Why Would Saylor Vote Against the County Climate Action Plan?
Written by David Greenwald Saturday, 19 March 2011 06:31
It was a strange vote and discussion on the County's Climate Action Plan. It is important to understand that the County's Climate Action Plan only addresses "greenhouse gas emissions within the unincorporated area, which has seen very little population growth since 1990 as a result of the County’s historic land use policies."Moreover, "Although the inventories of the unincorporated area identify agriculture as a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions, when placed in a broader perspective, farming accounted for only 14% of the countywide emissions in 1990."
The vote ended up being 3-1 in favor of passage, with Supervisor Don Saylor the dissenting vote and Supervisor Mike McGowan absent.
But to look at the vote does not do justice to the dynamics of the arguments.
Supervisor Matt Rexroad's view was that the larger global view of climate change theory is irrelevant to the Yolo County Board of Supervisors. He viewed this as merely a vote by which to put Yolo County in compliance with state law to cut emissions by 2020.
That is a typical Matt Rexroad view of the world, looking only at the situation as required by the law.
Supervisor Duane Chamberlain would vote for the plan, but argued against climate change.
As written by Davis Enterprise reporter Jonathan Edwards, "He voted to approve the Climate Action Plan, but was the most vocal about his concerns over the underlying science."
"Chamberlain not only took issue with climate change theory on a global scale, he also questioned the specific data underpinning the plan’s strategy," the Enterprise reported.
“We don’t have any real science that’s on the ground,” Supervisor Chamberlain said at the meeting. ”We’re still missing the true science. I’m not sure it’s even there. The guys that are doing the on-the-ground science say, ‘We’re not sure. We can’t answer this.’ I don’t want to make decisions based on erroneous assumptions."
“I’d like to see some science in here,” Supervisor Chamberlain continued. “The science is terrible. We don’t have any science. We have modeling. This is people who’ve drawn pictures."
“We don’t know this stuff,” Supervisor Chamberlain said of data underlying the plan. “Someone’s made up all these numbers.”
Remember, this is the guy who voted for the plan. His view is that someone has made up these numbers.
Supervisor Saylor, on the other hand, agrees with climate science but voted against the proposal.
According to the Enterprise, he said the science behind climate change is solid.
“It’s unambiguous that change is happening to our planet, and that human actions have led to many of these changes,” he said. “It’s important we begin to correct that.”
That was not enough for him, he had to write a full letter to the editor to explain his vote.
He wrote, "Unincorporated areas should be active participants in greenhouse gas reduction efforts being addressed statewide under the provisions of AB 32."
He continued, "In January, I stated my concern that the goals for 2020 and 2030 were not ambitious enough. Specifically, the plan calls for greenhouse gas emissions to reach 1990 emission levels by 2020. The 2030 goal calls for GHG levels 27 percent below 1990 levels."
Here is the crux of his argument, "The 2020 goal is disappointingly unambitious; in 2008, the GHG emissions in the areas covered by the Yolo County plan were estimated as 651,740 metric tons, only 6 percent above the 1990 level of 613,651 tons."
He then contrasted that the Davis Climate Action plan, which he says would result in reaching GHG emission targets by 2010 (how is that possible given it was passed in June of 2010?), and further reductions of 28 percent by 2020.
Is it clear what is going on now? Matt Rexroad and Duane Chamberlain supported the measure because it complies with state law and it only reduces GHGs by six percent by 2020. It is a modest measure.
Don Saylor, however, gets a freebie. He can oppose something that is largely pro forma, he can then show how environmental he is to Davis with a letter to the editor, but at the same time, it is an issue that really does not matter because the bulk of climate reduction that is going to occur in this county is coming from the cities, not the rural areas.
AB 32 is one of the most sweeping pieces of climate legislation we have seen, and once the voters voted not to water it down, it will make for sweeping changes in California.
That is a good first start, and unfortunately, I would argue that it does not nearly go far enough for the magnitude of the threat of climate change.
We need the US Congress to adopt similar changes, but unfortunately that will not happen and I suspect it will take calamity for the US to act with any kind of real purpose, and by then it will truly be too late.
---David M. Greenwald reporting
"Beyond hermits and some monks, can you think of any one who is not a "social individual"?
What I meant and did not say very well, is that there are people that do not really care about social issues as long as they do not materially affect them today. That is a large part of the global population.
Economic scientists could not predict the global financial meltdown, yet somehow, even with several orders of magnitude greater number of variables; we are to believe that climate scientists can predict the destruction of the natural world from human activity.
As we can see from the crisis in Japan, the natural world will always win the test of destruction. Personally, I am more worried about that rouge asteroid slamming into earth (“we scientists just missed tracking that one”), or a mega volcanic eruption in the Mid-West (“we scientists missed that one too”), than I am global damage from human-caused carbon emissions.
"Heartland Institute is not a reliable source on climate change issues."
I had never heard of the Heartland Institute until last week, when a Fox News show had on someone labled under his name as a "nuclear power expert." I was (figuratively speaking) heartened to hear his expertise, which was so positive and so different from what I had been hearing about the horrifying problems in Japan from other experts. I wanted to hear some good news.
Then I looked up the Heartland guy's credentials. And alas I was disheartened. He was a complete fraud.
P.S. As readers of mine know, I am not a lefty. So my disgust with that Heartland guy is not out of any ideological convictions.
P.P.S. There are thousands of highly trained, brilliant climate scientists. A few of them are here at UC Davis. Almost all of them (I don't know the exact percentage but it is very near 100%) agree on all of the basics of Global Warming theory:
1. that a higher and higher concentration of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, will lead in a general way to higher and higher surface temperatures;
2. that we have been experiencing a higher and higher concentration of those gases;
3. that greater levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can be attributed to human activity, most notably the release of CO2 which, but for our burning coal and petroleum, would be sequestered underground or under the seas; and
4. that there are already some serious consequences from global warming (including effects on crops and forests and various ecosystems and melting in Greenland and so on) and more and worse consequences are coming.
Those who deny what is a nearly unanimous consensus strike me as either: 1) blinded by their own ideology; 2) corrupted (as in scientists who are being paid by fossil fuel interests; or 3) daft.
I don't doubt there are some profound criticisms against global warming predictions at the margin. But to deny the basic theory is pretty much like denying evolution or plate tectonic theory.
PPPS I don't think the currently proposed cap and trade system is the right way to attack global warming. Nor do I think those of us in Davis collectively or in Yolo County collectively ought to impose costs on ourselves to "do our part" to stop global warming. If an individual or a freely formed group wants to act, by all means do what pleases you. The only right answer is what Al Gore suggested maybe 20-25 years ago: a carbon tax, preferably a global carbon tax enforced by the GATT.
JR: Unfortunately the global warming advocates have undermined their case by using bogus arguments in many cases. See for example a study by physicist Richard Muller at UC Berkeley.
Dr. Richard Muller: "There is a consensus that global warming is real. There has not been much so far, but it’s going to get much, much worse."
Dr. Muller has indeed had his disputes with the hockey stick team as well, as noted in your seven-year-old link. But he agrees fully with the consensus that I have described above.
Musser: ""the world's temperature is increasing" means what exactly? by how many degrees? over what period? assuming humans do contribute to that unknown amount of warming, how much of that unknown amount is caused by people? and what is the proof?"
There are excellent resources on line where you can find the answers to those questions. Do I understand you and others to believe that the earth's temperature is not increasing?
Musser: furthermore,"the world's temperature is increasing" means what exactly? by how many degrees? over what period?
If you are doubtful of global warming and suspect it is some sort of left wing conspiracy of environmental wackos, you might look to the most conservative business there is: the insurance market. You will find that Insurance companies have no doubts about global warming.
Musser: "... assuming humans do contribute to that unknown amount of warming, how much of that unknown amount is caused by people? and what is the proof?
The IPCC peer-reviewed science is your best source of information on this. Here is a link to that:
A comprehensive assessment by the IPCC of the scientific evidence suggests that human activities are contributing to climate change, and that there has been a discernible human influence on global climate.
First, when you locate any scientific consensus of conclusion of theory over anything as complex and as incomplete as is the subject and data on climate change, you have copious evidence that the practice of science has been corrupted and supplanted by something else. Frankly, I see much more politics at work here than I do science.
Then what do you suspect is the motivation for so many scientists to agree with the anthropogenic warming concept?
They're all socialists and communists who meet in secret after giving the secret handshake and password and plot which peer-reviewed papers they will accept and reject for this month's issue?
"Do I understand you and others to believe that the earth's temperature is not increasing?"
There is some dispute about whether heat island effects are distorting the data.
And the data manipulation by some activists is not helping.
But probably there is an upward temperature trend.
Scientists know that statements like this have probabilities associated to them.
Only religious fanatics believe them absolutely.
To some, global warming is a type of religious belief.
Is it caused by humans? Probably yes.
There are some plausible alternate theories based on solar activity.
But human influence is not an unreasonable hypothesis.
But the real questions that global warming activists never address is
1. Can we do anything to significantly slow or stop it?
2. Will our attempts to avert it cause more harm then good?
3. Is global warming a bad thing overall?
My belief is that the answer to these is
1. No.
2. Yes.
3. Maybe. It has pluses as well as minuses and at least some analysis show that which is larger is unclear.
Actions that lower carbon emissions in Yolo county might make you feel good, but they are based more on moral religious principles than on science. And trying to impose a moral religious principle on your neighbors has never been a policy for good government.
Rich,
I read your IPCC source, and the IPCC does not appear to answer my questions at all, if anything it rebuts the theory of climate change:
"There are still uncertainties in these detection and attribution studies. These are due primarily to our imperfect knowledge of the true climate-change signal due to human activities, to our incomplete understanding of the background noise of natural climatic variability against which this signal must be detected, and to inadequacies in the observational record. Such uncertainties make it difficult to determine the exact size of the human contribution to climate change. Nevertheless, the most recent assessment of the science suggests that human activities have led to a discernible influence on global climate and that these activities will have an increasing influence on future climate."
forgive me, but this does not appear to support the theory of global warming, climate change or whatever the latest label is. not by a longshot. if anything, the IPCC, when it is critically evaluated, says very little about what we actually know about climate and the human contribuion at all.
your other article on the insurance industry does not either. Perhaps rich, you need to re-read it, because I did not find much information in that at all.
"There are excellent resources on line where you can find the answers to those questions. Do I understand you and others to believe that the earth's temperature is not increasing?"
actually, don, I don't really know what the temperature does. and I've looked at Data. for example, Michael Mann's "hockey stick graph" if you look at it, only goes back about 1000 years. that is 1000 years out of 4.5 billion years or so the earth has been around. that is an insignificant period of time. and even that graph had problems because Mann had to throw out tree ring data he claimed was innacurate.
in short, the IPCC shows just how weak the climate change theory is. I'm repeatedly asked to take the IPCC as the gold standard, but if half the republicans in this country grew a brain and actually read the IPCC, they would discover just how much the IPCC REBUTS CLIMATE CHANGE. What you people think I don't read? I don't try to analyze? You thought you could bluff your way through, claiming the IPCC claims what it clearly does not?
logical flaw my butt David. All of these environmental regulations sound good to the public until you have to finally give in and pay the piper. Just as long as someone else pays for it, not me. along the same lines as tax increases, and why many left wingers support those. Because hopefully it will only truly hit "the rich" in the pocketbook, and not oneself, because "they" and not "me" are not paying their so-called "fairshare". That attitude is acting like a prince or a king. one set of rules for ones-self, and another set of rules for everyone else. If the costs of the 1972 clean water act are good for sacramento and woodland, they are good for Davis. Otherwise, we have a bad law that has to go. Forgive me but you Davis ecopeople are real hypocrites when it comes down to it.
To Musser
It is usually far easier to identify others hypocrisy than one's own. What is it that leads you to believe that "left wingers" believe in taxes only for others? It seems that perhaps you do not know many of us who would be affected by the increased tax rates on "the rich", and believe that it is incumbent upon those of us who have benefited greatly from our system to support it for those who follow.
As for your interpretation of the IPCC statement, you seem to have ignored the last sentence of your own quote "nevertheless the most recent assessment of the science that human activities have led to a discernible influence on global climate and that these activities will have an increasing influence on future climate.". While it is true that there are always uncertainties in the constantly changing body of knowledge that we call "science" that does not mean that there are no times when action should be taken based on uncertain knowledge. A well known example from medicine is that of Edward Jenner who is best known for advocating the practice of what is now known as vaccination based on the best evidence he had at the time which amounted to nothing more than astute observation and a theory which has ultimately led to the virtual elimination of smallpox and the science of immunology. As a side note, he was widely vilified by large segments of the press, medical establishment and society of his day.
Medwoman
You cite one example where action based on uncertain knowledge worked, and I'm sure there are a few others. But I'll bet the numbers are much more in favor of action that has been taken on uncertain knowledge where it didn't work out? I'll give you an example that you leftists will love, Bush invading Iraq because of WMD. Acting on the uncertain knowledge of climate change will be very costly and harmful to our economy. Sorry, but I want more proof.
"While it is true that there are always uncertainties in the constantly changing body of knowledge that we call "science" that does not mean that there are no times when action should be taken based on uncertain knowledge."
I think I should have taken more science classes in college so I could better understand how the full community of them would arrive at concensus on so much 'uncertainty'.
As I understand, water vapor, the most significant greenhouse gas, comes from natural sources and is responsible for roughly 95% of the greenhouse effect, and total combined anthropogenic greenhouse gases account for about 5.5% of the remaining 5% - or .28% of the total greenhouse effect.
The Kyoto Protocol calls for mandatory carbon dioxide reductions of 30% from developed countries like the U.S. Reducing man-made CO2 emissions this much would have an undetectable effect on climate while having a devastating effect on the U.S. economy. Can you drive your car 30% less, reduce your winter heating 30%? Pay 20-50% more for everything from automobiles to zippers? And that is just a down payment, with more sacrifices to come later.
Such drastic measures, even if imposed equally on all countries around the world, would reduce total human greenhouse contributions from CO2 by about 0.035%.
This is much less than the natural variability of Earth's climate system!
While the greenhouse reductions would exact a high human price, in terms of sacrifices to our standard of living, they would yield statistically negligible results in terms of measurable impacts to climate change. There is no expectation that any statistically significant global warming reductions would come from the Kyoto Protocol.
Greenland was once green
wdf1: "It was? Where did you read/hear about that?"
the Medieval Warm Period
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
Note too the Little Ice Age about 400 years ago. To what man-made cause do scientists attribute this devistating change in climate?
Rich: "P.P.S. There are thousands of highly trained, brilliant climate scientists."
I admit that I am, and have been, fully perplexed at the lack of admission from this body that climate and atmospheric modeling is inexact science. The lack of this admission is evidence that there are other drivers.
The scientific community is a combative one… filled full of capable thinkers striving for recognition of some breakthrough or original thesis… and only too happy to debate the merits of other theories… especially those based on complex and variable data. Even the Holy Grail theory of relativity is routinely tweaked and trashed.
Once Algore got involved, the science became suspect of being more about politics.
http://icecap.us/images/upload...backs2.pdf
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...124956.htm
"In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record," said oceanographer Gerald Dickens, a co-author of the study and professor of Earth science at Rice University. "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models."
To Rusty
I agree with you that much more proof would have been appropriate prior to invading Iraq. However, your example falls short on two points.
First there is a huge difference between inoculating yourself, your family, and members of your staff to prove your theory and launching an invasion costing the lives of thousands of innocents as well as those of willing combatants.
As for the Iraq comparison, I find it spurious to compare political/military decision making to the process involved in scientific decision making.
This is not to suggest that one is better than the other, or that either is infallible, just that they are so different in their decision making and review processes, and time frames as to make a direct head to head comparison meaningless. Except perhaps to tweak any "lefties"who may be following along !
To JB
Although my area of expertise is far removed from climate science, I do believe that unwillingness to "sacrifice our standard of living" is a large part of the declining state or our health if not the health of the planet. I believe that our dependence on the automobile as opposed to walking or bike riding not only has visible, not theoretical effects on air quality. ( I lived in LA and Orange County when the air quality was at its worst) .
Our lifestyle is largely responsible for the current epidemic ( by the numbers, not hyperbole) of obesity both in our adult and pediatric population which is a time bomb waiting to go off in terms of totally preventable future medical costs for diabetes, cardiovascular disease, joint replacements, cancer treatment,
As a nation, in our defense of our standard of living" we are choosing to ignore the aspects of that standard that are extremely detrimental to us. so while I cannot make a defense of changing our behaviors for the sake of overall climate change, I can certainly make a strong case for changing our lifestyles for the direct health and well being of our children.
I would be happy to provide more and equally directly tangible examples if you would like.
medwoman: "Our lifestyle is largely responsible for the current epidemic ( by the numbers, not hyperbole) of obesity..."
And you know this for certain? How about longer life span; more availability of food; better health care which allows more obese people to survive and procreate; and so forth. How do you prove "lifestyle", whatever that means, to CAUSING obesity?
To globalwarming theory adherants:
Global warming is a THEORY, and nothing more. At one time scientists were convinced the world was flat. Galileo was reviled for thinking the planets revolved around the sun by his fellow scientists. Einstein's Theory of Relativity has had to be corrected as not completely accurate. Mathematics is a model and nothing more, that actually isn't perfect - any number divided by zero has remained undefined.
Assuming the earth is currently warming, how can anyone PROVE that manmade carbon emissions are the cause? Why could not the cause be mother nature and it is nothing more than a normal cyclical event in the climatic scheme of things? In fact, the climatoligists who proposed the theory of global warming being caused by carbon emissions based this THEORY on tree ring samples, which later was discredited as an appropriate measure of anything. Then these scientists went to ice samples. Whose to say that is a correct guage of anything? Having skepticism of science is healthy.
The irony in all of this is that in my day, global warming was called "pollution". Our motto was "let's stop polluting". The message was simple, not controversial or politically charged, and made perfect sense. Everyone can understand "dirty water"; "smoggy air". So the question becomes: TO WHAT EXTENT DO WE CLEAN UP THE AIR AND WATER, AT WHAT COST?
Which brings me back full circle to the topic at hand. The Clean Water Act of 1972 set out some pretty stringent standards, that did not take into account what the relative cost of those stringent standards would be. I think it would be appropriate to 1) revisit the science to determine if the standards achieve the intended goals; 2) revisit the standards in light of the current economic crisis. What good is it going to do to enforce overly stringent standards, if to do so will result in putting large segments of the populace out of their homes and on the street just so birds in the Yolo Bypass will have cleaner water to drink and swim in than the public has had to drink prior to this; and/or does not achieve the very goals it was meant to achieve.
Medwoman,
My example of Iraq was a response to 'uncertain knowledge'. Now if you want examples of 'scientific' uncertain knowledge that failed then let's take the fact that more than a dozen prescription drugs have been taken off the market due to serious side effects, in some cases after hundreds of injuries and even deaths have occurred.
Jeff: "I admit that I am, and have been, fully perplexed at the lack of admission from this body that climate and atmospheric modeling is inexact science."
On what do you base this belief? Many aspects of climate science have high levels of confidence; others have less. You would really have to be more specific as to what is "inexact" and what you think is not broadly accepted and supported by data.
ERM: Assuming the earth is currently warming, how can anyone PROVE that manmade carbon emissions are the cause? Why could not the cause be mother nature and it is nothing more than a normal cyclical event in the climatic scheme of things?
All of those things you are calling "mother nature" are called forcings and they are what the models are built from.
"tree ring samples, which later was discredited as an appropriate measure of anything"
No, they weren't discredited as "an appropriate measure of anything." There was controversy about the way they were used. There are loads of other proxies.
It probably isn't necessary for us to give you a complete primer on climate change science when you can learn all about it yourself from a variety of online resources. Here's one: http://www.realclimate.org/ind...tart-here/
Again, it is important to separate the political questions from the science questions.
Elaine Roberts Musser: Global warming is a THEORY, and nothing more.
Elaine, take a good close look at the dictionary definitions of "theory":
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory
You equivocate. You take one definition of theory and use it to argue against a different definition of theory. That's either dishonest, or a mistake of ignorance.
This definition accounts for the theory of gravity, the geocentric theory of the solar system, the cellular theory of life, the theory of evolution, the bacterial and viral theory of diseases, the theory of evolution, the theory of plate tectonics, the atomic theory of matter, etc.:
5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
This definition is used when saying, "the police have a theory as to whom the suspect is":
6a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : conjecture
By your assertion, we can absolutely disregard all science, because it's "just a theory". Don't bother with medical doctors or any advances made in medicine, nutrition, and gerontology, because it's all based on "just theory".
The "theory" and practice of science is that you propose the best explanation to fit the observations, and you always hold out for the possibility of a better explanation. As to the "theory" of global warming, the best explanation that is out there is that Earth is warming due to greenhouse gas emissions. Alternative hypotheses are weaker. If you want to disprove anthropogenic global climate change/warming, then present a stronger explanation that fits the data and observations.
Scientists have ambition and ego. If there is a better explanation, then science will find it.
Your example of Galileo shows what happens when the political and religious views of the day attempt to over-ride science. Scientists have known since ancient times that Earth is spherical. It is probably one of the first conclusions that established science as a field.
To rusty 49 - couldn't agree more and have probably seen many more examples of erroneous medical applications in my 28 years in medicine than you would believe. However that should not stop us from making the best assessment we have at that time and acting on the information rationally rather than resorting to emotion based arguments or misrepresentations of the positions of those with whom we do not agree and name calling.
To ERM
I probably cannot prove it to a standard that you would accept, but I will be happy to provide both my direct experiential evidence and give you a starting point in the literature if you are interested.
First from my direct experience. I served as a general medical officer on what at the time was referred to as the Papago reservation near Tucson. The two very closely related groups of native Americans, my group and the nearby Pimas have the dubious distinction of having the worlds highest prevalence of type II diabetes and also one of the highest prevalences of obesity. However, the story is not simply one of genetics or available food supply. There are two distinct subgroups of the population. the largest group are those that are living within the town of Sells and it's surrounds, who have largely adopted a lifestyle dependent on automobiles, fast food, and very little physical activity and over 40% of this group are both obese and have developed Type II diabetes prior to age 40. The second, numerically smaller group had made the decision to follow the traditional lifestyle involving walking, horseback riding, growing their almost exclusively vegetarian food supply, largely beans, peppers, corn, tomatoes, and were for the most part very lean with a much lower rate of diabetes, HTN, cardiovascular disease, stroke,
renal failure, amputations. so, same genetic stock, same geographic area, different lifestyle with vastly different health outcomes.
Also from direct experience, many years of experience with my own patients who as they gain weight develop increased problems with diabetes, high blood pressure and cardiovascular disease. When they lose significant amounts of weight either through dietary changes, increased exercise, gastric bypass or some combination of the above find these illness tend to improve in many cases enough to no longer require medication for management.
As to the data in the literature, it is so overwhelming with regard to the increased health risks associated with both obesity and a sedentary lifestyle independently that I am uncertain where to start. Up to Date is a good starting point which can be googled and cites multiple references for basically any entry point to this subject from obesity to exercise to a whole host of medical conditions such as diabetes, HTN,
uterine and breast cancer just to name a few. Any reliable medical site from UCD to the NIH to the Mayo clinic will also have information on this issue. As you may have guessed by now preventive medicine is a special area of interest of mine and I think highly relevant in assessing the impact of the environment on both our finances and other aspects of our well being.
JB: So why was Greenland green a century ago?
wdf1: It was? Where did you read/hear about that?
JB: the Medieval Warm Period
I'm glad you clarified that. The medieval period was definitely earlier than a century ago. Your link makes no specific reference to Greenland being green though. Could you offer a better source?
What your link does say is:
The Vikings took advantage of ice-free seas to colonize Greenland and other outlying lands of the far north.
If you assume that the name Greenland means that it was green, I always understood the naming to be an issue of marketing. The name Greenland would invite other naive pioneers to check it out.
The name Greenland comes from the early Scandinavian settlers. In the Icelandic sagas, it is said that Norwegian-born Erik the Red was exiled from Iceland for murder. He, along with his extended family and thralls, set out in ships to find a land rumoured to lie to the northwest. After settling there, he named the land Grœnland ("Greenland"), supposedly in the hope that the pleasant name would attract settlers.
Greenland was also called Gruntland ("Ground-land") and Engronelant (or Engroneland) on early maps. Whether green is an erroneous transcription of grunt ("ground"), which refers to shallow bays, or vice versa, is not known. The southern portion of Greenland (not covered by glaciers) is green in the summer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland#Etymology
If you're making a point, it isn't clear to me what it is.
Note too the Little Ice Age about 400 years ago. To what man-made cause do scientists attribute this devistating change in climate?
I'm not aware that scientists attribute the Little Ice Age to man-made causes. Again, you'd better clarify what point you're trying to make.
If your point is that Earth was been warmer in the Medieval Warming Period and what we're experiencing now is no big deal, then you should know that the MWP was a regional phenomenon that was not observed globally; same with the LIA. Also, the current trajectory of warming is taking us beyond temperatures reached during the MWP.
wdf1: "you should know that the MWP was a regional phenomenon that was not observed globally"
JB: Well then... who was there to observe this time of global warming during WMP? Was it the same scientists that discount the regioinal difference in warming and cooling today?
Jeff, I don't know if you're making a rhetorical question or not, or why you're asking this. You presented the Wikipedia reference to the Medieval Warm Period. What I told you above can be found in that article along with reference citations. It summarizes some of the key research for you. You can find those answers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
medwoman: It is usually far easier to identify others hypocrisy than one's own. What is it that leads you to believe that "left wingers" believe in taxes only for others? It seems that perhaps you do not know many of us who would be affected by the increased tax rates on "the rich", and believe that it is incumbent upon those of us who have benefited greatly from our system to support it for those who follow.
lol, and how do you support it for those who follow? to apply for a fee waiver from water and sewer increases. the town of davis is trying to get out from paying the bill.
medwoman: "As for your interpretation of the IPCC statement, you seem to have ignored the last sentence of your own quote "nevertheless the most recent assessment of the science that human activities have led to a discernible influence on global climate and that these activities will have an increasing influence on future climate.".
no, I did not ignore it at all. I wondered if you would hang onto those last few words. and if you read that sentence carefully you would realise that the term "discernable influence" is a vague statement that could mean any number of things.
medwoman: While it is true that there are always uncertainties in the constantly changing body of knowledge that we call "science" that does not mean that there are no times when action should be taken based on uncertain knowledge.
at least you admit knowledge is uncertain. hence the theory of global warming is uncertain. thank you ma'am.
medwoman: A well known example from medicine is that of Edward Jenner who is best known for advocating the practice of what is now known as vaccination based on the best evidence he had at the time which amounted to nothing more than astute observation and a theory which has ultimately led to the virtual elimination of smallpox and the science of immunology. As a side note, he was widely vilified by large segments of the press, medical establishment and society of his day.
yes, and another well known example of acting on "uncertain knowledge" is the theory of eugenics, which claimed there was a "crisis" in the gene pool which led to "inferior" human beings breeding faster than "superior" ones. THe eugenics movement moved to nazi germany and led to the gassing of jews. but that was a good thing though because Germany was acting on "uncertain knowledge" that the Gene pool was being corrupted and took swift action.
wdf1: "I don't know if you're making a rhetorical question or not"
I was. From Wikipedia:
Interpretation of ice core and clam shell data suggests that between 800 and 1300 AD the regions around the fjords of southern Greenland experienced a relatively mild climate several degrees Celsius higher than usual in the North Atlantic, with trees and herbaceous plants growing and livestock being farmed. Barley was grown as a crop up to the 70th degree.[13] What is verifiable is that the ice cores indicate Greenland has experienced dramatic temperature shifts many times over the past 100,000 years
So, your point is that Greenland, like other places on the globe, seems to get hotter and colder for some reason that scientists cannot sufficiently explain.
So many things that cannot be explained, yet we "know" man is causing widespread global warming and it "will" imperil us.
Temperature changes around the globe are unevenly distributed. Even in the shorter time frame, decadal oscillations have been identified and are yet another area of research in climate science (arctic oscillation is a big factor in this year's weather in many parts of the northern hemisphere, for example). Shorter still are the oscillations such as ENSO, our infamous El Niño/La Niña cycle. Here's a sobering thought: a strong ENSO combined with a warm-phase PDO should kick in about 20 years from now, and would likely lead to an even warmer spike in global temperatures than we saw in 1998.
The MWP wasn't 500 years. Greenland isn't the globe. There were warm periods of differing durations in differing parts of the world. At the rate global temperatures are increasing, we will exceed any of those within a shorter duration than has ever been observed in proxy data. The regional anomalies are very interesting and help to confirm that the effects of global warming would be unevenly distributed.
Do we really need to debate this? If you don't even believe global temperatures are increasing, then you won't support any action to reduce carbon emissions. There are several independent data sources that would show you that global temperatures are increasing, if you cared to look at them.
The trend since the mid-1800's is inexorably upward, with a brief drop 1940 - 1970 and a slower rate of increase since about 2000. During that time humans have significantly increased the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Based on proxy data, researchers can estimate how much the global temperature would be increasing in the absence of those gases (due to the fact that we are coming out of an ice age) and assign the remainder of the increase to human sources. What you are calling uncertainties mostly have to do with analysis about the extent, not the existence, of that human-caused change.
Models are useful for identifying the forcings and assessing how they might interact to change global temperatures going forward. They are not predictive. They are run multiple times and give a range of outcomes. Then probabilities are assigned to those outcomes. You are right that water vapor and cloud formation is one of the variables about which there is more uncertainty than others. Clouds might save us. Hell, peak oil might save us. But each of those possible impacts on the future of global temperatures has its own set of effects which policy-makers must plan for.
The uneven distribution of global climate change is a very important component of planning. The local effects (glacial melting, flooding, changes in drought and rainfall patterns) need to be understood better. Whether you favor mitigation or adaptation, whether you think the temperature change is natural or human-caused, it is important to recognize and plan for those changes. A huge portion of Bangladesh will experience more frequent and more severe flooding. Parts of the western United States that are dry will be drier a lot of the time. The models are useful tools for helping governments, the military, corporations, water districts, the UN, and NGO's plan for catastrophes.
Sadly, public opinion surveys show that Republicans have gone from a majority acceptance of the principle of climate change, to a majority who believe it isn't happening. In fact, a majority believes it is "a hoax." This has happened in a matter of less than 4 years. Tea Party adherents hold those beliefs by an even stronger margin, and they appear to be the driving force in the Republican party these days.
Cap and trade is dead. Carbon taxes won't ever happen in the U.S.; we can watch Australia right now to see how well those policies go over with the public, and my guess is their PM's experiment with that policy will demonstrate that it is political suicide. Copenhagen was a complete waste of time, and would yield no results. Technology and adaptation will be the only avenues that governments are likely to pursue. Ultimately, Yolo County would do better to build a reservoir or two than to tinker around with alfalfa fertilizing practices.
I was trying to remember where I had run across Alan Caruba before. At Tea Party Nation, where he is one of the guest bloggers. A sampling:
Obama is a communist http://factsnotfantasy.blogspo...-gets.html who should be impeached; Caruba is, of course, a birther. http://www.theabsurdreport.com...an-caruba/
Global warming is "a complete fabrication" http://factsnotfantasy.blogspo...g-rip.html
With apologies to Don Shor who is making a thoughtful attempt to bring us back on topic, I can't let a " look what the Nazis did" argument go unchallenged. There is a distinction to be made between scientific theory based on observation of natural phenomena and theories derived from observation of social phenomena. While of course one's own biases play a role in the development of any theoretical construct , they tend to be harder to see past when dealing with sociopolitical issues such as the " superiority or inferiority"of an entire group of people.
There is a further distinction to be made between the theory itself and the uses to which it can be put to further a political agenda.
I think it is a reach to compare the hatred behind the Nazi use of eugenics to the desire to reduce as much as possible the human contribution to a perceived threat to our environment.
On uncertainty:
There will always uncertainty about the weather forecast, whether sensible diet and exercise will improve your life, whether you will live or die today, whether a major earthquake will hit California within the next 20 years, whether your education will make a positive difference in your life, whether that operation will solve a person's cancer or heart condition, whether smoking will shorten your life, and whether the current warming trend is caused by human activity or not. It is the nature of science to entertain that there is uncertainty.
If you want to play safe odds based on scientific research, you will make certain informed choices. If you believe scientists are pushing a political agenda over on you, then maybe you should just ignore those odds and do whatever feels good.
medwoman: Very well said. However, Hitler was supported by "scientific theory" during his time. I think by this comparison you have stumbled on the primary problem: when scientists and political forces join together to engineer society.
Now, if it was just politicians exploiting the work of scientists, I would direct all my ire at the politicians. However, in this case there are many climate scientists spouting their ideas for solutions matching the liberal progressive mindset of some bizarre and impossible post-industrial existence. In my opinion, this takes them out of the scientific realm and makes them political. More importantly it serves to question their objectivity and hence their credibility as a scientist.
My problem with this may be similar to how you might view the Catholic Church standing with politicians attempting to engineer society. It is made more troubling by the fact that politically left-leaning people are more apt to turn to science rather than organized religion. Science has become the new religion of the liberal-progressive left and this collusion with politics is as problematic as would be that of church and state.
Jeff B: However, in this case there are many climate scientists spouting their ideas for solutions matching the liberal progressive mindset of some bizarre and impossible post-industrial existence. In my opinion, this takes them out of the scientific realm and makes them political. More importantly it serves to question their objectivity and hence their credibility as a scientist.
So scientists have no business weighing in on political discussions, but everyone else does?
If you know that something is a potential danger to others, don't you have a responsibility to say something about it?
If you, as a medical researcher, were to find a cure for HIV/AIDS, wouldn't you have some moral obligation to share that information and make it available to the public?
Jeff, I asked you earlier, what is the selfish motivation for so many scientists to agree on this? I don't find that you answered that.
If there were compelling and overwhelming evidence to disprove anthropogenic global warming, the oil industry would be pumping research money to any researcher to develop those ideas and promote them. Economically, though the deck is stacked against agreeing with this conclusion.
wdf1: I worked for a life insurance company that fired one their top actuarials that could not stop voicing his opinion about product design and pricing. His job was to do the research, to chunk the numbers and deliver reports on the data. He exceeded his role-capacity, and given his intement knowledge on the risk data, he had a corrosive influence on the business decisions for how to design and price products relative to that risk. He in fact did not have enough of a big picture to be given the level of decision authority his education and ego led him to believe he deserved.
I really do not doubt the science that shows warming trends. What I doubt is that there is sufficient evidence to prove much of it is human-caused, and I also reject that there is sufficent evidence to justify massive global economic and social change advocated by Al Gore and his merry band of narrow-focused, grant-hungry, left-leaning climate scientists.
Selfish motivations are generally ego-driven. If you are a medical researver and you find a cure, then by all means share the information. However, if you are a medical researcher and you decide to join a political causes to make all fast food illegal, then you have exceeded your capacity as a medical scientist and joined the political-social-engineering mode and earn the same target provided politicians.
"Selfish motivations are generally ego-driven."
To me, it sounds like you are describing yourself - your thought is so clouded by politics, reality will just pass you by. I am not sure what to think about global warming personally, but it is important to pay attention and keep an open mind. After all, masses of ice are melting and glaciers are getting smaller - something is happening and we should be concerned.
Based on what you have said I assume if Fox News said the world was flat you would completely agree
Alphoso - I suggest you read a bit more before you comment on this subject.
Total Antarctic sea ice anomalies have been steadily increasing since 1978 (NSIDC (2006)). 2007 showed the largest positive anomaly of sea ice in the southern hemisphere since records have been kept starting in 1979 and 2008 is currently on pace to surpass last years record.
Also, your comment about Fox indicates that you are politically biased about your news sources. I have never denied my conservative views, how about you?
To all: please avoid attacking other blog participants.
Jeff: Antarctic sea ice is an interesting issue worthy of considerably more research. Hopefully funding will be there for more work on that. It doesn't particularly prove or disprove anything, except that the effects of global temperature change are unevenly distributed. And that the amount of data from Antarctica is thin.
However, in this case there are many climate scientists spouting their ideas for solutions..... In my opinin, this takes them out of the scientific realm and makes them political.
I agree, and this is one of my pet peeves about certain climate scientists. At least in the past, James Hansen has been particularly bad in this regard. As head of NASA's Goddard Institute (GISS), he needs to make it very clear when he is speaking in his official capacity and when he is just voicing opinion as a private citizen. It is important to separate the science from the policy issues. If he wants to be a climate activist, he should retire from NASA. However, his work stands on its own. It is published and reviewed. When McIntyre found an error in the GISS data, they ultimately corrected it and even credited him for it.
Likewise the head of IPCC has serious conflicts of interest and should be replaced.
To all: Very interesting discussion. From my perspective, I see science as a body of knowledge that is ever changing, constantly self-correcting. Much as the law is. When I went to law school, I can remember a professor telling us we should get comfortable w the idea that the law is not a fixed mark but an ever changing thing. The professor warned us that a lot of students were going to be uncomfortable w this idea. I see much the same thing here. Many are uncomfortable with the thought that science is not fixed, but an ever changing thing, constantly self-correcting. If someone could come up w a different math model so that division by zero would not be undefined, I would say hooray!
What I also have to wonder about is why people are such slavish adherants to the theory of global warming. There is no way to prove or disprove, with any reliable data, that any temperature anomolies that we may or may not be experiencing now, are the result of man-made pollution or is just normal cyclical climate fluctuation. The earth has been around for billions of years, and the temperature data collected is from a few hundred years. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that water or air pollution is a bad thing and needs to be addressed. So why am I not "permitted" to believe that we just don't know?
Because the global warming issue has become so politicized. Democrats have staked it out as THEIR CAUSE AND ONLY THEIR CAUSE; and Republicans have staked out their position THEN WE ARE AGAINST IT IF THE DEMOCRATS ARE FOR IT. Both positions are self-centered, disingenuous, self-serving, and destructive. Both should be able to agree that dirty water and dirty air are not in the best interests of human beings.
The next question becomes what should we do about the problem of pollution? Well, the Clean Water Act of 1972 is an example of what has been done legislatively. And we see at what cost. So ultimately what addressing the pollution problem is all about is weighing costs vs benefits. What will it cost us to address the problem of air and water pollution at a certain level, and to what extent will it ameliorate the problem? Should we sign on to the Kyoto Treaty and force our businesses to cut down significantly on their pollution, while India and China pollute to their hearts content, while our businesses are set at a distinct economic disadvantage which could destroy them? How do we get worldwide cooperation on the pollution problem? How much money should this country expend on solar panels, development of alternative fuels including nuclear energy, instituting a plastic bag ban? Many costs, many alternatives, many benefits, no easy answers...
Nice balanced post Elaine. Have you thought about running for office?
Interesting WSJ article that is an example of where I would like to see more scientists spending their time and energy instead of joining causes to push more of the global population back to third-world status so the "planet will be saved!"
Might the Fukushima accident eventually create a chance for the nuclear industry to "reboot"? In recent years some have begun to argue that solid-fuel uranium reactors like the ones in Japan are an outdated technology that deserves to peter out and be replaced by an entirely different kind of nuclear energy that will be both safer and cheaper.
Thorium could make 90 times as much energy as the same quantity of uranium—and it produces no bomb-making material.
The problem, as is often the case in capital-intensive industries, is inertia. Nearly all the expertise, research and sunk costs are in the old technology. Fukushima just might start to change that.
In the short run, the beneficiary of nuclear's now inevitable crisis is going to be fossil fuels. Renewable energy remains too expensive, too land-hungry, too unreliable and too small-scale to take up much slack, so cheap coal and newly abundant natural gas will do the job.
This is ironic, because however high the death toll at Fukushima climbs, it is unlikely to match the casualties in the fossil-fuel industry. In the last year alone, 29 people died in a New Zealand coal mine, 11 on a Gulf oil rig and 27 in a Mexican pipeline explosion. A human-rights activist has estimated that as many as 20,000 people die in Chinese coal mines every year.
But with America now awash in shale gas and the world about to follow suit, the price of electricity is bound to stay fairly low. Since gas-fired generation is about the most scalable, efficient, flexible, clean and (on a large scale) lowish-carbon form of electricity available, it is going to prove economically and politically attractive.
Against this formidable competitor, uranium will struggle for many years to come—especially with the extra cost and political handicap that Fukushima is bound to add. So nuclear needs to reinvent itself. Because nuclear reactors were developed by governments in a wartime hurry, the best technological routes were not always taken. The pressurized-water design was a quick-and-dirty solution that we have been stuck with ever since. Rival ideas withered, among them the thorium liquid-fuel reactor, powered by molten fluoride salt containing thorium.
Thorium has lots of advantages as a nuclear fuel. There is four times as much of it as uranium; it is more easily handled and processed; it "breeds" its own fuel by creating uranium 233 continuously and can produce about 90 times as much energy from the same quantity of fuel; its reactions produce no plutonium or other bomb-making raw material; and it generates much less waste, with a much shorter half life until it becomes safe, so the waste can be stored for centuries rather than millennia.
A thorium reactor needs neutrons, and both ways of supplying these subatomic particles are relatively safe. They can be introduced with a particle accelerator, which can be turned off if danger threatens. Or they can be introduced with uranium 235, which in this process has a much lower risk of an uncontrolled reaction than it does in today's nuclear plants. The fuel cannot melt down in a thorium reactor because it is already molten, and reactions slow down as it cools. A further advantage of this design is that the gas xenon is able to bubble out of the liquid fuel rather than—as in normal reactors—staying in the fuel rods and slowly poisoning the reaction.
Nobody knows if thorium reactors can compete on price with coal and gas. India has been working on thorium for some years, but the technology is as different from today's nuclear power as gas is from coal, and very few nuclear engineers even hear about liquid fuel during their training, let alone get to work on it.
New technologies always struggle to compete with well-entrenched rivals whose costs are already sunk. The first railways couldn't rival canals on cost or reliability, let alone lobbying power.
Now is the time to start to find out about thorium's potential.
Don Shor: Do we really need to debate this?
Hell yes, we need to debate it! if you claim certain knowledge of somethig that is not certain, and then ask people to roll over and agree to drastically change their lifestyles based on that uncertainty, then yes we need to force your side to prove their case.
after all of this discussion: a few points stand out:
1. nobody on this blog, myself included knows exactly what temperatures are going to be 5 years from now, 10 years from now, or twenty years from now.
2. nobody knows what percentage of that increase or decrease is caused by mother nature.
3. nobody knows what percentage is manmade.
4. unless scientists want to come up front now and put numbers to their claims, they don't know either.
5. the IPCC, if you look over its documents carefully does not really support the theory of global warming at all, and if anything contradicts it.
Medwoman: I agree with Jeff's point that the problem with global warming, like eugenics is a heavily politicized science, where like eugenics people and companies are being punished to engineer society for political purposes, and claiming it is about protecting the environment. in this case its the democrat party, in particular, al gore. and I find that quite troubling.
1. nobody on this blog, myself included knows exactly what temperatures are going to be 5 years from now, 10 years from now, or twenty years from now.
If you were gambling, you would do well to bet -- even large sums of money -- that average global temperatures as measured at various independent sites will be higher in each of those time intervals. The range as to how much higher is given in the IPCC reports.
2. nobody knows what percentage of that increase or decrease is caused by mother nature.
3. nobody knows what percentage is manmade.
4. unless scientists want to come up front now and put numbers to their claims, they don't know either.
Oh, they have. In many places. Here's a good summary from a decade or so ago that I think covers the topic well. http://www.sciencemag.org/cont.../1416.full Let me know how many more you would like.
5. the IPCC, if you look over its documents carefully does not really support the theory of global warming at all, and if anything contradicts it.
The IPCC documents fully support the theory of global warming. Call any geophysicist at UC Davis and read your statement, and see what the response is. What you are reading as ambiguity is the standard jargon of scientists being careful not to say things unequivocally.
Another thing that is clear. Even if we do not know what percentage of climate change is attributable to human activities, we know 100% that the only portion of that equation that we can affect is human activity. Which brings me to the well written post of Elaine. Where we can all agree is that pollution is bad for us. Just this simple concept should be enough to cause us to drop the petty squabbling and seek solutions both small and large to lessen its impact.
Pollution is bad for us, but economic activity is essential. Also, as it relates to some environmental causes, the cure is sometimes worse.
Take for example the changes to logging regulations that led to larger and hotter fires because of forest overgrowth. Scientists now agree that more frequent natural fires used to keep the forests thinned and therefore prevented the mega fires we see today. We fight the smaller natural fires and prevent logging, and now when it is really dry and we have lightning storms, millions of acres go up in flames and the entire forest is devastated.
Look at the problems we face disposing of florescent bulbs to protect us from the evil incandescent bulb. How much more mercury is being dumped from people not willing to pay $2-5 per bulb disposal fees.
We need thoughtful, short-term and long-term, cost-benefit analysis. We need balance. Unfortunately the activists that work on this stuff are single minded, and they know once their cause gets ingrained in our media pop culture, rational arguments against them will fail. That is why the debate on global warming has been politicized… the scientist have turned activist and have taken their cause to the media. It is a propaganda war to prevent them from destroying more economic activity than necessary.
ERM: What I also have to wonder about is why people are such slavish adherants to the theory of global warming.
Because average global temperatures are, in fact warming above anything ever recorded. This is data that is already measured. It is as certain as saying that we have had an unusually wet rainy season this year (a fact).
2010 is tied for the warmest year on record, and 34th consecutive year in which temperatures were above the 20th century average:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/s...stats.html
If you follow this data on a regular basis, then your statement above is like saying, "I have to wonder about is why people are such slavish adherants to the theory of a sun-centered solar system."
ERM: There is no way to prove or disprove, with any reliable data, that any temperature anomolies that we may or may not be experiencing now, are the result of man-made pollution or is just normal cyclical climate fluctuation.
There is a correlation between warming and a rise in greenhouse gases. The only plausible explanation for the rise in greenhouse gases in the past 150 years is human activity. Temperatures are rising above any known cyclic fluctuations and influences. If you want to argue effectively against human-influenced global warming, then present a convincing alternative. So far that hasn't happened, and as we get year-by-year data, it only strengthens the case of global warming and human contribution to it.
We can do absolutely nothing and wait and see what happens, but we run a risk of taking on greater costs in economic losses.
"The only plausible explanation for the rise in greenhouse gases in the past 150 years is human activity"
Well, no, that is not the case. There are other plausible explanations. The one I like is "we don't know". I share dislike for any factory belching toxins into the air and water. We already have strong regulations to prevent it. Unless you want to classify the breath that humans exhale as a toxic gas, Carbon dioxide should not be allowed to be classified the same. It amounts to a very small percentage of the total greenhouse gas, and human-contributions are a small fraction of that.
wdf1: "The only plausible explanation for the rise in greenhouse gases in the past 150 years is human activity"
Jeff Boone: Well, no, that is not the case. There are other plausible explanations. The one I like is "we don't know".
That's lazy and shows ignorance of observations and research. If you went to the doctor feeling very ill, and the only thing the doctor responded with was, "I don't know", you might start to question his competence.
CO2 is the most abundant greenhouse gas accumulating in the atmosphere that is produced by burning fossil fuel. Yes, there are other sources of CO2, but they don't contribute enough, and there are also other greenhouse gases produced by burning fossil fuels that are building up in equivalent proportions in the atmosphere (but in smaller concentrations) that have no other plausible source.
Your best bet to support your assertion that human burning of fossil fuel hasn't increased greenhouse gases in the past 150 years is to present a stronger plausible source. If you can, then I am certain that there is research funding available that would pay your salary. The priorities of our society and economy rest on that question.
ERM: Now why do you think that is? Maybe bc scientists know better than anyone else that nothing in life is certain?
If a car were driving toward a ditch, a scientist acting professionally would acknowledge that there's always a chance that the car doesn't end up in the ditch. But it is clear the direction of momentum. Maybe for good measure, the scientist might address what would keep the car from going into the ditch, but the conclusion, based on observation, would still be that the car is headed toward a ditch.
In your world, it seems you'd like to wait to see what happens before deciding what to do. Of course by then, it's a little more expensive.
