagree based on what?

                    If you want to disagree, you got to back it up. The ONLY backup you give is a single citation of a biased source. WHAT aspect of the science that I mention do you disagree with and what is your scientific reason for that disagreement. Science is NOT opinion. Science is based on data. You present nothing but unsubstantiated statements.

                    Disregarding science IS stupid. If you disregard the theory of gravity you splat on the sidewalk when you jump off a building. That's stupid. If you disagree with a scientific statement, you gotta back it up with science, not opinion. So stop disregarding science and start giving scientific arguements rather than just your opinion. WHAT DO YOU BASE YOUR STATEMENTS ON? I have given you what the science tells me. Couter those arguements with sicence if you can. If you want let's get into a citation war from the literature. But don't just come on and keep stating the same old statements that don't have scientific backing.

                    by mole333 on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 09:22:12 AM PDT

  •  errrr...

    Well, depends what you mean by "normal" I guess. Over the lifespan of earth we have had everything from putative snowball to a hot earth. Within that range, sure. Within the range experienced during human history, well, no this is not normal. The term "unprecedented" is what I hear most. And my wife is in the field, working at Goddard (Jim Hansen's institute).

    Let's review what IS known. a.) it is fairly well known that CO2 levels are rising since humans began clearing forests, with acceleration inflection points around the time of coal use and oil use. b.) CO2 leads to a green house effect. c.) we are seeing a warming that closely parallels in time the rising CO2 levels. In some way this is proof of prinicple more than theory.

    Most models, though they differ in details, have predicted for nearly 20 years the exactly what we are seeing--increased storminess,  increased frequency of El Nino conditions, increased average temperatures combined with increased extremes (in other words you will get some unusually cold years even though the average temperature is increasing), the spread of tropical diseases into temperate climates, etc. The main uncertainty from what I understand is the effect of water vapor (a BIG one which my wife is particularly interested in). Many models discuont this. I have recently heard that soil effects may also be important, accelerating the warming. So details are not certain. But the overall trend is overwhelmingly agreed upon worldwide.

    The effects are also very clear--the Antarctic ice cap has begun to break up. ICe sheets that no one ever thought would break up are now gone or are sending record sized ice burgs into the oceans. The snows of Kilamanjaro will soon no longer exist. Alpine glaciers are contracting to historically unheard of smallness. Across the globe ice sheets are melting, ocean levels are rising, tropical diseases are spreading and...

    we are doing nothing.

    Prioritizing where money goes is important. But denial is insane when the consequences are so huge. We should have started acting 20 years ago when the basic theory became clear. The longer we wait, the more expensive it will be to do anything and the more damage will occur to our economies. Already the inurance industry is taking global warming VERY seriously because of the increased storminess. Recently I have heard that the Colorado ski industry is starting to worry as ski conditions deteriorate on average. I suspect agriculture will start worrying soon.

    Maybe Russia and Canada would WANT global warming because, flooding, current shut downs and storminess aside, it just might turn them into breadbaskets. But most of the world will lose out.

    You are advocating doing nothing based on the word of 10% of the scientists. I am advocating acting now based on the word of 90% of the scientists.

    by mole333 on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 12:59:26 PM PDT

    •  The "Tipping Point" is Not Far Off

      Report: Global warming approaching critical point

      'An ecological time-bomb is ticking away'

      Monday, January 24, 2005 Posted: 2059 GMT (0459 HKT)

      LONDON, England (AP) -- Global warming is approaching the critical point of no return, after which widespread drought, crop failure and rising sea-levels would be irreversible, an international climate change task force warned Monday.

      
      http://edition.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/01/24/climate.change.ap/
      

      The taskforce issuing this independent report consists of the Institute for Public Policy Research in Britain, the Center for American Progress in the United States and The Australia Institute.  This makes the report's prognostications all the more frightening.  

      According to the report, urgent action is needed to stop the global average temperature rising by 2 degrees Celsius above the level in 1750 -- the approximate start of the Industrial Revolution when mankind first started significantly polluting the atmosphere with carbon dioxide.

      Beyond a 2 degrees rise, "the risks to human societies and ecosystems grow significantly" the report said, adding there would be a risk of "abrupt, accelerated, or runaway climate change."

      It warned of "climatic tipping points" such as the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets melting and the Gulf Stream shutting down.
      

      
      

      by NotFuzzy on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 03:28:46 PM PDT

      •  Maybe

        Some models indicate this. Others do not. I am SURE we are in for more problems and changes than we expect. But I am not sure that the most disasterous scenarios will come to pass. But why risk it???

        I want to note that as an environmentalist, I remember the warnings about CFCs and the ozone hole more than decade before the government took it seriously. This means we could have dealt with it more easily and cheaply back then and the hole would close sooner. Now the same thing is happening with global warming. The basic outline of what was up was well known some time ago. We could have come a long way towards mitigating it by now, but NO. People ignored it. I am not saying people should blindly pay attention to environmentalists. But these two issues were based on solid science from the start. To ignore science is to be in denial. Many, many species have become extinct by their own actions, over exploiting their niche in crisis times. Only we have the intelligence to see it coming. Will we still go the same way DESPITE this?

        by mole333 on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 03:35:24 PM PDT

  •  Do you know that the BBC story you link to....

    Concerns an industry lobbying group ?

    because that is what the "Scientific Alliance" appears to be.

    "MARK ADAMS-SCIENTIFIC ALLIANCE
    Mark Adams is a former Private Secretary to John Major and Tony Blair who left to set up a career as a lobbyist, public relations consultant and denier of climate change. In 2000 Adams set up a web site (http://www,scientific-alliance.com) to "use scientific fact to counter scare-mongering by the so-called green lobby". The site quotes the usual tiny handful of deniers and links to the US right-wing anti-environmental think tanks (Cato Institute, George C Marshall Institute described as having a "rigorous unbiased analysis"). The organisation purporting to be behind the website, the SCIENTIFIC ALLIANCE, does not involve any scientists or indeed exist in any formal sense. It is a public relations vehicle modeled on the US think tanks based out of Adam's Westminster office and created by Robert Durward, the director of the anti-environmentalist lobby group, the British Aggregates Association."

    Also see Corporate Influence on Science and Technology"

    PR Watch has a nice writeup on this group :

    "Formed in 2002, the The Scientific Alliance is a UK-based organisation of industry-friendly experts, "committed to rational discussion and debate on the challenges facing the environment today" [1] (http://www.scientific-alliance.org/about_us.htm), and populated by many of Britain's most prominent biotechnology enthusiasts.

    According to The Scotsman, the Scientific Alliance was originally set up by the director of the British Aggregates Association, Robert Durward, and political consultant Mark Adams. [2] (http://www.news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?id=83662003&tid=733)

    The Scientific Alliance's old phone number was also the contact telephone for both the British Aggregates Association and Cloburn quarry in Lanarkshire. The domain name for the Scientific Alliance is also registered to Cloburn quarry (this was changed in 2002). "

    by Troutfishing on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 02:05:57 PM PDT

    •  bbc link

      I didn't know that.  Thank you.

      by Mosquito Pilot on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 04:39:32 AM PDT

      •  It's standard operating procedure.....

        For the last decade - or more - industries have funded elaborate efforts to confuse the public about the scientific consensus on a wide variety of issues :  GM, Global Warming, pollution, overall threats to the biosphere, etc.

        One great way to cut through this sort of BS is to run groups through the filter of the Disinfopedia - ( Now called "SourceWatch" ) an encyclopedia of propaganda maintained by PR Watch.

        by Troutfishing on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 09:56:59 AM PDT

  •  Re : Global Warming denialism....

    The BBC story  linked to concerns an industry lobbying group funded - it seems - by UK mining concerns.

    The "Scientific Alliance" is not a recognized scientific body - it's a front in an industry funded PR disinformation campaign.

    "MARK ADAMS-SCIENTIFIC ALLIANCE
    Mark Adams is a former Private Secretary to John Major and Tony Blair who left to set up a career as a lobbyist, public relations consultant and denier of climate change. In 2000 Adams set up a web site (http://www,scientific-alliance.com) to "use scientific fact to counter scare-mongering by the so-called green lobby". The site quotes the usual tiny handful of deniers and links to the US right-wing anti-environmental think tanks (Cato Institute, George C Marshall Institute described as having a "rigorous unbiased analysis"). The organisation purporting to be behind the website, the SCIENTIFIC ALLIANCE, does not involve any scientists or indeed exist in any formal sense. It is a public relations vehicle modeled on the US think tanks based out of Adam's Westminster office and created by Robert Durward, the director of the anti-environmentalist lobby group, the British Aggregates Association."

    Also see Corporate Influence on Science and Technology"

    PR Watch has a nice writeup on this group :

    "Formed in 2002, the The Scientific Alliance is a UK-based organisation of industry-friendly experts, "committed to rational discussion and debate on the challenges facing the environment today" [1] (http://www.scientific-alliance.org/about_us.htm), and populated by many of Britain's most prominent biotechnology enthusiasts.

    According to The Scotsman, the Scientific Alliance was originally set up by the director of the British Aggregates Association, Robert Durward, and political consultant Mark Adams. [2] (http://www.news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?id=83662003&tid=733)

    The Scientific Alliance's old phone number was also the contact telephone for both the British Aggregates Association and Cloburn quarry in Lanarkshire. The domain name for the Scientific Alliance is also registered to Cloburn quarry (this was changed in 2002). "

    by Troutfishing on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 02:11:01 PM PDT

•  Great diary

  That is a very useful thing to know.  If you don't mind, it will make the diary easier to read if you use quote boxes for your quotes.  

  by Tom Frank on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 12:24:21 PM PDT

  •  done

    Thanks. I always mean to check on how to do that. Now I know.

    by mole333 on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 12:43:17 PM PDT