Everything you know about Global Warming is wrong
timesonline.co.uk
timesonline.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
The ocean is a substantial sink for atmospheric CO2. Our best guess is that 1/3 of the CO2 we produced is absorbed by the ocean. As the ocean absorbs CO2, however, the pH of ocean water drops. Unfortunately, we don't know how this will affect all of the different species of marine life that live in the ocean, but early experiments show that shellfish in particular do not tolerate more acidic waters very well. Furthermore, there is reason to believe that the ocean's CO2 absorbing capabilities will decrease as the pH decreases, leaving us with even more CO2 in the atmosphere.
Basically, there are a whole lot of unknowns in the whole debate, many of which could have unpleasant (to say the least) consequences. Brushing the entire field of climate science aside and declaring that all of our problems can be solved by pumping sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere is wildly irresponsible.
Why are you denying the consensus and being anti-science? You must also be a creationist.
</snark>
This is an interesting topic, because it really forces us to evaluate how much we actually know about climate. To draw conclusions like "the modern warming trend is anthropogenic in origin", we need to believe that our climate models are really good. So good, in fact, that they can accurately model virtually the entire climate, which is what allows us to pinpoint CO2 emissions and rule out all other forcings as the cause of modern warming.
We do this by running the models with those other forcings, but without CO2, and observe less warming. But then, we turn around and say "we can't model $geoengineering_scheme". Why not? Are our models simply incapable of predicting the response of climate to various forcings?
You just need to observe the relative carbon isotope levels in the CO2 of the atmosphere. If the CO2 is natural, there'll be a large proportion of C-14 (it's created by interactions with cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere). If it's man made, there'll be a lot of C-12 and 13, since that comes from oil, which has been nowhere near the upper atmosphere for millions of years.
Oh, and there's now enough man-made CO2 in the air that carbon dating is inaccurate for recent things (it tests as really old).
> To draw conclusions like "the modern warming trend is anthropogenic in origin", we need to believe that our climate models are really good.
Which is entirely wrong. There are plenty of other sources of data which support that conclusion.
Without knowing that, we can not draw any conclusions as to whether the modern warming trend is caused by human-emitted CO2 or not.
Incidentally, I devoted precisely one line of my post to name-calling, namely reversing a common ad-hominem levied against skeptics of climate modelling.
Can we do the same thing with sulfur dioxide after a volcano? If so, all we need to do is wait for the next big volcano to prove geoengineering is viable.
This weakens your contention, but I still think you're pointing out an interesting bit of hypocrisy in the public debate (often these hypocrisies cease to exist in debates among experts).
That's actually not a lot of data, but it's considerably more than we know about exogenous inputs of CO2 - we have only one data point on CO2, but a handful on SO2 (Pinatubo, Krakatoa, a few more).
I think the article says just that:
Myhrvold is not arguing for an immediate deployment of the sulphur shield but, rather, that technologies like it be researched and tested so they are ready to use if the worst climate predictions come true.
It seems to me that any objection to this reasoning is really in favor of what we're doing now, which to run around in circles crying that the sky is falling, and claiming that the only possible solution is to pretty much destroy our way of life.
I certainly prefer the Myhrvold approach, of thinking outside the box and challenging others to react, than the Gore fear-mongering.
That is what many climate warming deniers like to claim will happen. Doesn't have to be so, Sweden for instance has increased its wealth steadily while at the same time reduced its environmental impact.
>I certainly prefer the Myhrvold approach, of thinking outside the box and challenging others to react, than the Gore fear-mongering.
What Al Gore does is also challenging people to react.
It does actually have to be so, especially for developing nations like China and India. If they were forced to stop using even 20% of their coal plants it would devastate their growing economies. It would take thousands of Swedens and their (frankly) mediocre efforts to reduce their carbon footprints to offset China and India's contribution to global warming.
I think that's a point made in this article too, that even if we are destroying the planet that there really is very little we can do to stop it without encroaching on the human rights of every person on the planet.
No, it doesn't actually have to be so. Knowledge and technology transfer, more efficient markets, and alternative energy sources combined can ensure continued growth without increased emissions. It is fascinating that some free-market proponents believe in the amazing ability of human imagination and drive to surmount any dificulty (as I do). But as soon as we make any attempt to include environmental externalities when calculating the cost of something, the whole market will appearently collapse and billions die!
>thousands of Swedens and their (frankly) mediocre efforts
It is of course impossible for Sweden to offset the emissions of everyone else. The point is that everyone else can learn from Sweden and do the same. A 9% decrease in carbon emissions over 20 years combined wth healthy growth and high living standards? What would you consider not mediocre?
>destroying the planet that there really is very little we can do to stop it without encroaching on the human rights of every person on the planet.
So destroying the planet is not encroaching on their rights in any way then?
1. Is from 2009.
2. Does not in fact even claim that everything anyone knows about global warming is wrong. (e.g.: "Everyone in the room agrees that the Earth has been getting warmer and human activity probably has something to do with it.")
3. Doesn't do much to substantiate what claims it does make.
4. Is largely about not global warming as such but possible ways to mitigate it.
5. Mostly describes the opinions of people who are not in fact climate scientists.
6. Does purportedly give the opinions of one climate scientist, Ken Caldeira -- but it turns out that he says he's been severely misrepresented by these people; see, e.g., http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/18/error-riddled-superfre... .
---
No direct evidence of this exists. Humans may have something to do with it, and they may not. There is still debate on what the causes might be and much research still needs to be done.
I find it ironic that scientists can act so religious-like on this topic and have faith in the belief that humans are the sole reason behind global warming without solid scientific proof.
Edit: Spelling. No comments, but lots of down votes. Do please cite the evidence rather than just throw stones.
Because you are making a lot of assumptions. For example:
"the Earth has been getting warmer and human activity probably has something to do with it."
Is different from "The earth is getting warmer because of human activity."
In fact, you go on to say: "Humans may have something to do with it, and they may not. There is still debate on what the causes might be and much research still needs to be done."
A debate on this implies that their are those who think human activity is partly to blame.
Finally, you go on to say this:
>I find it ironic that scientists can act so religious-like on this topic and have faith in the belief that humans are the sole reason behind global warming without solid scientific proof.
Religious-like? Faith? Humans are the sole reason?
"human activity probably has something to do with it."
That's why you are getting down voted. Stop overreacting. =)
Like it or not politically, the way science works within a scientific community on issues like this is driven by the consensus of the expert community, which is informed by the data. Granted, it's easier to get published in a peer reviewed journal with an article that supports global warming than one that tries to debunk it, but in a scientific forum the data will eventually stand up on its own. If someone uncovers a preponderance of empirical data that contradicts human contribution to global warming, it will stand up to scientific scrutiny. The best example of a paradigm changing finding of this sort that I can think of in modern science is punctuated equilibrium. A lot of the evolutionary biology community screamed bloody murder at first, but the data were just too compelling to ignore. Unfortunately, on global warming the data all point in the opposite direction right now, i.e. global warming is happening and we as humans are contributing to it.
http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/...
Part of article I was referring to:
>>
Would it work? The scientific evidence says yes. Perhaps the stoutest scientific argument in favour of it came from Paul Crutzen, a Dutch atmospheric scientist whose environmentalist bona fides run even deeper than Caldeira’s — he won a Nobel prize for his research on atmospheric ozone depletion.
In 2006 he wrote an essay in the journal Climatic Change lamenting the “grossly unsuccessful” efforts to emit fewer greenhouse gases and acknowledging that an injection of sulphur in the stratosphere “is the only option available to rapidly reduce temperature rises and counteract other climatic effects”.
Crutzen’s embrace of geoengineering was considered such a heresy within the climate science community that some of his peers tried to stop the publication of his essay. How could the man reverently known as “Dr Ozone” possibly endorse such a scheme? Wouldn’t the environmental damage outweigh the benefits?
Actually, no. Crutzen concluded that damage to the ozone would be minimal. The sulphur dioxide would eventually settle out in the polar regions but in such relatively small amounts that significant harm was unlikely.
You see, the problem is that the issue is too complex to wrap up like they did here. It is not sexy, but every component that could contribute to climate change requires careful data collection, analysis and objective consideration.
For example, the article seems to infer that solar panels would result in global warming because they are dark, and have a 15% efficiency converting sunlight to electricity. However, this does not take into consideration factors such as: estimates in increased efficiency as the solar panel technology matures, or (probably more important) the offset of warming effects of current fuel sources that solar panels will replace, particularly the burning of fossil fuels.
The real problem here, IMO, is that people walk away from an article like this thinking an issue such as global climate change can be understood and resolved simply by having the correct perspective. However, the reality is that the issue is much more complex, and that more important than our perspective, is what we can infer from data and the diligent analysis of that data by people that are motivated to understand the issue, and not to sell the discourse.
Matthews, H.D., and K. Caldeira, Transient climate-carbon simulations of planetary geoengineering, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104 (24): 9949-9954, 2007.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/24/9949.abstract
It's no more speculative than any other climate modelling paper. The methodology is to run a climate model with and without a forcing and compared the differences between runs. That methodology should sound familiar - it's the methodology used to show that global warming is anthropogenic in origin.
In fact, this is the one chapter in the entire book (superfreakonomics) that was too hard to stomach. It's just too fake.
There are a lot of rants on HN about this. Pointing out that Intellectual Ventures is just a patent troll;
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1134762 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1134743 and more.
newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2009/11/16/091116crbo_books_kolbert
A title that immediately puts you on the defensive?
Quotes like this? “I don’t know anyone I would say is smarter than Nathan,” Gates, an investor in IV, once observed.
edit: there's a cute widget/plug-in/extension for someone to build - make something that strips newspaper articles of all text except the quotes. May need some jiggering about to make it readable.
The only problem is that the shock value of the content is in no way related to how valid the information is. "Bullshit" is terribly biased towards the presenters opinions, whereas books like these are biased towards whatever makes headlines, which results in varied levels of validity.
This is a good look at the various rebuttals to basically everything in this chapter of Superfreakonomics.