Thoughts on Global Warming

Typically, the DCV will avoid issues political & religious ... generally you're only going to irritate people. However, at the AMS conference, I attended several interesting presentations on climate change (though, probably only 10% of what was offered). Here's what I gathered based on the data/summaries:

1. Global mean temperatures are increasing at a rate that is w/in the bounds of uncertainty of the climate model predictions.

2. While the number of global tropical systems is very consistent over the past 40 years (basically the full satellite record), hurricane intensity is up over the last 20 years. This increase in intensity correlates very well w/ increases in sea surface temperatures. This is also consistent w/ climate model predictions.

3. Stratospheric temperatures are rapidly cooling. This is consistent w/ surface warming (more trapping of radiation). The stratospheric cooling exceeds that which has been predicted by climate models. Further, this long-term cooling effect is not due to volcanoes, which tend to have effects on the order of 1-2 years.

4. Snow cover in the U.S. is trending downward, except in the lee of the Great Lakes. (Lakes that don't freeze over will have a longer lake effect season.)

5. Some models now predict the Arctic Ocean will be completely ice-free in the summer by 2050.

6. Extreme precipitation events have been increasing upward, consistent w/ the fact that a warmer atmosphere will contain more water vapor. Climate models predict this trend will continue.

Presumably, there was more that I didn't see.

Some additional thoughts on the subject. The Weather Channel climate expert, Dr. Heidi Cullen made a blog comment to the effect that the AMS should refuse to certify meteorologists who don't accept global climate change just as the Society wouldn't accept anyone who didn't accept the idea that Atlantic hurricanes rotate cyclonically (counter-clockwise). I think this is an inappropriate stance, as I don't think you ever want to discourage healthy scientific debate. The response from the rabid anti-warmers has been instructive. If this group is a true sample, the main objections to the global climate change arguments are the following:

1. Al Gore won't debate anyone about climate change & Heidi Cullen is a idiot.

2. Scientists are promoting global climate change solely to earn grant money.

3. Global climate change supporters are left-wing socialists who want to take your car away.

4. We were once in an ice age. We've been warming ever since.

5. Sunspots occur in cycles. Plus, there's volcanoes. And ice sheets are growing in Antartica.

6. It's cold out right now where I'm at. (Um, it's January 20th, you're going to get some cold.)

If you weigh the two lists of six against each other, even accounting for the bias of the compiler, there seems to be more hard evidence on one side than the other. Something that is very exciting to me though was this week's "Urgent Call to Action" by the National Association of Evangelicals which wrote to President Bush the following:

1. Human-induced climate change is real. (based on the IPCC report primarily)

2. Climate change consequences will be significant & hit the poor the hardest.

3. Christian moral convictions require a response to climate change.

4. The need to act is urgent and we all have a role to play.

This was signed by a Who's Who of evangelical leaders: Bill Hybels, Rick Warren, Duane Litfin (President of Wheaton College), Robert Yarbrough (Chair of NT Studies, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School), etc. Amen.

Anyway, I think the anti-global climate changers need to understand three things. It's just my opinion.

1. Nobody's blaming anyone for this. At least I'm not & nobody should be. For me this is like abortion ... the past is the past. It can't be undone. But let's make the future better. We are all complicit.

2. Scientists have been wrong in the past. Logically, this allows the possibility that the science is wrong here as well. It is, of course, illogical to assume that because theories have been disproven in the past that this one will be as well.

3. The initial steps to solve this problem will be relatively painless & will almost certainly have large benefits. This seems to be the irrefutable law of "low hanging fruit". There are steps that can be taken now (energy efficiency, hybrid cars, more sensible fuels) that will reduce the manmade influence that will not cost any more than getting lead out of gasoline, or eradicating severe acid rain, or lowering smog levels by 20% over the past 20 years.

Here's a bonus 4th observation ... just because the conservatives, right-wing, Republicans were wrong on this one ... doesn't mean they're/you're/we're wrong on any other particular issue. This never should have been a partisan/philosophical debate, at least in the terms it has degenerated into. At some point though, the stonewall response reflects an unflattering image.

Pat D. (standing in for Dolberry)