Global Warming as A Puzzle
Posted by
Kevin
I would love to see this paper:
Verdes, now at Novartis Pharma, examined data on temperature anomalies, the strength of the radiation emitted from the Sun, and volcanic activity. The relatively recent increases in solar radiation, combined with reduced volcanic activity, contribute to the increase in world temperatures. However, Verdes’ analysis demonstrates that these natural causes do not completely explain the observed warming.
Verdes calculated the amount of non-natural influence required to match the increases in temperature observed in the last 150 years. He plotted the influence over time. Then, he compared it to the evolution of greenhouse gasses, taking into account the cooling due to aerosols. With allowances for error, he found that influences attributable to greenhouse gasses mirror the graph of non-natural influence needed to explain the observed temperature increase of recent decades.
His research shows that, if you look at global warming as a puzzle, and you put together the natural factors such as increased solar radiation and reduced volcanic activity, a hole remains. The human factors of greenhouse gas and aerosol emission complete the picture.
This makes intuitive sense — add up all the known effects and then see if they can account for the known change in temperatures. If they cannot, then either there is some natural factor or combination of natural factors that we are unaware of or human beings are causing the difference. When you take note of the other evidence in support of human contributions to global warming, this approach could act as strong corroboration of the existing scientific consensus. But I would liek to see the math, and I would really like to see how they deal with the issue of potential “unknown” natural effects.
May I suggest Firefox’s automatic spell-check utility?
It’s a nice idea, but it won’t really solve things. Firstly, although argument to ignorance is often a logical fallacy, it is not necessarily in this case — climate is just so remarkably complex that trying to name and number every possible intake is just not possible to prove. Secondly, it still won’t deal with the accusations of data selection bias.
Interesting data, though; I’ll have to take some hard looks at it later.
Comment 8/2/2007
Your thoughts on this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6926597.stm
Could it be that CO2 is not the reason, that good old particulate air pollution is the real reason for Global Warming? I wonder where that cloud came from?
Comment 8/2/2007
Number9:
You should consider changing your screen name to “yabut.”
gattsuru:
The fact that there are things we don’t know/understand is not a good reason to ignore or write off those things that we do know/understand.
Comment 8/2/2007
You should consider changing your screen name to “yabut.”
CO2 chicken-little theories come from computer simulations. The particulate pollution theory came from experiments.
How is that a “yabut”? You may recall I wrote many times that experiments were needed to prove or disprove the computer simulations.
Looks like you got some splaning to do…
Comment 8/2/2007
My point is that there will NEVER be enough evidence to satisfy you that man-made CO2 is one of the largest contributors to current warming trends. No matter how much evidence is gathered to support this, you will drudge up some obscure this-or-that which superficially seems to contradict the conventional wisdom (but which 9 times out of 10 actually doesn’t) and say “but what about this?”
As long as there exists any tiny shred of a doubt, that will be enough doubt for you.
THAT’s what I’m saying.
Comment 8/2/2007
If it won’t really solve things, then why are you sugge…?
Oh. Sorry. Nevermind.
Comment 8/2/2007
This is pretty much a textbook example of an argument from ignorance fallacy.
Comment 8/2/2007
Stormy:
How so? If A + B + C does indeed equal D, then how is it an argument from ignorance. Nobody is arguing that man-made global warming must be true because it hasn’t been proven false. To the contrary, they’re arguing that man-made global warming must be true because there’s a ton of evidence to support the idea, and that the evidence for it outweighs the evidence against it by several orders of magnitude.
The argument from ignorance, if there is one, is the position taken by those who deny AGW: That there’s some magical-but-never-named force that really is causing everything, instead of the stuff we can actually point to. They’re the ones who have nothing to go on other than “since you can’t prove me wrong beyond all doubt [not reasonable doubt, mind you — that standard has long since been hit], we must be right.”
Comment 8/2/2007
There is a discrepency between the things we know contribute to planetary temperature and the measured temperature. The argument from ignorance is the assertion that this discrpenancy must be man made golbal warming because we don’t know that it’s something else.
Comment 8/2/2007
TG,
It seems like the contingent unconvinced of man-made global warming sees the “real evidence versus magical power,” as you put it, as something of a false distinction.
There has to be “something.” Your naming of that something does not, in their mind, make your named something any more real or convincing than their anonymous something.
If they reserve doubts about the science, they are going to view your position as arbitrary guesswork. From such as perspective, their position seems perfectly logical.
If their non-acceptance of the science is just a manifestation of cognitive dissonance, that renders such a perspective moot. But, there’s no way for us to know that…
Comment 8/3/2007
Stormy:
There is a discrepency between the things we know contribute to planetary temperature and the measured temperature.
And that’s an excuse to ignore the solidly-established physics of the greenhouse effect exactly… why, again?
At the end of the day, it’s a math problem, and the CO2 effect, while not exactly, precisely perfect, fits the bill far better than anything anyone else is suggesting. But what AGW deniers argue is essentially that:
1. Even though the greenhouse effect is exceptionally well-established and universally accepted; and …
2. Even though current CO2 levels in the atmosphere are the highest they’ve been in centuries; and …
3. Even though CO2 is a known greenhouse gas, a fact which no one disputes; and …
4. Even though human consumption of fossil fuels can readily account for the overwhelming majority of the increase in CO2 levels …
5. Despite all this, we should ignore it (or at least pretend it’s insignificant), and look somewhere else for answers.
That’s utterly and completely irrational. Not to mention completely intellectually dishonest.
I’ve stated numerous times why I think this is: If human consumption really is the primary culprit, then there exists no solution that doesn’t involve *gasp* government regulation; and since conservative/libertarian types are allergic to regulation (except, in the case of conservatives, regulation of personal sexual behavior), and since their personal political preferences are more important than the environment, they must oppose the mere idea of AGW any way possible. (Don’t believe me? Just ask Luntz or Gingrich…)*
digglahhh:
I think you give the skeptics entirely too much credit. I suggest you go back and re-read some of the climate change threads from our archives. You’ll see that they consistently refuse to engage in substantive debate, instead throwing out random objections, and when those objections are rebutted, ignoring the rebuttals and just moving on to another objection — only to eventually circle back around to repeating objections that had already been rebutted.
I used to feel like you do, but debating this subject with too many doubters has changed my mind on that. You’re right, we can never know for sure about their intentions, but there’s a lot we can discern from the nature of their arguments. I think the case is pretty clear.
* - And let me go ahead and issue a pre-emptive “Fuck you” to anyone who might consider accusing me of supporting the AGW science because of my personal political preferences. Bullshit. Believe me, I’d much rather live in a world where I could drive a Corvette and lock the A/C at 72 and keep five computers running 24/7 consequence-free. In fact, I’d be elated to be wrong about this. But I’m at least grown up enough to recognize that this almost certainly isn’t the case, that wanting something to be true (or, in this case, false) doesn’t make it so.
Comment 8/3/2007
This reminds me of the cigarette/cancer debate. In the face of mounting and eventually overwhelming evidence, deniers (manufacturers motivated by less than altruistic objectives and users motivated by the fear of confronting an addiction) refused - and in some cases continue to refuse - to accept linkage. Denial is more profitable in one case and easier in the other. The similarity is increased by shared incremental reasoning - heck, one more cigarette won’t make a difference so I might as well light it up.
Of course the big difference is when it come to AGW, we are the smokers and future generations are the ones who will be getting the cancer.
Comment 8/3/2007
Ted:
There’s a reason it reminds you of that. Because it’s precisely the same strategy. That was Frank Luntz’s brainchild (which he’ll freely admit if you ask him) way back in 1997-2000. They just borrowed the strategy wholesale from the tobacco industry. Even though he no longer believes what he wrote back then, he remains perversely proud of that memo. More detail on this — it’s quite insightful. In fact, the whole program is worth watching.
Comment 8/3/2007
My point is that there will NEVER be enough evidence to satisfy you that man-made CO2 is one of the largest contributors to current warming trends.
TG, nice yabut answer. Isn’t that what you accused me of?
Let’s try again, could it be that CO2 is not the reason, that good old particulate air pollution is the real reason for Global Warming?
Comment 8/4/2007
could it be that CO2 is not the reason, that good old particulate air pollution is the real reason for Global Warming
No.
And if you want to argue the point, you first have to explain how particulate pollution, which is universally held responsible for the general cooling trend seen from 1945-1970 by causing “global dimming” (reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth) and for masking the true extent of global warming up through about 1990 now becomes a source of warming.
Comment 8/5/2007
Let me expand on that a little.
You really should re-read the BBC report you cited.
First, you ask “I wonder where that cloud came from?” The article says, just down from what you quoted,
The main sources of the pollutants came from wood burning and fossil fuels, the team added.
What’s more, just a few paragraphs further down, it says
“We found that atmospheric brown clouds enhanced lower atmospheric solar heating by about 50%.
“[The pollution] contributes as much as the recent increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gases to regional lower atmospheric warming trends,” they suggested.
“We propose that the combined warming trend of 0.25 Kelvin per decade may be sufficient to account for the observed retreat of the Himalayan glaciers.” [Emphasis added.]
That is, they specifically state that this is in addition to, not instead of, greenhouse gas-driven warming. In fact, it would have to be: They say the pollution causes atmospheric warming but surface cooling. But overall surface temperatures have risen. What’s more, the effect, even if confirmed, cannot explain warming in areas where particulate pollution has declined, such as the US and Europe.
So even if they’re entirely right - and as I just indicated, I will withhold judgment on that until someone can describe a mechanism producing the asserted effect - particulate pollution could not be a replacement source of warming, only an additional source for one aspect of it.
Comment 8/5/2007
LarryE:
Thanks for taking care of that for me. And I notice that Number9 has, yet again, cut and run, underscoring my point made in the second half of comment #11. If he does return, he’s almost certainly going to ignore your resounding rebuttal to his “point” and instead move on to yet another AGW objection. And you can rest assure that he will avoid at all costs any discussion of the well-known physics of CO2 as it relates the greenhouse effect. He’ll continue playing his version of “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.”
Comment 8/6/2007
Also note the use of the word “regional” in the quote:
“[The pollution] contributes as much as the recent increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gases to regional lower atmospheric warming trends,” they suggested.
I read that to mean pollution causes a localized impact, not a global one.
Comment 8/6/2007