I'm specifically interested in what people thought of "An Inconvenient Truth" (the al gore flick). From the admittedly little research I did, it is apparently truthful, but I figured Valg (since he said so) would know more (and cite sources). So I thought I'd ask.

I guess I would place my self somewhere in the Lindzen camp. There are some climate changes going on, some are our doing, some are not. I guess I'm skeptical of some of the claims being made. The first being a group of 'scientist' that claimed that because we had done such a good job cleaning up the air that it was actually causing more global warming. I couldn't find the article that I had read, but to me they just seemed like a bunch of quack alarmists. Another topic that I've heard associated with climate change is the reversing of the poles. I would be curious what Valg has to say about the science surrounding this topic. Most of this is stuff that makes my head hurt. Control System Dynamics is enough head hurting for me. Also some of the climate models have been noticing a hole in the Central United States where the annual temperatures have actually fallen in the past one hundred years. This is actually due partially to the deforestation and the change to farm land. Farm crops are more reflective than trees so they absorb less heat. I'm pretty sure most enviromentalist would have a cow if somebody suggested that we deforest large areas so we could plant more reflective plants. Speaking of cows, I remember reports a few years ago that the increase in methane was actually due to an increase in cattle herds and there waste. The report stated that the amount of methane they generated was much larger than any current man-made source. The article at www.uswaternews.com/archives/arcsupply/6retiscie7.html talks of a retired scientist here at Iowa State that has been has been touting the effects of the moon on a drought pattern here in the midwest. I could find the articles for the hole and the cows by walking over to the Meterology department, but I'm too lazy. The quacks, well my brief search couldn't find the article, so I'm just chalk that up to internet lore.

That all be said, I have done a few things in my own life to 'do my part'. I've gradually changed all the lightbulbs in my house over to Compact Flor. I did this mostly because it will end up saving me money in the long run. I also try to do most of errands on my bike. I do this for two reasons, I'm cheap and gas is expensive, and I need the exercise. I plan to plant some more trees in my yard to increase the amount of shade that my house gets, but again, I don't want to have to run the air conditioner as much during the summer. Also I would like to have some shade so I can sit out on the porch and drink a beer and not get roasted.

I'm pretty sure Valg would agree with me here, before we take too many 'extreme' measures, find out where the money the people proposing the measures is coming from. I'm a bit skeptical of the things Lindzen says because he does get his money from Exxon. I would be curious how he would be accepted in the scientific community if he didn't get any money from Exxon. What do you think Valg?

Dave

The first being a group of 'scientist' that claimed that because we had done such a good job cleaning up the air that it was actually causing more global warming. I couldn't find the article that I had read, but to me they just seemed like a bunch of quack alarmists.

It wasn't done by "quacks", and it's not nearly one group. An international study published in 2005 in Science is probably what got it on the news, but the general idea has been followed for decades. Link to abstract

There's no question that increased particulate matter in the upper atmosphere reflects more sunlight, reducing the amount that would otherwise be converted to warmth. The amount of sunlight hitting the ground has ticked up in recent years thanks to worldwide improvements in reducing this kind of air pollution, in part due to acid rain concerns. That's a very easy measurement to make, and its a reversal of what was measured in previous decades.

Particulates are a separate phenomenon from carbon dioxide, but when you consider them together the implication is that the warming we've measured over the last several decades may have been mitigated by the particulates, and we may be in somewhat worse shape that you'd otherwise think from the temperature records.

On the positive side, both the drop in particulate counts and the progress made with respect to ozone are good examples that if we set sensible policies and do a little work, these are all fixable problems. You occasionally hear people moan that there's nothing we can do about global warming anyway, but it's simply not the truth.

Farm crops are more reflective than trees so they absorb less heat. I'm pretty sure most enviromentalist would have a cow if somebody suggested that we deforest large areas so we could plant more reflective plants.

There's probably smarter ways to address this than mass deforestation. Converting waste space (especially in urban areas) back to green space has a lot of benefits, however, and it's often not very expensive.

I'm a bit skeptical of the things Lindzen says because he does get his money from Exxon. I would be curious how he would be accepted in the scientific community if he didn't get any money from Exxon. What do you think Valg?

I think more people would listen if he was publishing his "proof" in peer-reviewed primary literature. But he's not-- his recent publications are all on other topics, and he very conspicuously keeps his "global warming isn't harmful" stuff to things like book chapters and seminars, which don't undergo review.

I can find you a Nobel Prize winner (Kary Mullis) who believes in alien abductions. (He also believes HIV doesn't cause AIDS, CFCs don't harm the ozone layer, and that global warming isn't real, fwiw. His book is bizarre, and I once saw him give a talk where he switched over to nude photos "to make sure we were still paying attention".) Doesn't mean he can get it published in a journal.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

It is said that the coming year 2007 will be the warmest of all recorded time. There is no snow here in Southern Finland. Some came in November, but it all melted away. Odd winter that.

Lucky or unlucky you, my division here at work just got reorganized (in a way that's good for me) and we're all sort of paralyzed temporarily while the money and org charts get rerouted. Lots of free time in Valgyland.

I think I'm a half-expert on this. I know enough to be able to pick up a climate article in a primary source journal and read it, but I don't have the depth to assess individual articles with respect to one another. So I do what I wish more people would do: Try to find the experts and see what their consensus is.

If something was going on with my car's transmission, I'd see a mechanic. It is useful for me to look into what the parts are, how it basically works, etc. It is useful for me to look into what mechanics have good reputations, rarely get sued, etc. It is useful for me to talk to a couple mechanics, but if I visited five different places and they all told me the same thing, and gave me estimates that were in the same ballpark, I'd probably figure they knew what they're talking about, and pony up the cash.

If you're charged with a crime, get a good lawyer. If you're sick, see a good doctor. If you're concerned about global warming, ask a good climatologist. Or read one, I guess.

The climate change debate is a political one. It gets conflated with dozens of other issues for good reasons (it will have far-reaching consequences) and bad reasons (fear and uncertainty can make certain people a lot of money).

If I only make one point, it's that the scientific debate is dead and buried. Done. Over. Every major organization of climatologists agrees that:

1) Human activity is changing the atmosphere.
2) These changes are impacting climate in a significant manner right now.
3) These changes will escalate if we don't make changes.
4) These changes will be unpredictable at best, and catastrophic at worst.

The best short article on this consensus IMO is here.

(Let me know if that link isn't open to the public.)

Brief summary: People looked at the 928 papers discussing climate change in peer-reviewed scientific journals from 1993-2003. Roughly 25% take no position on the causes, or are discussing ancient climate changes or whatever. 75% of the articles accept the consensus opinion, cited in that article and above. Precisely zero claim the opposite.

That's devastating. It's hard for me to emphasize how weird it is that counterexamples aren't out there. Remember that with 928 articles on climate change... it's not very sexy to publish the 929th article that expounds upon the consensus. You'd get international attention overnight if you backed the opposite with real data. The incentive is to be the maverick.

Yet zero show up. (I don't think that's changed since 2003.) A lot of quacks publish stuff on their web sites, blogs, etc., but that material doesn't undergo review. Anyone can write anything. (And will, especially if they happen to be funded by coal or oil companies.) But if no one can get anything published in the tens or hundreds of journals that would take a big-time climate paper... that speaks volumes.

The only real questions are what we should do. Fortunately, most of the suggestions (energy efficiency, mass transit infrastructure, lowered dependence on oil, pollution controls, etc.) are all things we should be doing anyway. Even if you think global warming is complete hooey, it's hard to oppose a movement that's asking for things like that. It would improve our geopolitical independence, public health, traffic situations, and so much more.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

He makes a similar claim about the scientific articles. I thought that was a particularly relevant bit, along with the part showing the graph of C02 levels for the past 10,000 or whatever years.

I bought it and watched it and gave it to family to watch, but I don't know if it is being watch or listened to... sadly.

My impression is that Gore's message is essentially in line with everything I know from the primary sources. He employs some theatrics, and he's definitely an advocate vs. an arbiter, but I think he's responsible in terms of the information presented.

Some people have nitpicked individual points, but most of it's from crackpot amateurs (Michael Crichton) or paid amateur shills (Steven Milloy). The editorials in Nature and such were basically "Good film. A little later that it should have been, though." I've seen no opposition from the professionals-- actually, Gore's gotten a lot of help from climate scientists who see him as a good source of PR for their work.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

Is "Think of the children!" overplayed? Seriously, I want people to watch it, but nearly everyone I've tried to get to watch it is uninterested. Short of electro-shock therapy or clockwork orange style chair + eyeball tape, I just don't know what I can do other than ask them to view it and hope they do.

Would something like, "Please watch this in the next week, or if you do not want to watch it, pass it on to someone who might." work?

Anyone with suggestions would be most appreciated.

I remember reading about the survey of journal publications on Slashdot. There still seem to be a few "highly regarded" scientist types (members of the National Academy of Sciences) that remain skeptical. Lindzen and Seitz are the two NAS members (according to the wiki page on warming skeptics). I also read recently that a U.N. committe assigned to study climate change revised downward their estimaet of how much man's activity was responsible for the measured changes.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/10/nclimate10.xml

My personal opinion is that it *is* happening, but that it's also being exagerrated. Like you said, the things we would do to prevent greenhouse gas production are pretty reasonable, so we should probably be doing them anyway.

1) Being a National Academy member means you're accomplished at something, but not necessarily climate studies. Seitz, for example, was an accomplished solid-state physicist who made his name applying quantum concepts to the study of bulk metals, and he's often cited as helping give Bardeen the ideas needed to invent the transistor. He's presently 95 years old, owns (or owned) a company which operates coal-fired power plants, used to work for the tobacco industry telling people cigarette smoke was harmless, followed that up with a paid position arguing that CFCs don't harm the ozone layer, etc. He hasn't published anything on climate in a peer-reviewed journal, and the NAS has distanced themselves from him sharply of late. Basically, I think he's a combination of senile, bought off, or talking out of his ass.

2) Lindzen actually is a climatologist, though also one on the payroll of ExxonMobil. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say he came to his conclusion first, then accepted research money from Exxon to fund research on that point. Going over his recent publications, however, the only ones that refute global warming theory are book chapters and other unreviewed media, which explains why he didn't show up in the IPCC study. Nonetheless, even if you assume that there's a consortium of journal reviewers blocking his publications or whatever, it's just one guy. And even he basically says that global warming is real, just not especially dangerous.

That said, it's worth noting the recent UCS report on what ExxonMobil does with its money. (link)

3) The IPCC adjusts their models and estimates frequently, which is a healthy sign that they're trying to be fair. There's always been a range of opinions when you get down to exact numbers-- climate is complicated. Nonetheless, if someone told you "Cigarette smoke is still dangerous, but it might cause cancer 25% slower than originally thought", it's not exactly a ringing endorsement to smoke. The previous refinements to their models raised the rates, so they've moved both directionms recently. The new IPCC stance is basically that the global warming hypothesis is the same as it was, but the rates of change are likely a bit slower. That's good news (more time to make adjustments), but it's not exactly comforting.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com