These comments, and there may be more, arise from my discussion at Douglas Road a few nights ago, primarily with Rob and John, that involving a party and alcohol may not have been ordered, logical, or complete. 

The question was asked if I believed that global warming exists and if it results from human activity.  Neither is a simple question and can be answered in various ways.  It is much like the question, do you believe in God?  This question is not; do you believe in the creator of the universe and of your consciousness, no matter how mysterious, who or what does not seem to have influenced the creation for the past five or so billion years?  Rather it is, do you believe in my religion’s God, typically a sentient and omnipotent male who may or may not be in three persons and who may or may not have reformed in the womb of a virgin and may intervene in human affairs.   The question of global warming is not; do you think this year is warmer than last?

Where I’m Coming From

 Before reflecting on my answers, I ask that you consider my background.  I am an ecologist, not a climatologist, by training.  I took only one course in climatology, but that is probably more than have most of the people who have written fervently of global warming and its consequences in the past couple of decades.  I found the subject to be one of my most exciting in graduate school, and I was fascinated in particular by climate change. 

I remember discussing climate change with the professor and commenting from what we had learned that regional and global climate change are constant features of the earth’s history.  I pointed out that civilization ignores this at its peril, that private property, including whole nations will be made more valuable or even worthless by climate change.  The good professor agreed and said simply that people always have had to make adjustments to climate change.  I commented that with the earth so crowded that adjustment might not be so easy anymore.  Remarking that the climate record indicates an ice age about every 100,000 years, I joked of the need to learn to speak French when all the Canadians were pushed south. 

Still, we knew our limitations.  Climate science was developing, but the data and theory could scarcely explain long-term or short-term climate change.  Then, in the 1970’s, there were some climatologists, but mostly charlatans, who suggested we were entering the next ice age.  The argument went that widespread snow cover could, through increased reflection, suddenly precipitate an ice age.  We laughed at this.  The theory was sketchy, and the models had not been validated.  Worthless science.

Still, we suspected that an ice age is likely to come again.  That seemed a very real concern, but not one we could do much about until climate change was much better understood.  Frankly we had more urgent matters to concern ourselves with.

I am also a competent mathematical modeler.  I have worked with various ecological and environmental protocols.  These serve various purposes, from the creation of ideas to the prediction of population size and the de-oxygenation of rivers.  Models can be useful, but only when the processes are well known and relatively simple.  Fail to include and properly evaluate important factors or start with invalid data and the model will fail catastrophically.  In short, “Garbage in, garbage out.  Validate, validate, and validate.” 

A model is not a substitute for science, it is simply a tool, but being “mathematical” it is very easy to conclude that if the model produces a result, it is correct.   Some models, especially simple fishery models for instance, work very well.  Others, such as long-term weather models, have so far proven impossible to make useful except for conversation.  Sadly, the seasonal forecast in the Farmer’s Almanac is as good as NOAA’s.  I dare anyone to make a test. 

Climate Change

 So, over the years I read of the “global warming hypothesis” with some interest.  Climate is of critical importance to our population that is always pushing at what ecologists call “the carrying capacity,” and since geological and astronomical changes over which we have no control seem to force most climate change, we must suffer it.  Significant climate change could easily wipe out much of the human population.  Even a little thing like an ice age could displace the populations of much of Russia and Canada.  The last ice age pushed a wall of ice across New York City before stopping in New Jersey.

Still, I knew that understanding, let alone forecasting, climate change is confoundingly difficult.  We have some weather records going back three hundred years, but decent records go back perhaps 30 years.  Today we are just beginning to obtain data on the atmosphere away from the surface and the sea away from the shore and below the surface.  We probe ancient trees and ice for hints of past climate, but this is tough work.

Still, we should be able to measure what changes are occurring.  There is good evidence that the earth has been warming for some 10,000 years.  We might guess that the warming continues and that the Florida peninsula, for instance, will again sink beneath the waves only to reappear and expand to the Bahamas as it repeatedly has done in the past.  Yet, it is hard to confirm any long-term trend when short-term (decade, century, and millennia) change (noise) is so significant. 

We see that many glaciers, at least those in the Northern Hemisphere, seem to continue to contract.  Weather records have shown an increase in average temperature over recent decades.  It would be useful to know if the trend will continue.  Perhaps we would decide to invest in the Piedmont of Georgia and wait for the seashore to come to us!

But, while it is easy and correct to say that the atmosphere seems to be warming, it is difficult to say how much and for how long.  And, we don’t know why.  It was observed almost a century ago that human activity increases the temperature.  A half century ago I learned through personal experience that the temperature at the airport was always a few degrees less than that downtown.  With almost seven billion people on the planet keeping a fire in their houses, we are certainly heating the atmosphere.  Exactly how much is a difficult question, and unless we are willing to put out these fires for a few years, one that is impossible to answer.  Meanwhile, since most of our best weather data comes from urban areas where the most heat is generated, our database is somewhat flawed if we want to gauge “global” temperature changes.

Still, we might guess that the human influence is minor and that more cosmic forces should overwhelm the bit of heat we coax from wood, coal, oil, and nuclear energy to cook, stay warm, move about, and communicate.  We may also be able to estimate the calories produced by our activity and gauge its significance.  The bigger problem is that weather is so dynamic and variable because the atmosphere is composed of so highly flexible and compressible a fluid as air.  To determine climate change means that we have to measure carefully something as slippery as air over a long time, and that is tough.  More of a problem is that knowing the climate is changing, but not really knowing why means we cannot know if any observed change is caused by “natural” or human influence. 

Global Warming Idea

The current “theory of global warming” argues that the recent temperatures observed are so high as to exceed the natural and are the result variously of carbon dioxide and/or other “greenhouse gases.”  The problem is that the data is scarcely good enough to be convincing, and the causation theory cannot be rationally tested, especially when it keeps changing.

Sadly, much of the “acceptance” of the theory seems to result from a problem of human perception.  We consider weather to be normal if it is what we are used to, and we are used to the weather we have recently experienced.  So, if it has been in the 80’s, the weatherman will say it is becoming cold when it drops to the 60’s; or if it has been in the 60’s he will say it is becoming cold when it drops to the naughts.  One might think that this is done only for conversation, but it is not. 

A few years ago there was an unusual flurry of hurricanes.  Sadly this too came into the discussion of global warming, and the savants predicted more and more hurricanes.  I predicted that the National Hurricane Center (NHC) would be distracted and overestimate the number of hurricanes over the next few years.  It did so, almost laughably.  The Farmer’s Almanac would definitely have provided a better forecast of hurricanes over those years.  Even last year, the lower predicted number dropped again and again as each month went by with few storms.  I suspect that the NHC would provide a better season forecast by simply stating the average number of hurricanes over the historical record than by running their long-term models, even if they could keep out the influence of recent experience and the shouts of the fear-mongers. 

So, when we observe a change in the weather, we find it unusual and want an explanation for it.  The climatologist should know that climate change is routine and must use caution in interpreting the basis for any change or even the conclusion that there is a change.  Still, isn’t everyone subject to peer pressure?  In this, I believe most climatologists have failed the public, but most of the climate change brouhaha has come not from climatologists.  The wise climatologist may simply keep their mouth shut to avoid stating the obvious, “I’m clueless.” 

Another problem is that when science collects data, scientists want to explain it.  Sometimes they do a very bad job of that.  Recent examples are “acid rain” and the “ozone hole” corroding the earth.  In the case of carbon dioxide and global warming, the advocates want to argue that the science is decided and there is no question.  Thus science is irrelevant to the issue.  

In fact, science discovered almost a century ago that the level of carbon dioxide was increasing.  At the time it was suggested that the increase was associated with the burning of fossil fuels (then coal.)  It was also suggested that since carbon dioxide absorbs some infrared radiation that it could and was contributing to global warming observed at the time.  Some suggested that the (English) government should control it.  Later, looking a bit closer, scientists noticed that the absorbance spectrum of carbon dioxide closely resembled that of dihydrogen oxide (water) and that the atmosphere was full of this greenhouse gas.  Therefore, the change in absorbance associated with the slight increase in carbon dioxide (it makes up only about 0.04% of the atmosphere) would have little impact on the heat in the atmosphere.  Besides, they noted, the climate is now cooling.  Lately the climate seems to be warming again (although this decade may end up cooling) and so some climatologists are again warming to the theory.  Still, the hypothesis that carbon dioxide is contributing to warming is difficult to prove or disprove. 

The Frustration

Proof does not seem to matter.  The argument for global warming is long and tedious, so it is mostly ignored.  It is also plastic and evolving.  The last new climatology text I examined presented the arguments with considerable skepticism.  I didn’t buy the book, so for this commentary I use a modern approach and go to Wikipedia.  There, a rather dismal thirteen page discussion broadly states “the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concludes that most of the observed temperature increase . . . was caused by . . . greenhouse gases caused by human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation.”  Clearly this is not a scientific presentation. 

Does the article on evolution state that the Intergovernmental Panel on Biology concludes that the diversity of animals is caused by natural selection?  I doubt it.  Rather it should reflect on the fossil record, the observed causes of the changes in life today, the theories presented that organisms evolve and how, and the success of Darwin’s theory of organic change in explaining the changes in the fossil record and the development of resistance to antibiotics.  I suspect it does.  The acceptance by most biologists reflects the simple fact that the theory explains most of the evidence observed.  There are other theories, group selection and molecular selection for instance, that have yet to be proven but may well explain some evolution and the questioning goes on.

The global warming article discusses the apparent increase in temperature over the past century, but seems to focus on the last few decades, which were unusually warm.  The essay mentions a few confounding factors but then turns to a trend in satellite data as a clincher as if this very recent data base could be of any value in the study of long-term trends.  My reaction is, interesting, but so what? 

Then, the discussion turns to external forcing.  Here the science becomes very sketchy.  Greenhouse gases, in particular carbon dioxide, are discussed at length, but then, curiously, comes a statement by James Hanson, one of the leading advocates of global warming, saying, “Net warming has been driven mainly by non-carbon dioxide greenhouse gases.”  Would someone please tell that to all the people who want to tax heating fuel beyond our means so as to avoid producing more carbon dioxide!

The article does not tackle the basic problem with the carbon dioxide forcing theory, showing why we should conclude that it indeed increases the heat in the atmosphere.  Nor does it suggest how we can segregate its effect from that from water.  Even a discussion without evidence would be helpful.  Data, of course, would be . . . scientific. 

Instead, we are offered the galactic model of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as proof of warming.  This model is so large and complex that I can’t run it on my computer to even judge its parameters let alone its assumptions, but I bet it assumes an increase in carbon dioxide will increase the global temperature.  So, the model is really unnecessary.  All you need is faith.  That is not science. 

If one fails to provide the science but puts forth thousands of pages of discussion and a gigantic model, I begin looking at who is making the argument.  John, I believe, raised a concern about lobbyists.  My view is that a good lobbyist will give facts.  If somebody else’s lobbyist can’t raise a problem with the facts, the first lobbyist may be legitimately promoting the public good.  If all they give is a glorious model or a glossy brochure (or a flashy movie), you should look to another lobbyist for meaningful information.

In this case I look to see for whom the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change works for.  It is the United Nations.  Hmm?  The United Dictators of the World organization?  The Let’s Transfer Wealth from the Rich World to the Third World organization?  Should we not be suspicious?  Is this science or just politics? 

I don’t know.  I know that climate always has and probably always will change. Perhaps it will change somewhat differently because of man, or at least until we burn out all the fossil fuels.  In either case, we had better get used to it unless you know some way to make some seven billion people do anything – such as stop going to war.  Perhaps warming will save us from an ice age.  That would be a good thing. 

Please don’t argue global warming will hurt the planet or cause extinctions.  The planet is naturally unsustainable, but its fauna has survived for some one billion years in spite of enormous changes in the climate.  That is a wonderful and amazing story.  Life even survived, but not without enormous trauma, the poisoning of the atmosphere with oxygen.  Now oxygen makes up 21% of the atmosphere and we primates will die if it drops to even 18%.   We don’t know how the current concentration is maintained.  Shouldn’t we be scared?  I’m not, but certainly curious.

Please don’t argue that we should spend trillions or even billions of dollars to prevent climate change.  I can show you much better uses for that kind of money for real and not hypothetical problems. 

We should be too wise to fall for Chicken Little even though someday the sky will fall.  We have to get on with somehow supporting our seven billion people without struggling with “maybe problems.”  I would be the first to say we are nuts to keep growing our population, and that we are likely to suffer some awful calamity that will kill billions probably in the next century.  But, I haven’t a clue what it will be. It will be obvious when it happens.  Until then, I urge us to try to enjoy a good life. 

Please don’t bore me or tax me with global warming.  It is the least of my worries, except when it is an excuse to do great harm.  Even if it is all true, in my mind it is not a significant environmental problem.  We have many others, malaria to name just one, that significantly impact us every day. 

Although I am no optimist with regard to expanding population, it is only fair to note that no naturalist one hundred years ago would have thought it possible that the earth could support the current population.  Yet, here we are.  Thank God for the green revolution.

My hunch is that global warming is the biggest scientific fraud ever, topping even eugenics and communist genetics.  Both these wonders had some truth, but their ridiculous conclusions were accepted by much of the public and many national governments.  The ideas sold because people were inclined to accept them.

On a visit to Glacier National Park I was flabbergasted when, on my commenting to a young ranger that I failed in finding a white-tailed ptarmigan, she replied that it was probably another consequence of global warming.  I thought to tell her that the species was common but very difficult to see in the park.  I didn’t bother.  Of course global warming was the problem.  It has become the explanation du jour for every woe on earth.  This is appealing to some who delight in blaming problems on the “rich nations” which burn fossil fuels and to encourage them feel guilty and pay the piper.  The problem also has appeal to governments that can use it as an excuse for new taxes.

My mind can certainly be changed with regard to global warming.  Someone of repute might develop a competent argument for it and rationally discuss both the basis for the conclusion that the temperature changes are significant and that carbon dioxide or whatever greenhouse gases are really responsible.  The proponent should carefully address the problems with the theory and how the evidence for it is convincing.  Why has such a thesis not been presented or debated?  I dare say because it would be inconvenient. 

Meanwhile, I cringe when global warming is blamed for every problem under the sun, and I become frightened when kooks suggest blowing dust into space to reduce the ambient solar radiation.  Such experiments pose more risk of putting the planet into a deep freeze than carbon dioxide does of putting us into the oven.  I suggest we pause for at least a few decades and see if we can’t better understand climate and then, hopefully, make more rational decisions regarding trying to “manage” it.   

In the meantime I hope for a cooling trend to cool public opinion towards global warming.  I’m convinced the Copenhagen Conference failed because it was scheduled in the autumn, and because politicians are beginning to realize how much it will cost to stop burning oil, gas, and coal.  Yes, some people believe we would be happier shivering in a dark cave, but most constituents want to have a bit more warmth, light, and mobility.  So, on this awful night when the temperature is 10 degrees F. and a gale shakes the trees, I think, good, this may save us from becoming impoverished by taxes to save the planet.