February 2011 was the third snowiest month in Detroit weather history. We all know what that means: global warming, your Grandma's blue hair.
To be sure, there's probably some pseudo-scientific explanation which will attempt to explain the fact away. Pop science is not a force which does not give up easily on its far out presumptions. This is, we might be assured, an anomaly. Global warming is really, truly happening.
Tell that your heat bill.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
This post raises two interesting questions.
1. What is meant by global warming?
2. How do we recognize pseudo-science?
My understanding is that when we speak of “global warming” what is meant is an increase in the global aggregate temperature on a year to year basis. As such to point to one particular place in the world at one particular time and say that the weather exhibited there refutes the notion that there is a discernable trend in the aggregate temperature over time for the planet is a profound misuse of language. This holds true regardless of the truth of the notion that there is a measurable trend in the planets temperature.
Related is the large question of how such a thing is measured. Trends which are smaller than year to year variability become discernable over the longer periods of time. Climatologists, meteorologists, and atmospheric physicists look to time periods measured in decades when looking at changes in global and regional climate. This is a subject which has many aspects to it. While studying physics when presented with any thing which was being measured, that I found in some way difficult to understand, I have always found it useful to find an answer to the question, “how is it measured?” The related questions would often become more tractable after gaining an understanding of how measurements were accomplished.
The subject of how air surface temperatures on land and at sea are measured, as well as the history of climatology is covered in depth by Specer Weart at the website of the American Institute of Physics. If you are able to read this work you may find that your judgment regarding the status of statements regarding the climate may alter.
A last point which I feel is worth considering is that there is a world of difference between the statements of various scientists who have relevant expertise on this subject and that of people who may be misinformed. The levels of certainty expressed by any given individual should be weighed against the opinion of their peers. It is for this reason that a large number of scientific organizations have spoken corporately on this subject, to warn that humanity is measurably altering the composition of atmosphere and that in so doing we are exerting an influence on world climate. The following statement from the American Geophysical Union gives an example of the sort of language to found in these statements:
“AGU believes that no single threshold level of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere exists at which the beginning of dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system can be defined. Some impacts have already occurred, and for increasing concentrations there will be increasing impacts. The unprecedented increases in greenhouse gas concentrations, together with other human influences on climate over the past century and those anticipated for the future, constitute a real basis for concern.”
These statements are, to the best of my knowledge, unprecedented.
A short list of some of the organizations which have issued statements include but are not limited to:
1. U.S. National Academy of Science
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science
3. American Chemical Society
4. American Institute of Physics
5. American Physical Society
6. American Geophysical Union
7. Geological Society of America
8. American Meteorological Society
9. American Quaternary Association
10. The Australian Institute of Physics
11. International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
12. Network of African Science Academies
13. European Academy of Sciences and Art
14. Royal Society of New Zealand
15. Royal Society of the United Kingdom
16. National Research Council (US)
17. European Geosciences Union
18. International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
The number of prestigious scientific organizations that have issued statements that hold with the notion that humanity is engaged in a dangerous experiment is so numerous that it becomes tedious to list them all. It should also be recognized that surveys of scientists with relevant knowledge reveals the same picture. The majority of these scientists recognizes the phenomena and is concerned.
In this context to be dismissive of the possibility that the opinion may have merit does not seem the action of a reasonable man.
I'm not saying that human action will not affect the environment; of course it is subject to that. But what often gets ignored is the resiliency of nature in the process. Further, listing organizations which assert a mere presumption to be true does not make it so, especially with organizations which have a vested interest in the assumption being valid: those groups which exist and get funding only if they produce scary findings. I can produce a similar list of more conservative groups and call it even.
Read Michael Crichton's State of Fear. It offers the most concise and damning criticism of the whole global warming, ah, front.
Charles,
Thank you for taking the time to respond.
I have read Mr. Crichton's book. In particular I have read the works cited and the afterword to his book which to my mind is the part of the book most relevant to discussions of the subject.
Patrick
Hi Patrick!
Well, let me thank you for taking the time and making the effort to respond in the place. At the end of the day, it's all about the discussions we have on this and other important subjects in today's world.
So long as we can keep the discussion cordial, I am open to debate whatever issues are out there. For what it's worth, I consider the question of global warming an open one and I do invite commentary.
Take care,
Marty
Post a Comment