Global Warming: The Fight's About Policy, NOT the Science

I think perhaps this has been my problem, trying to explain the science and the policy recommendations at the same time. Certainly no set policy has all the answers, as very little policy has been implemented as a response to the data. And environmental policy is the area where I am am still way behind (too many books, too little time). I am absolutely against cap-and-trade, cash-for-clunkers, haven't decided on carbon offsets as to whether they will be effective enough, and am for fee-and-dividend and comprehensive sustainable energy production that best fits each regional niche with minimal intrusion combined with serious reduction in waste and more conscious decisions on lifestyle - I'm open to ideas and debate on the policy aspect for sure, and don't think an effective, efficient one can be implemented unless it is a true bi-partisan effort (we need every viewpoint on this).

But the overall science is pretty certain. Now it's the devil in the details...

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2011/05/3 ... c=fb&cc=fp
Science Deniers: Hand Over Your Cellphones!
by Adam Frank
May 31, 2011

Last Thursday, Ursula asked "What Motivates Climate Change Deniers" and invited people to explain their positions in the face so much evidence and so strong a consensus on the part of the scientists who spend their life's studying the subject. More than 700 comments were posted (a new record for this blog).

Reviewing these responses I found a few that were truly well informed and were asking thoughtful questions that represented skepticism, not denial. Skepticism is good. It's the most important quality of scientific activity. Some of the skeptic's questions lie at the frontiers of current climate research and remain unknowns.

Too many of the responses to Ursula's post, however, had nothing to do with an attempt to understand how climate science (or any science) reaches its conclusions. Flames about Al Gore, the "climate gate" e-mails and the hockey stick data were trotted out again and again. These are all talking points intended to avoid real engagement with the scientific process — the experiments, the data collection, and the journal articles where ideas are fought out in the face of evidence or mathematical consistency.

Climate science is corrupt, the deniers tell us. But they have no problem with medical science when it tells them to take pills for high blood pressure. ...Science is not a lunch buffet. Yes, the individual results on small, focused issues like the coffee-bad/coffee-good debate may flip back and forth. When research domains mature into overarching paradigms, however, its time to take notice.

...Some form of anthropogenic climate change? As best as the world's scientific community can tell: yes as well! Beyond that "yes" the questions are all about policy, not science. People need to make that distinction. Don't pick and choose between the science you like and the ones you deny.

PrintSmith wrote: So tell me SC, what was it that caused the Little Ice Age and the emergence from it? Was it the interruption of the ocean current highway leading from the tropics to the northern hemisphere? Was it a volcano sending lots of sulfur into the upper atmosphere where it turned into cyanide (or hydrogen cyanide or something like that) which reflected the sun's warmth? Did the output of radiation from the sun diminish a fraction of a percent? In order to know what the current cause of the warming is, wouldn't we also have to have an understanding of what caused the last cooling cycle and why the planet emerged from that?

If indeed our activity is the cause, which I don't happen to believe, then can we also artificially moderate it by putting reflective compounds into play and is this something that is being modeled to prevent us from falling off the abyss? If we have the power to warm the planet, we also have the power to cool it off. Personally, I don't believe we have either, but the opposite belief would have to include the power to cool along with the power to warm. If we are the cause of the climate change, then we would have to have the power to change it in either direction.

Hey PS! Thanks for asking. Again, this falls into the science part, not the policy portion of the issue, but I'm happy to find some info for ya.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... e-age-lia/
Little Ice Age - Index Definition
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... e-hot-air/
Point/Counterpoint of LIA myths

Our activity being the main cause (b/c of course natural variability is still occurring, we're just over-riding it)
Breaking it down into the most simplistic ideas:
* Fossil fuels take millions of years to form

* We've been commercially digging up coal, and extracting oil, etc. rough estimates starting from the 1700s and lasting (technically and economically speaking, we won't dig up every last molecule) to 120 years from now so to 2030. one of many stats websites here 300 years to dig up what took millions of years to sequester underground. As Joe cited, CO2 emissions are at an all-time high and not expected to be lowered anytime soon. http://www.iea.org/index_info.asp?id=1959
The CO2 put into the atmosphere stays in the atmosphere anywhere from 100-500 years, and its effects take some time to enter the climate cycle (as in, the CO2 added today will affect the climate for over a millenia) http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812 ... 8.122.html

* The effect of CO2 in the atmosphere was elucidated over 100 years ago, and is not in dispute, even by the most ardent contrarians. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... asy-steps/

* Conclusion: What this adds up to is that we are adding CO2, and other greenhouse gases as well, into the atmosphere at rates that the system cannot extract from the atmosphere and the radiative forcing will only increase.

Even if aerosols are introduced, either naturally or artificially (and that would be a crude, temporary, expensive, desperate, last-ditch attempt on our part to mitigate the warming effects - have you ever tried to return a solution of straight hydrochloric acid to neutral pH by guessing with a solution of straight sodium hydroxide? It's a pain in the ass...takes forever, you have to constantly measure the pH, especially as you get close and you're adding NaOH drop by drop, and that's not even with more hydrochloric acid being added as you're doing it - my crude analogy to the attempt to cancel out the CO2 with aerosols), the cause of the warming, the additional CO2 in the atmosphere isn't even addressed. It will still lead to acidification of the oceans, collapse of fisheries, and cause havoc to the food chain. Reducing our extraction of fossil fuels, combined with decreasing our land clearing, less cement use, etc, is the most effective way to mitigate the effects. http://www.iea.org/ and http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... -too-much/ I've seen at least one climatologist call for sequestering CO2 directly from the atmosphere, but there is no technology currently available that can even do that (coming out of stacks at coal plants is one thing, general atmosphere, whole other ball of wax), and I've seen another report that it won't even be technically or economically feasible - maybe there will be a breakthrough, maybe not (I wouldn't count on it).

Obviously, this is a gross over-simplification on my part, but I've never spelled it out in such basic terms before and thought that it might be good to try. The RealClimate.org site that I linked above is a very good resource for more information.