Expert: Philip Stahl - 5/12/2008

Question
I am really really confused and hope you can help. In reading over past answers you've given on the subject of global warming you've consistently held it to be real and a valid theory while other experts have regarded it as fluff. Why this difference, and just who do I believe?

Answer
Hello,

Your confusion is quite understandable, and this happens whenever scientific issues are clouded over and hijacked by political and economic agendas. This is especially the case for global warming, because if it is anthropogenic - as we see (from the evidence available)-  it means humans will have to make some sacrifices. Most people don't relish the idea! Hence, any and all rationalizations are invoked to avoid the unsavory conclusions.

I can’t speak for any other experts, because each one will approach global warming based on different experiences, levels of education etc. Thus, thresholds for acceptance (or rejection) for one expert may be radically different from another’s.

I also have had the benefit of being based at a research institute (Geophysical Institute, Fairbanks, AK) where ground breaking climate research was being done by Prof. Gunther Weller. This was in 1985-86, and Weller showed using his ice core data that the Arctic was warming up to 4-5 F more than the rest of the planet. Even then, Weller could point to increased permafrost melting in and around Fairbanks and other areas. (Weller’s work was actually featured in a special Fairbanks News-Miner article entitled: ‘Seward’s Icebox is Melting!’)

When I last visited Alaska in March, 2005 this was even more dramatic, and one could see the signs everywhere. Also, one could behold the retreat of the glaciers such as the Portage Glacier (near Anchorage) and compare the degree to earlier eras. All a skeptic really has to do is get on a plane and fly to Alaska and she or he will see the signs of warming fast enough. It is certainly a lot more than can be explained by "natural cycles"!

Some skeptics cite the “Maunder Minimum”- a period of few or no sunspots, and coincident with what has been called the “little ice age”.  However, it is important to bear in mind that this period (1645-1715) occurred BEFORE the Industrial Revolution and the fossil fuel age, which spawned vastly higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. And it is CO2 that is the driving gas (highest forcing factor) responsible for the greenhouse effect.  Some recent papers I have seen, indeed, have noted that above a CO2 concentration of 400 ppm, there will be no further ice ages. Of any type.

Bear in mind also that wild swings in day to day or year to year weather also fit within the climate change paradigm- which asserts that EXTREME weather will be the norm, especially in terms of droughts and high precip events. It does not say, for example, that if we suddenly get six blizzards in Colorado (as we did last year) there is no longer any warming!  Climate change is factored to enormously long cycles.

It is also true that the planet was much warmer than it is now in the Triassic and Jurassic periods, with higher mean global air temperatures. However, please note the species of life forms adapted to those conditions are NOT the same as those which exist today. Those life forms (eg. various dinosaurs) would not survive in today’s climate, just as humans would not survive if those conditions returned.

Just look at the heat wave that struck France in 2003 where the temperatures stayed over 100F for seven or more days and 11,000 died. Now, picture near-Triassic conditions wherein winter vanishes as a recognizable season, and ambient conditions match that for an ONGOING heat wave, i.e. with no respite. It is easy to see human casualties would reach the millions, if not billions – when one factors in storms (such as the cyclone that struck Myanmar), more diseases spreading to temperate climates, and water pollution or scarcity. And we won’t even go into all the power grids going down- and let’s please bear in mind these are mostly powered by OIL.

Beyond that, one has to query where – what sources- people obtain their information and research from. In my case, it is from peer-reviewed  research journals (e.g. Eos Transactions of the AGU)  published by the largest organization of climate scientists in the world, the American Geophysical Union.

You can find their latest position statement on global warming at:

Human Impacts on Climate Change:

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positions/climate_change2008.shtml

Excerpt:

“The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006.

As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change”

In addition, when one beholds more than 1800+ papers over the past 15 years, all published in peer-reveiwed journals, then this indeed is a “consensus”. (Consensus, again, doesn’t mean that all agree, but that MOST do!)

Further perspective on the nature of the consensus is provided by Daniel Schrag, Harvard professor of geochemistry and director of the Laboratory for Geochemical Oceanography. Schrag has noted that the IPCC is by nature a conservative organization.

The breadth that gives its findings weight – 3,000 scientists, reviewers, and government officials were involved in drafting the IPCC reports – means that consensus had to be reached across broad points of view, including those from countries whose economies are based on oil production.

According to Schrag:

"This is inevitably a conservative view. This isn't something coming from Greenpeace."

Schrag notes that the IPCC's projections are just that – projections. Humankind is conducting a gigantic experiment to see what happens when you rapidly increase carbon dioxide to levels not seen for 40 million years. And no one knows the outcome.

At the same time, it is fair to ask the climate skeptics –wherever they are- where they are procuring their information. If it is from capitalist think tanks – like the George C. Marshall Institute or American Enterprise Inst. it doesn’t count.  The reason is that these are political-economic sources that publish their own tracts outside the scientifc, peer-reviewed domain.

The “International Climate Science Coalition”  also held a conference coming out against global warming over March 2-4. But who are they?  This Coalition does not represent the views or conclusions of mainstream climate science – but rather a tiny subset of contrarians- many of whom are supported by the oil, coal and gas lobbies. Indeed, the “Coalition” itself is a think tank proxy for the fossil fuel lobbies. Thus, it is nether mysterious or astounding that global warming deniers will continue to be heard – in whatever forum they can garner- even if their own!.

Lastly, it is  a mistake to assume there must inevitably be massive costs and sacrifice to rectify global warming. I suggest getting hold of 'The Wall Street Journal', April 8, the Op-Ed page for the article ‘Climate Change Opportunity’. The article  notes that: “Solving global warming will be an added cost – but a bargain compared to the economic costs of unchecked climate change. And fixing this problem will create an historic economic opportunity”

The author even goes so far as to say that whoever solves the problem to find suitable sources of clean energy will make a “megafortune”. Indeed, Europe has already shown the way to green profits in many respects. The trick is to get on board sooner than later, because the longer the delay the greater the inevitable costs for transfer in the end.

AN excellent source to learn more about global warming from basic physics is an article by the late Carl Sagan ( 'Ambush - the Warming of the World', p. 98), in his book,  Billions and Billions, Random House, 1997) . Sagan notes that the threshold for unstoppable warming change is 6 Celsius. Beyond that the “runaway greenhouse will kick in.

A very good book at a higher level of treatment is Gale Christianson’s “Greenhouse” (1999), Penguin books.

A more detailed and technical article, if you are up for it, is: 'The Discovery of the Risk of Global Warming’, by Spencer Weart, in Physics Today, Jan. 1997, p. 34

An excellent site where the material of REAL climate scientists (not hacks or economic pretenders) appears is:

http://www.realclimate.org/

Be sure to check out the article ‘Global Cooling – Wanna Bet?’ which dispatches the latest nonsense in a few fell swoops, as the “latest flavor of the month” in the warming deniers kit bag.