The Flipping Point (global warming conversion of skeptic Michael Shermer)

Scientific American ^ | June 2006 | Michael Shermer

[cogitator]

The Flipping Point

How the evidence for anthropogenic global warming has converged to cause this environmental skeptic to make a cognitive flip

By Michael Shermer

In 2001 Cambridge University Press published Bjørn Lomborg's book The Skeptical Environmentalist, which I thought was a perfect debate topic for the Skeptics Society public lecture series at the California Institute of Technology. The problem was that all the top environmental organizations refused to participate. "There is no debate," one spokesperson told me. "We don't want to dignify that book," another said. One leading environmentalist warned me that my reputation would be irreparably harmed if I went through with it. So of course I did.

My experience is symptomatic of deep problems that have long plagued the environmental movement. Activists who vandalize Hummer dealerships and destroy logging equipment are criminal ecoterrorists. Environmental groups who cry doom and gloom to keep donations flowing only hurt their credibility. As an undergraduate in the 1970s, I learned (and believed) that by the 1990s overpopulation would lead to worldwide starvation and the exhaustion of key minerals, metals and oil, predictions that failed utterly. Politics polluted the science and made me an environmental skeptic.

Nevertheless, data trump politics, and a convergence of evidence from numerous sources has led me to make a cognitive switch on the subject of anthropogenic global warming. My attention was piqued on February 8 when 86 leading evangelical Christians--the last cohort I expected to get on the environmental bandwagon--issued the Evangelical Climate Initiative calling for "national legislation requiring sufficient economy-wide reductions" in carbon emissions.

Then I attended the TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) conference in Monterey, Calif., where former vice president Al Gore delivered the single finest summation of the evidence for global warming I have ever heard, based on the recent documentary film about his work in this area, An Inconvenient Truth. The striking before-and-after photographs showing the disappearance of glaciers around the world shocked me out of my doubting stance.

Four books eventually brought me to the flipping point. Archaeologist Brian Fagan's The Long Summer (Basic, 2004) explicates how civilization is the gift of a temporary period of mild climate. Geographer Jared Diamond's Collapse (Penguin Group, 2005) demonstrates how natural and human-caused environmental catastrophes led to the collapse of civilizations. Journalist Elizabeth Kolbert's Field Notes from a Catastrophe (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2006) is a page-turning account of her journeys around the world with environmental scientists who are documenting species extinction and climate change unmistakably linked to human action. And biologist Tim Flannery's The Weather Makers (Atlantic Monthly Press, 2006) reveals how he went from being a skeptical environmentalist to a believing activist as incontrovertible data linking the increase of carbon dioxide to global warming accumulated in the past decade.

It is a matter of the Goldilocks phenomenon. In the last ice age, CO2 levels were 180 parts per million (ppm)--too cold. Between the agricultural revolution and the industrial revolution, levels rose to 280 ppm--just right. Today levels are at 380 ppm and are projected to reach 450 to 550 by the end of the century--too warm. Like a kettle of water that transforms from liquid to steam when it changes from 99 to 100 degrees Celsius, the environment itself is about to make a CO2-driven flip.

According to Flannery, even if we reduce our carbon dioxide emissions by 70 percent by 2050, average global temperatures will increase between two and nine degrees by 2100. This rise could lead to the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet, which the March 24 issue of Science reports is already shrinking at a rate of 224 ±41 cubic kilometers a year, double the rate measured in 1996 (Los Angeles uses one cubic kilometer of water a year). If it and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet melt, sea levels will rise five to 10 meters, displacing half a billion inhabitants.

Because of the complexity of the problem, environmental skepticism was once tenable. No longer. It is time to flip from skepticism to activism.

[dennisw]

Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Which is around 3%

Do you have a book or website that has this damning information

[elvisabel78]

Ok so this proves that earth tilt has not been a factor in the last 1000 years, and that solar output has not been a factor in the last few decades, but was a factor before that (at least the last 1000 that we are discussing). Having said that solar output has not been consistent with the warming trend in the last few decades, and that co2 and other greenhouse gas increases have been proportional to said warming, we may conclude that greenhouse emissions have been greatly responsible for this warming, and that solar output was the main factor causing warming before this period. Two graphs illustrate these points.

[Gail Wynand]

Dittoes Ghost.

Even the career leftists at the EPA are forced to acknowledge that every aspect of the Global Warming theocracy is permeated with gross uncertainties, rendering rational policy conclusions based upon real known data, an impossibility. For example at www.epa.gov , that agency states/admits the following re Global Hot Air, I mean, Warming:

1. Global temps have increased all of an ESTIMATED 1 degree (F) over the past 100 years.

2. The heat trapping properties of greenhouse gases is undisputed, however uncertainty exits as to how/how much they influence earth’s climate. (They form less than 1% of earths atmosphere; See: no. 8 below)

3. Scientific understanding of other factors that influence climate conditions such as, natural climatic variation, variation in solar energy, and cooling effects of pollutant aerosols, remain "incomplete". [Meaning: the relative contribution of AGW, cant be measured, and therefor is only conjecture).

4. EPA cites the IPCC's core backhanded AGW assertion, which is simulateously an admission by it weak construction, that “there was a "discernible" human influence on climate; and that the observed warming “TREND” is "unlikely to be entirely natural in origin.”; the EPA concludes, “scientists THINK rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are contributing to global warming, as would be expected; but to what extent is difficult to determine at the present time.” [Translation: It's all conjecture]

5. Projecting what the exact impacts will be over the 21st century remains "VERY difficult". [Needs no translation, unless your screenname is "Cognator"]

6. Even the IPCC cautions, "Complex systems, such as the climate system, can respond in non-linear ways and produce surprises." the EPA notes on its website. [Translation: We're making excuses in advance for the massive errors in our forecasts]

7. The current state of global warming science can't always provide definitive answers to our questions. How much more warming will occur? How fast will this warming occur? And what are the potential adverse and beneficial effects? "These uncertainties" will be with us for some time, perhaps decades, acknowledges the EPA.

8. Plant respiration and the decomposition of organic matter release more than 10 times the CO2 released by human activities;

9. Estimating future emissions is difficult, because it depends on demographic, economic, technological, policy, and institutional developments. Several emissions scenarios have been developed based on differing projections of these underlying factors. For example, by 2100, in the absence of emissions control policies, carbon dioxide concentrations are projected to be 30-150% higher than today’s levels. [Note the inherent compound uncertainty underlying the 'logic' of the projections]

10. Rising global temperatures [were they to occur] ARE EXPECTED TO raise sea level, and change precipitation and other local climate conditions. Changing regional climate COULD alter forests, crop yields, and water supplies. It COULD ALSO affect human health, animals, and many types of ecosystems. Deserts MAY expand into existing rangelands, and features of some of our National Parks MAY BE permanently altered.

Most of the United States is EXPECTED to warm, ALTHOUGH sulfates may limit warming in some areas. Scientists currently are unable to determine which parts of the United States will become wetter or drier, but there is likely to be an overall trend toward increased precipitation and evaporation, more intense rainstorms, and drier soils.

"Unfortunately, many of the potentially most important impacts depend upon whether rainfall increases or decreases, which can not be reliably projected for specific areas."

Conclusion: AGW may exist. We dont know what the temperature will be next week in Milwaukee. All projections of Global Climatic Conditions a century from now, are completely speculative, based upon extrapolations of incomplete existing data, and therefor among the few outcomes we can prombably reasonably eliminate, becuase they have less likelyhood of being real than data selected by random chance, especially since, a) AGW may not exist; b)AGW may be irrelevant; and, if AGW exists and if its a relevant determinator of global climatic conditions, even then we have no way at present of accurately prediction how and how much it will ultimately interact with other factors and what results will show up in 100 years.

Like the mystics of the feudal middle ages who debated the number of angles capable of fitting on the head of a pin, while conducting inquisitions of torture and other mayhem, todays leftists, e.g. Al Gore, seek power based upon fear mongering, smear attacks and character assassination of their enemies, e.g. of the truth, and upon a ritualistic pretense of superiority over any critics or doubters.

The liberal media will probably fall all overthemselves praising his movie and its objectivity. Only a complete empty headed sucker, will actual fall for this carneval act.

[elvisabel78]

Here is another study that some of you may find interesting

Solar variation accounts for less than half of global warming in 20th Century, University of Arizona geoscientist finds

link

[Doctor Stochastic]

More like 80% for fossil fuel burning.

[Doctor Stochastic]

This is a couple of years old, but it gives a good idea of where the CO2 is produced (fires, fossil fuel, cement plants) and where it goes (plants.)

[palmer]

The time scales are a little different. The temperature records have the same characteristics found in many proxies over similar time intervals. Here's the northern hemisphere temperature anomalies from tree-ring proxies. The tree ring serves gives an idea of the average warmness (and wetness) over a growing season. ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/contributions_by_author/briffa1998/nhemtemp_data.txt Briffa was looking for cooling from volcanoes.

co2 and other greenhouse gas increases have been proportional to said warming, we may conclude that greenhouse emissions have been greatly responsible for this warming, and that solar output was the main factor causing warming before this period.

Solar variation caused the year to year and decade to decade changes in the past 600 years, but not any more? Why not? The coincidence of CO2 and rising temperatures is partly cause and effect. Warming since the little ice age has increased CO2 to some extent, but mainly man has increased CO2 above the pre-industrial equilibrium. That increase can account for about 0.6 C warming with no other factors involved. Another 1 degree C is about all CO2 is good for. Increasing CO2 about 550ppm or so will have no effect on temperature.

[dennisw]

Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Which is around 3%

Do you say this statement is accurate?

[dennisw]

LINK

Section 2: Carbon theory From carbon to hydrogen energy Previous ...

Each year 186 billion tons of CO2 enter the atmosphere. 6 billion tons come from human activity. 90 billion tons come from ocean creature activity and 90 ... library.thinkquest.org/C005858/carbon3.html - 11k - Cached - Similar pages

 

[Gail Wynand]

The composition of the Earth's atmosphere is a primary determinant of the planet's temperature, which in turn establishes the conditions and limits for all life on Earth. Without the heat-trapping properties of so-called "greenhouse gases," which make up no more than 1 or 2 percent of the Earth's atmosphere, the average surface temperature of the Earth would be similar to that of Mars: -60 degrees Fahrenheit (-16 degrees Celsius).

The main greenhouse gases are water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and halocarbons (such as CFC-11 and CFC-12). With the exception of halocarbons, most greenhouse gases occur naturally. Water vapor is by far the most common, with an atmospheric concentration of nearly 1 percent, compared with less than 0.04 percent for carbon dioxide. Concentrations of other greenhouse gases are a fraction of that for carbon dioxide

In computer-based simulation models, rising concentrations of greenhouse gases nearly always produce an increase in the average temperature of the Earth. Rising temperatures may, in turn, produce changes in weather and in the level of the oceans that might prove disruptive to current patterns of land use and human settlement, as well as to existing ecosystems. To date, it has proven difficult to detect hard evidence of actual temperature changes, in part, because normal temporal and spatial variations in temperature are far larger than the predicted change in the global average temperature. Even when temperature changes are identified, it is not possible to be certain whether they are random fluctuations that will reverse themselves or the beginning of a trend. The possible effects of rising temperatures on weather patterns are even more uncertain.

Most greenhouse gases have substantial natural sources in addition to human-made sources, and there are powerful natural mechanisms for removing them from the atmosphere.

According to the IPCC 1995 report Annual CO 2 emmissions were 160,000 MMT natural sources, 7,000 MMT human-made sources, with 163,000 MMT being naturally absorbed.

Carbon is an extremely common element on the planet, and immense quantities can be found in the atmosphere, in soils, in carbonate rocks, and dissolved in ocean water. All life on earth participates in the "carbon cycle," by which carbon dioxide (CO2) is extracted from the air by plants and decomposed into carbon and oxygen, the carbon is incorporated into plant biomass, and the oxygen is released to the atmosphere. Plant biomass, in turn, ultimately decays (oxidizes), releasing carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere, or storing organic carbon in soil or rock. There are vast exchanges of carbon dioxide between the ocean and the atmosphere, with the ocean absorbing carbon from the atmosphere and plant life in the ocean absorbing carbon from water, dying, and raining organic carbon on the sea bottom, where it is eventually incorporated into carbonate rocks such as limestone. Records from Antarctic ice cores indicate that the carbon cycle has been in a state of imbalance for the past 200 years, with emissions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere exceeding absorption. Consequently, carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have been steadily rising.

The most important natural sources of carbon dioxide are releases from the oceans (100 billion metric tons per year), aerobic decay of vegetation (30 billion metric tons), and plant and animal respiration (30 billion metric tons). Known anthropogenic sources account for 7 billion metric tons of carbon per year. The principal anthropogenic source is the combustion of fossil fuels, which accounts for about three-quarters of total anthropogenic emissions of carbon worldwide. Natural processes, known and unknown, absorb substantially all of the naturally produced carbon dioxide and some of the anthropogenic carbon dioxide, leading to an annual net increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of 3.2 to 3.6 billion metric tons.

SUMMARY: WATER is the dominant "greenhouse gas". As much as three times the level of CO2. "Greenhouse effect" is a good thing. You would all die if we didnt have it.

NATURAL SOURCES OF CO2 OUTWEIGH HUMAN SOURCES by about 23 to 1.

ONLY IN COMPUTER BASED SIMULATIONS has anyone found certainty about the inevitability of Global Warming through extrapolated estimates of human based economic activity.

REAL DATA and REAL KNOWLEDGE require the necessary disclaimer: "To date, it has proven difficult to detect hard evidence of actual temperature changes, in part, because normal temporal and spatial variations in temperature are far larger than the predicted change in the global average temperature. Even when temperature changes are identified, it is not possible to be certain whether they are random fluctuations that will reverse themselves or the beginning of a trend. The possible effects of rising temperatures on weather patterns are even more uncertain."

-United States Dept. of Energy, 1995 (Clinton-Gore)http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/95report/appd.html

[Doctor Stochastic]

I don't know where the link got their numbers. The US produces 6 billion tons alone of CO2. See post 104 supra. The Dutch have a quite different estimate. Every one of your links has the exact same wording. None give a reference. The statement may or may not be accurate. It is not reliable.

It's easy to compute how much CO2 a car puts out. Just multiply the .737 (specific gravity of gasoline) * 112/128 (amound of carbon in heptane) * 8.34 (weight of a gallon of water) * 44/12 (ration of carbom dioxide to carbon weight) wihch gives 19.72 lbs CO2 per gallon of gas. US gasoline usage is about 320,500,000 gallons per day (ultiply by 19.72 lbs and divide by 2000 to get tons.) or 3,160,000 tons per day * 355 days gives 1,153,000,000 tons per year for gasoline only. This doesn't count fuel oil, natural gas, lpg, coal, etc.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

"to reduce the economy's dependence on foreign oil is NOT absurd. I think that it's the prudent and patriotic thing to do"

This is so bogus. Why do you not think it is downright PATRIOTIC to suck every single ounce of foreign oil into our gas tanks at a measly $75/barrel? Why isn't it PATRIOTIC to deprive the Islamic nations of the Middle East of their only asset other than sand? Why isn't it PATRIOTIC to preserve ALL our own oil until we burn off everyone elses? It is PATRIOTIC and PRUDENT to do just that.

It is not Patriotic to conserve hostile government's oil. Think cogitator! That argument sounds like a DU talking point.

Why spend a trillion dollars to try to lower the temperature 1 degree? Warmer temperatures will cause Canada to flourish and will give me a second shot at a beachfront home. I hope you are right about rising temperatures.

ampu

[Doctor Stochastic]

With a bit more research, whe can show by direct calculation that the 6 out of 186 to be vastly incorrect. The error is large enough to bring into question the integrity of the sites that carry that number.

We can do coal to CO2 amounts for 1998 in the US, Production 1,118,700,000 tons coal (pure carbom) so multiply by 44/12 gives 4,101,900,000 tons CO2 from US coal burning alone. China does more. Together with the 1 billion from the gasoline this is up to 9-10 billion from the US and Chinese coal alone.

The 6 out of 186 is incorrect by direct calculation. There is no excuse for posting numbers likd 6 out of 186 when a simple computation shows it to be badly wrong (not you, but the guys who maintain those websites.)

On further reading, one finds that world coal consumption was about 5.1 billion tons. (Multiply by 44/12) and we get 18.7 billion tons CO2 from coal alone (not counting gas, wood, gasoline, oil, lpg, etc.) in 1998. Unlikely that CO2 production has gone down.

[Steve Van Doorn]

This is where I read it:

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html#anchor2108263

[Steve Van Doorn]

"But human contribution to the greenhouse effect is about 1/10 of 3%, rounding error. If we stopped burning fuel tomorrow, there would be no effect on the climate cycle."

yes I agree with you that the effects would be meaningless. I am not sure exactly how much change in CO2 we would have on the tiny amount of CO2 we contribute to the atmosphere.

What these Global alarmist really want is for us to all die(stop breathing.)

[Steve Van Doorn]

"We can do coal to CO2 amounts for 1998 in the US, Production 1,118,700,000 tons coal (pure carbom) so multiply by 44/12 gives 4,101,900,000 tons CO2 from US coal burning alone."

Eee gads. I see where global alarmist come from. Dude run those numbers again. sheesh.

[Steve Van Doorn]

"Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Which is around 3%

Do you say this statement is accurate?

Well, it was Al Gore that gave us those numbers.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Others ought to check my references an re-run the numbers. Carbon production isn't a secret. It's not necessary to surrender the scientific ground to Al Gore; it is useful to compute from the raw data and not quote alarmist or anti-alarmist web sites.

It's not so easy to determine how much CO2 is removed from the system each year though.

[Dominic Harr]

The reason you don't get it is that the majority of climate fluctuations throughout paleohistory are linked to CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

:-D

Anyone who is skeptical "don't get it", eh?

You have *got* to stop ignoring what I say and simply repeating over and over again, "It's true -- Co2 and temp are linked". Slow down, listen to my points, and respond to them, one by one. That will be a 'conversation', a 'debate'. Then, I'll respond to your points. And we'll both learn a few things, and maybe both our minds will be better for it.

• No, not "the majority" -- some of the past climate fluctuations seem to have some correlation to Co2 changes. Not even the majority.

  The first point you need to respond to is, Why do you act so certain when the scientists in the article are so uncertain?"

  It's funny how, when I read your articles, the scientists are being so careful pointing out that there are still flaws in the research. But when you political advocates argue, it's all solid!

  You said, "No matter how hard you want to believe it's not, the scientific understanding is well-established."

  In the articles you quoted above, they said, "there are huge uncertainties in almost every aspect of this study" and "Combining their estimates with standard climate model assumptions".

  You claim to know more than the scientists.

• The second point you need to address is, "'Correlation' does not show 'causation'.

  It could be that some past episodes of global warming caused higher Co2 levels, and not the other way around. One interesting theory I've read has to do with periods of high volcanic activity. Your side claimed that Co2 in the atmosphere from the volcanoes causes the temp increase. But it could also have to do with the temp of all that violent volcanic activity, and the Co2 is just a side-effect. You guys just don't have evidence of causation. Is higher Co2 in the past a 'cause' or an 'effect'? You just don't know.

  Much like that famous study that more people die of certain types of cancers in Arizona than anywhere else. Does that mean Arizona causes cancer? In fact, analysis showed that more old folks moved to Arizona for the climate, and they were the ones dying of cancer. So the indicator was just a result, not a cause.

• The third, and most damaging, point you have to address is, "When compared to past global temp changes, the current temp changes are not in any way unusual."

  You haven't even shown that anything out of the ordinary is going on here. Less than 1 degree in 100+ years??? If you consider context, the history of temp changes, that's not even a blip on the graph. And we don't even know that it is that much, since we do not have reliable temp readings accurate to that degree for that time period.

So what's it gonna be -- you going to 'discuss and debate' this, or are you just going to keep repeating your talking points over, and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again?

Oh, and then you insult the folks on the other side who just are not as "enlightened" as you and who just "don't get it".

Good luck with that. It will work on many people, just look at the 'breast implant' fiasco. But it isn't going to sway me. Discuss it with me, person to person, on the facts and evidence, point by point.

That *is* what boards like this are for, after all.

[Dominic Harr]

Nice chart in #278. I'll take todays garden over the icebox 18,000 years ago any ole day.

Hi,

To me, the first hurdle these folks have to clear is, "prove something unusual is happening".

Those charts seem to pretty clearly suggest that this is nothing unusual for the Earth at all. There have been many times when the global temp swung 5+ degrees C in as little as a hundred years. So this concept that a .6 degree swing in the last 150 or so years is signs of a global catastrophe . . . I'm just not sold, let me say that.