Posted on 01/22/2007 1:37:15 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Scientists long have issued the warnings: The modern world's appetite for cars, air conditioning and cheap, fossil-fuel energy spews billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, unnaturally warming the world.
Yet, it took the dramatic images of a hurricane overtaking New Orleans and searing heat last summer to finally trigger widespread public concern on the issue of global warming.
Climate scientists might be expected to bask in the spotlight after their decades of toil. The general public now cares about greenhouse gases, and with a new Democratic-led Congress, federal action on climate change may be at hand.
Problem is, global warming may not have caused Hurricane Katrina, and last summer's heat waves were equaled and, in many cases, surpassed by heat in the 1930s.
In their efforts to capture the public's attention, then, have climate scientists oversold global warming? It's probably not a majority view, but a few climate scientists are beginning to question whether some dire predictions push the science too far.
"Some of us are wondering if we have created a monster," says Kevin Vranes, a climate scientist at the University of Colorado.
Vranes, who is not considered a global warming skeptic by his peers, came to this conclusion after attending an American Geophysical Union meeting last month. Vranes says he detected "tension" among scientists, notably because projections of the future climate carry uncertainties — a point that hasn't been fully communicated to the public.
The science of climate change often is expressed publicly in unambiguous terms.
For example, last summer, Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences, told the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce: "I think we understand the mechanisms of CO2 and climate better than we do of what causes lung cancer. ... In fact, it is fair to say that global warming may be the most carefully and fully studied scientific topic in human history."
Vranes says, "When I hear things like that, I go crazy."
Nearly all climate scientists believe the Earth is warming and that human activity, by increasing the level of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, has contributed significantly to the warming.
But within the broad consensus are myriad questions about the details. How much of the recent warming has been caused by humans? Is the upswing in Atlantic hurricane activity due to global warming or natural variability? Are Antarctica's ice sheets at risk for melting in the near future?
To the public and policymakers, these details matter. It's one thing to worry about summer temperatures becoming a few degrees warmer.
It's quite another if ice melting from Greenland and Antarctica raises the sea level by 3 feet in the next century, enough to cover much of Galveston Island at high tide.
Models aren't infallible
Scientists have substantial evidence to support the view that humans are warming the planet — as carbon dioxide levels rise, glaciers melt and global temperatures rise. Yet, for predicting the future climate, scientists must rely upon sophisticated — but not perfect — computer models.
"The public generally underappreciates that climate models are not meant for reducing our uncertainty about future climate, which they really cannot, but rather they are for increasing our confidence that we understand the climate system in general," says Michael Bauer, a climate modeler at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in New York.
Gerald North, professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University, dismisses the notion of widespread tension among climate scientists on the course of the public debate. But he acknowledges that considerable uncertainty exists with key events such as the melting of Antarctica, which contains enough ice to raise sea levels by 200 feet.
"We honestly don't know that much about the big ice sheets," North says. "We don't have great equations that cover glacial movements. But let's say there's just a 10 percent chance of significant melting in the next century. That would be catastrophic, and it's worth protecting ourselves from that risk."
Much of the public debate, however, has dealt in absolutes. The poster for Al Gore's global warming movie, An Inconvenient Truth, depicts a hurricane blowing out of a smokestack. Katrina's devastation is a major theme in the film.
Judith Curry, an atmospheric scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology, has published several research papers arguing that a link between a warmer climate and hurricane activity exists, but she admits uncertainty remains.
Like North, Curry says she doubts there is undue tension among climate scientists but says Vranes could be sensing a scientific community reaction to some of the more alarmist claims in the public debate.
For years, Curry says, the public debate on climate change has been dominated by skeptics, such as Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and strong advocates such as NASA's James Hansen, who calls global warming a ticking "time bomb" and talks about the potential inundation of all global coastlines within a few centuries.
That may be changing, Curry says. As the public has become more aware of global warming, more scientists have been brought into the debate. These scientists are closer to Hansen's side, she says, but reflect a more moderate view.
"I think the rank-and-file are becoming more outspoken, and you're hearing a broader spectrum of ideas," Curry says.
Young and old tension
Other climate scientists, however, say there may be some tension as described by Vranes. One of them, Jeffrey Shaman, an assistant professor of atmospheric sciences at Oregon State University, says that unease exists primarily between younger researchers and older, more established scientists.
Shaman says some junior scientists may feel uncomfortable when they see older scientists making claims about the future climate, but he's not sure how widespread that sentiment may be. This kind of tension always has existed in academia, he adds, a system in which senior scientists hold some sway over the grants and research interests of graduate students and junior faculty members.
The question, he says, is whether it's any worse in climate science.
And if it is worse? Would junior scientists feel compelled to mute their findings, out of concern for their careers, if the research contradicts the climate change consensus?
"I can understand how a scientist without tenure can feel the community pressures," says environmental scientist Roger Pielke Jr., a colleague of Vranes' at the University of Colorado.
Pielke says he has felt pressure from his peers: A prominent scientist angrily accused him of being a skeptic, and a scientific journal editor asked him to "dampen" the message of a peer-reviewed paper to derail skeptics and business interests.
"The case for action on climate science, both for energy policy and adaptation, is overwhelming," Pielke says. "But if we oversell the science, our credibility is at stake."
"most carefully studied..." What a crock,in the 1970's when I graduated high school the big thing was the coming ICE AGE.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Wonder if the sun has anything to do with it. /sarc
L
How about they bask in their predictions of the coming Ice Age a short two decades ago?
So this BOZO must think that Antartica has something like 5000 thousand feet of ice, sitting ABOVE current sea level...
"Man has polluted the air and the seas. The result is dirtier air and dirtier water. But the real changes are planetary in nature. Sun cycles are responsible for everything going on today. Global warming is only a measurable result of geomagnetic changes. Earth changes are really solar system wide. Even Mars is heating up. The Gulf Stream that warms the Atlantic reversed its normal course for three months in 2006. Result: Europe was ripped by terrible winter storms. Everything is changing on the planet. Not just the weather."
The guest was talking about the magnetic poles of the earth flipping. Deadline is 2010 - 2012. Just more incredible bovine squat from Coast2Coast? You decide.
I'm tired of making rational arguments to an irrational world that believes a building better SUV is the answer to OPEC.
Antarctica has an average altitude of 14,000 feet (6,000 feet of rock and 8,000 feet of ice/snow),
For millions of years, the earth has gone through periods of global warming and global cooling. Just 16,000 years ago, all of what is now Canada and most of what is now the Midwestern United States was covered by glaciers. These vast ice sheets have been retreating for the last 16,000 years due to global warming. Reversing the warming trend of the last 16,000 years has become a religion to those dumb enough to think that they can actually do it.
*BUMP*!
To the public and policymakers, these details matter.
Since when? Details get in the way of political ambition.
I have a hard time buying this figure from PBS.
Regards, Ivan
Understatement of the year award.
| Elevation | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Average elevation: | 2,300 m | 7,546 ft | 1.4 miles |
| Highest point of ice cap: | 4,100 m | 13,451 ft | 2.5 miles |
| Mt Vinson Massif | 4,897 m | 16,066 ft | 3.0 miles |
Antarctica is the coldest, windiest, harshest continent, and with little precipitation (roughly 2in per year) is the driest place on earth. It is roughly 14 million sq km (5.4 million sq mi), has an average elevation of more than 2,000 m (6,500 ft), and 98% of the landmass is covered by an ice sheet estimated to be 29 million cu km (7 million cu mi).
Highest: Average elevation 8200 feet (2500 meters).
Almost all of Antarctica is under ice, in some areas by as much as 2 mi (3 km). The ice has an average thickness of about 6,600 ft (2,000 m), which is higher than many mountains in warmer countries. This grand accumulation of ice makes Antarctica the highest continent on Earth, with an average elevation of 7,500 ft (2,286 m).
While the ice is extremely high in elevation, the actual landmass of the continent is, in most places, well below sea level due to the weight of the ice. If all of this ice were to melt, global sea levels would rise by about 200 ft (65 m), flooding the world's major coastal ports and vast areas of low-lying land. Even if only one-tenth of Antarctica's ice were to slide into the sea, sea levels would rise by 20 ft (6 m), severely damaging the world's coastlines.
...if only one-tenth of Antarctica's ice were to slide into the sea, sea levels would rise by 20 ft (6 m), severely damaging the world's coastlines.
That 20 ft. rise is bogus.
At the moment, the mass of the ice in Antarctica is pushing down the earth's surface. If it melts into water that goes to Miami, then Antarctica will rise, and the seabed off Miami will go down. Seems that sea level computer models are coming out as silly as everyone's climate models.
So were they lying then or are they lying now?
Wrong. The stated "evidence" indicates that the planet may be warming---but it in no way establishes a causation connection between said warming and carbon dioxide.
And in point of actual fact, the highest temperatures in the current interglacial are not as warm as those in the previous one, and are not yet as high as those reached just before the "Little Ice Age"--a period well within historical times.
Aye, that's the ticket, laddie!"
James Doohan, "Scotty" on Star Trek.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.