Global warming for a 'lukewarmer'

June 30, 6:58 PMSF Environmental Policy ExaminerThomas Fuller

Previous Next

36 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the SF Environmental Policy Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

If you've looked at the comments section for any of my recent articles, you'll notice that proponents of anthropogenic global warming believe that I know nothing about science and reject the theory of greenhouse gases. This is despite the fact that in just about all of the 100 articles I have written here I have said that I accept the theory as a good explanation of the mechanism by which global warming may be occurring. But because I won't let them off the hook for what I consider sloppy thinking and sloppier measurements, my 'lukewarm' attitude seems to infuriate them more than outright skepticism.

So let's go through this again. I happen to agree with Roger Pielke's position on global climate change as expressed in my interview with him yesterday. 100%. I believe global warming is real. I believe we should act to address it. I support President Obama's energy plan and a (hopefully better) cap and trade program. Should I increase the font size on this?

I do not believe that the Arctic, Greenland or Antarctica are going to melt and cause dramatic sea-level rise. Neither do most climate scientists. I do not believe that malaria will re-emerge from the pockets of poverty to where it has been banished. I do not believe that global climate change will prove to be a civilisation buster, like a meteor  from Deep Impact.

Here in the northern hemisphere, where most of the actual global warming has been measured, we are still within the temperature bands that have been observed over the past 10,000 years--between 14 and 16 degrees Celsius in the summer months. Until we move outside of that range, proponents of global warming must accept that they will have an uphill struggle in persuading electorates to spend more money and change their lifestyles. In my opinion, they haven't worked hard enough.

I do believe that global climate change will prove to be a serious problem on the rough scale of the demographic changes developed countries currently face. It is something that will have to be managed, and it's better to get an early start on managing it.

I agree with Svante Arrhenius' calculations of 1906 that a doubling of CO2 and associated positive feedbacks will cause about a 2.1 degree Celsius in warming. Sadly, when we reach that doubling around the end of the century, it does not look like we will stop emitting CO2. So I think we should prepare for the effects and try to minimise them. But I don't think we should exaggerate them.

I think we don't measure temperatures accurately. I don't think we understand sensitivity thoroughly. I don't think we've looked effectively at other forcings on climate. I think life has been entirely too easy on climate scientists, and that the participation in the debate of Al Gore will prove to be a negative factor on acceptance of the theory of global warming.

And I've said all this repeatedly. Should I just link to this in every article I write?

Sigh. It doesn't take long. Hoisted from the comments:

Jim Galasyn says:

"It seems that global warming may actually be leading to an increase in sea ice in parts of the Antarctic. Scientists in the United Kingdom have produced a study which shows ice has grown by 100,000 square kilometres each decade in the past 30 years."

The Arctic

"Since 2008, the anomalies have actually decreased." See here .

Greenland ice tipping point 'further off than thought'. Previous studies have misjudged the so-called Greenland tipping point at which the ice sheet is certain to melt completely, expert claims. That's the Guardian, a bastion of skeptic thought.

Here's another skeptic website called NPR: "Satellite measurements showed the same thing was happening over hundreds of miles of western Greenland. So the bottom line is that all that meltwater does lubricate the ice, but the effect on global sea level is less than a quarter of an inch per decade. Joughin says this rate is likely to increase a bit as Greenland heats up."

And it continues below in the comments. What you will find is that passionate believers will recycle advantageous talking points until they are thoroughly rebutted, at which point they will take them to another forum and use them again. Pretty sad, actually.