The Cold Truth about Global Warming

I have an article in Salon, "The cold truth about climate change: Deniers say there's no consensus about global warming. Well, there's not. There's well-tested science and real-world observations [that are much more worrisome]."

James Hansen read the first draft and wrote me back, "Very important for the public to understand this -- why has nobody articulated this already?" I don't know the answer. All I can say is that while I was writing the article, the central point dawned on me:

The more I write about global warming, the more I realize I share some things in common with the doubters and deniers who populate the blogosphere and the conservative movement. Like them, I am dubious about the process used by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to write its reports. Like them, I am skeptical of the so-called consensus on climate science as reflected in the IPCC reports. Like them, I disagree with people who say "the science is settled." But that's where the agreement ends.

The science isn't settled -- it's unsettling, and getting more so every year as the scientific community learns more about the catastrophic consequences of uncontrolled greenhouse gas emissions.

The big difference I have with the doubters is that they believe the IPCC reports seriously overstate the impact of human emissions on the climate -- whereas the actual observed climate data clearly show they dramatically understate the impact.

I point out many instances of this in the article. For instance, "The recent [Arctic] sea-ice retreat is larger than in any of the (19) IPCC [climate] models" -- and that was a Norwegian expert in 2005. Since then, the Arctic retreat has stunned scientists by accelerating, losing an area equal to Texas and California just last summer

The Salon article also discusses why I think "the scientific community, the progressive community, environmentalists and media are making a serious mistake by using the word 'consensus' to describe the shared understanding scientists have about the every-worsening impacts that human-caused greenhouse gas emissions are having on this planet." Part of the reason is that "When scientists and others say there is a consensus, many if not most people probably hear 'consensus of opinion' " whereas, as I explain, "science doesn't work by consensus of opinion. Science is in many respects the exact opposite of decision by consensus."

Another reason is that the IPCC 'consensus' clearly understates what we face from uncontrolled greenhouse gas emissions. As the article concludes:

Why are recent observations on the high side of model projections? First, as noted, most climate models used by the IPCC omit key amplifying feedbacks in the carbon cycle. Second, it was widely thought that increased human carbon dioxide emissions would be partly offset by more trees and other vegetation. But increases in droughts and wildfires -- both predicted by global warming theory -- seem to have negated that. Third, the ocean -- one of the largest sinks for carbon dioxide -- seems to be saturating decades earlier than the models had projected.

The result, as a number of studies have shown, is that the sensitivity of the world's climate to human emissions of greenhouse gases is no doubt much higher than the sensitivity used in most IPCC models. NASA's Hansen argued in a paper last year that the climate ultimately has twice the sensitivity used in IPCC models.

The bottom line is that recent observations and research makes clear the planet almost certainly faces a greater and more imminent threat than is laid out in the IPCC reports. That's why climate scientists are so desperate. That's why they keep begging for immediate action. And that's why the "consensus on global warming" is a phrase that should be forever retired from the climate debate.

The article is long, so my final paragraph was cut:

I do believe in science. And I do believe in real-world observations. Perhaps the central question of our time is whether those who don't will stop those who do from saving the planet.

I'll make the final sentence the basis of a future article.

For now, I'll try to follow my own advice and stop using the word consensus...

Comments

[Boxorox]

Joseph Romm is engaging in a word game with this article. The science, he claims, is not settled because the supposed truth of global warming is "unsettling?" He believes that the IPCC hype is an under-estamation of what will like result from climate change. What a load!

Has he stopped to realize that the four principle temperature data sets have found that the past 12 months have seen the biggest one-year change in temperatures worldwide since 1966--and that this change is a NEGATIVE? That's right, the average world temperature dropped over the past year and in a big way. Huh!

For reference (and I hate offering URLs because I know they can be tedious to follow and even to read for the average blogophile):

http://www.dailytech.com/Solar+Activity+Diminishes+Researchers+Predict+Another+Ice+Age/article10630.htm

[bipolar2]

"I do believe in science. And I do believe in real-world observations."

No, you don't. The natural sciences are not the sort of thing in which one believes or does not believe. Ditto for empirical observations. These are not "religious" entities with foundations in wishful thinking.

(What's the opposite of a "real-world" observation? An observation in a fictional-world?, in a superordinate metaphysical realm as claimed by xians with subjective assurance? There is after all only one world, nature.)

'To believe in x' is synonymous with 'to trust/have faith in'. That use of 'believe in' is already a concession to know-nothings that climatology (for example) might be faith-based. "You believe in climatology, I believe that a god governs all behind the scenes. Your discourse is on a par with mine."

While all of us rationalists are forced to accept many of the findings of science on "trust", trust is not the basis for empirical knowledge.

In practice, what does science have to say about arrogant religionists:

With respect to science vs. western bible-based monotheism, the relationship is one-sidedly asymmetrical in favor of science. Science is the arbiter of which statements about the world, empirical statements, are or are not "known" -- that is, are given the always provisional metalinguistic accolade, "is true."

Such statements are "methodologically fit" according to the relevant testing procedures within science itself. This is the meaning of "the scientific revolution" -- in whom is vested the power to certify empirical knowledge?, who shall decide what is true?, and by what criteria?

Neither "ethical fitness" as in Heraclitus and his Stoic followers, nor "theological fitness" as in Plato and his xian followers, is any longer considered a viable principle for assessing the truth of an empirical statement. (Not, of course, for 20% of the US population that claims the Sun revolves about the Earth!)

Methodologically, whenever so-called "sacred" writings make claims about the natural world, they are subject to exactly the same forces of potential refutation as any other empirical claim.

There is no "executive privilege" for god.

bipolar2
© 2008

[jvarga]

Real-world observations as opposed to in silico observations or theory-crafting, as it were.

[wldnswmmr]

Before the trolls jump in and begin arguing their Know-Nothing positions, I'd like to thank you for laying out in an organized form thoughts that had occurred to me on a random basis as I have read about the various manifestations of global warming; to wit, that in each case the observed phenomena, such as melting of sea ice or acidification of the oceans, are proceeding at paces well ahead of the "consensus," sometimes by as much as 30 years or so. While we continue to argue about whether global warming is even happening, the events themselves are going over the edge of irretrievability. You can say, at least, you did what you could.

[kingcityguru]

If true, thank goodness. Longer growing seasons, less fuel spent on heating, and less disease (to say nothing of the resources of the north being open for development).

The greatest concentration of life on earth is at the equator where it is the hottest. If I may paraphrase Warren Buffet "Warm in better than cold..."

[Waubay]

Wow - what a short-sighted opinion kingcityguru. Any variation in climate in our major crop growing areas and we will have some serious food shortages. It won't be 'longer growing seasons' it will be 'water shortages.' There aren't many(any?) places in the world that have ample water supplies and great soil for crops but are just a little too cold.

[letstakeawalk]

It's interesting that the positive effects of global warming are ignored, while equally unknown negative affects are heavily hyped in order to accomplish??? If a major porblem of global warming is the melting of the ice caps (see above chart), where will that water go? Into the ocean, first, but then into the hydrologic cycle. Meaning evaporation, condensation, and then rain. Freshwater in places where it might not have been before. More fresh water available for agriculture. And as Las Vegas has shown, even the most arid and poor soil conditions can support agriculture with adequate irrigation.
As for the tropical diseases mentioned below, most are easily preventable, or treated with modern medicine. Seeing as how the next Democrat to be President promises free health care, what should we be worried about?

[jvarga]

Try again on the tropical diseases. There is a reason they're typically referred to as "neglected tropical diseases" and I assure you its not because they're so easily treated.

If melioidosis, for example, was so easily treated and preventable, it wouldn't be a CDC category B agent.

[jvarga]

More fuel spent on air conditioning. More fuel spent dealing with increased ocean levels (people seem to take pride in living below sea level, do you somehow anticipate this going away as more people end up in that situation?). Increase in destructive invasive species.

Less disease? How do you figure. If anything disease will be worse as "tropical" diseases will migrate with the increasing tropical regions. Are you a big fan of Chagas disease? Perhaps melioidosis or leprosy? Do you even know what those are? There is a reason why you don't.

Gigantic levels of human displacement and misery warrants a "thank goodness"? That raises a fair level of disgust in me, personally.

[letstakeawalk]

Maybe we'll be able to grow grain crops in the high northern latitudes, and restart viticulture in the United Kingdom and Greenland.
The Medieval Warm Period was a boon time for agriculture...
Personally, I'm all for global warming.