Some issues really sink deep with readers. The one that gets under the skin with a cross-section of them is that of global warming.
As I’ve articulated before, I’m not a scientist, much less a climatologist. I’ll even go further and add that most of the courses I’ve had with respect to higher education and professional development center on economics and public policy.
I have listened to a multitude of experts pontificate about global warming. I think that those who argue either side – man made or natural phenomenon – are genuine in their belief systems.
But our goal is not to write he-said, she-said stories over whether this matter is real or not. It is, instead, to discuss what our elected officials are doing about it and by extension, how American industry will respond. On this score, I think I’m well qualified.
Even as I write, I can sense the letters that will come in. One side will call me a writer who panders to popular opinion while ignoring the science that “discredits” global warming. The other side will say that there is no dispute among the credible experts in this area and that anyone who takes exception is a paid spokesperson for the polluters. Not only do I get these notes from readers. I get them from my fellow workers.
Not to worry about me. I can handle it. And while such criticisms sensitize me to how others think, they do not sway me from keeping the mission of the Insider – to critique matters of importance in a fair and honest way. Readers are encouraged to be passionate. But this central tenet keeps me focused and gives the column credence.
The EnergyBiz Leadership Forum, to be held March 8 to 10 in Washington, D.C., will tackle this and other issues related to national security, the economic downturn, new administration policy, technology innovation, environmental concerns and consumer demand – the key drivers in our looming energy crisis. You, too, can join such luminaries as T. Boone Pickens, Dan Reicher and James E. Rogers in a series of keynotes, presentations and roundtables to discuss today’s energy realities and the role national policy should play in facilitating energy independence. For details, or to register, see http://www.energybizforum.com
Contrary to the alarmist side in particular, the science is not yet settled, but they ARE making points that we should investigate. Lindzen, Christy et. al make a cogent case that the warming is minor and/or that it is natural.
For my part, I am not a climatologist either. However, I have spent more time than most analyzing weather information as part of my work. In fact, last month, I published a nearly two hundred page statistical abstract of sixty years of temperatures for twenty three locations corresponding to where the CME lists weather derivative contracts. Has their been warming? Enough that I want to know why, and I find no satisfactory explanations.
JBCarson@RisQuant.com, www.RisQuant.com
I understand and respect your position and concern. My posts on the subject reflect a high level of concern since reading an article Published December 15, 2004 by the Baltimore Sun entitled: Ticking Time Bomb by John Atcheson
The first few lines state:
The Arctic Council's recent report on the effects of global warming in the far north paints a grim picture: global floods, extinction of polar bears and other marine mammals, collapsed fisheries. But it ignored a ticking time bomb buried in the Arctic tundra.
There are enormous quantities of naturally occurring greenhouse gasses trapped in ice-like structures in the cold northern muds and at the bottom of the seas. These ices, called clathrates, contain 3,000 times as much methane as is in the atmosphere. Methane is more than 20 times as strong a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide.
Now here's the scary part. A temperature increase of merely a few degrees would cause these gases to volatilize and "burp" into the atmosphere, which would further raise temperatures, which would release yet more methane, heating the Earth and seas further, and so on. There's 400 gigatons of methane locked in the frozen arctic tundra - enough to start this chain reaction - and the kind of warming the Arctic Council predicts is sufficient to melt the clathrates and release these greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Once triggered, this cycle could result in runaway global warming the likes of which even the most pessimistic doomsayers aren't talking about.
An apocalyptic fantasy concocted by hysterical environmentalists? Unfortunately, no. Strong geologic evidence suggests something similar has happened at least twice before.
The article goes on at some length... The tipping point for this unstoppable catastrophe, that would end human life on earth is a temperature rise of 6 degrees C (11 degrees F). Since the article appeared, it seems the Arctic temperature is rising very dangerously. If rapid reduction in the use of fossil fuels might make a major difference, it seems to me urgent to achieve that goal.
The case for global warming is quite a strong one. If one imagines the sheer number of vehicles around 800 million not counting planes and two wheelers, together with industries and power plants belching pollutants into the atmosphere, it is difficult to imagine a scenario where these have had absolutely no effect. I absolutely agree with your statement that it would be better to discuss measures that can be taken to deal with this huge amount of pollution going into the atmosphere than to discuss whether it exists or not and if it does exist whether it is the reason for all the phenomenon we are seeing nowadays. Such as an alarming increase in the melting rate at the poles or the rapidly disappearing glaciers in the himalaya. Recently a satellite survey was done to measure the amount of carbon dioxide in the arths atmosphere, I am not sure waht exactly the results showed, as Mark Goldes says it is not a question of a huge increase, it is a question of a few degrees either way. So we just have to wait and see.
Anyone who has experience of computer modelling will know how important it is to have an accurate model that has been tested and proven to give accurate predictions and, as well, to have accurate input data. We know that the models are not accurate because we do not understand how the climate works. If we did understand it and the models were accurate, they would predict events like El Niño and La Nina and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. They don't. We know that we do not have accurate input data because it is simply not possible to collect a worldwide snapshot of climate data at any one time.
Therefore there only two possible conclusions: either the science is, most definitely, not settled or that the science shows that we should ignore the output of the climate models and concentrate on understanding past and present climate.
The only rational policy that is available to us is to make sure that we can cope with climate change -- be it cooling or warming. Past history tells us that cooling is bad and warming is good.