RFI (request for info) #1
Not being a science guy, my reaction to science reporting in the news is to take my initial, knee-jerk reaction as the appropriate one: Trust your instincts, the media is just trying to sell you a bill of goods.
Take global warming, for example. What is it? That depends on who is delivering the communication. How can global warming be both the reason for the earth getting warmer, and for the “cold cycles” that existed in the 1970s? (Remember when we were going to have the new ice age?)
I may do this on occasion when I am specifically looking for more info than my narrow scope has either time or resources to access, so bear with me. Business approach is much easier for me to understand. Here is my first RFI:
Forsaking media tag lines and definitions, political spin, and emotion:
- What are the litany of topics comprised under the umbrella of “global warming”? (i.e. the scope)
- Why are they seen as legitimate topics, and do they have merit outside of the politicking on global warming? (the purpose)
- What are the viable scientific arguments against them, even if you don’t believe them personally? (remote similarity to cost/benefit)
- What is the longetivity cycle on each study? Ten, twenty, thirty years? One hundred years? (validation)
- What assumptions have been made in each study and/or topic? Have they been validated or assigned probabilities? (assumptions verification, risk analysis)
- What are the probabilities of the outcomes in the “widely accepted” models? (risk analysis)
- What is stopping us from knowing and communicating more? (constraints)
- (Added 2/5) What is the relative priority in terms of time and resources spent vs. other issues that may or should consume our government’s time? (opportunity cost)
Speaking in science terms exclusively may only confuse me; however, using science terms to supplement a layman’s explanation helps.
Thank you.
February 5th, 2007 20:10
Hi Rick,
Just want to chime in and say I’d like the same set of info. I have a strong belief that the phenomenon IS real and recently has been generally accepted as having a strong human component, but beyond that I can’t point to coherent statement of the arguments in support of that beleif. A specific question of interest to me is the cost benefit of really working to halt or even slow the process. Is this something that we should live with and adapt to or really fight?
-Grant
February 5th, 2007 21:20
Grant, considering that we don’t know all the ramifications and consequences of global warming, it seems sensible to do what we can to err on the side of caution.
Also, if we start taking various actions to counter global warming now, climatologists say, the remedial effects won’t be manifest for decades. That makes me think we had better get on with it.
February 5th, 2007 21:24
Rick, I have a nit to pick. Please indulge me and take it as constructive, not a slam.
The word “media” is plural (”…the media are just trying…” is correct). I know, you won’t always see it used properly. But using the word properly adds a classy touch to an otherwise well-written post.
February 5th, 2007 22:23
Oh, no! I’ve added to my list of grammar correction specialists!
Thanks for the correction, S.W. I make that mistake often.
Per your comments to Grant, I know your concern is sincere, but I tend to believe you would not take the same approach to defending the country. That would mean executing pre-emptive strikes without having objective, supporting data. (Yeah, I know, that sounds like a great post topic.)
Potential problems are always fodder for the political establishment. We could solve all the worlds ills, if it weren’t for time, money and resources. My belief is that some problems are more important than others, which is what I took out of Grant’s comments, too.
I am hoping that, through this post, someone can educate me objectively so that I can make my own conclusions about the priority of addressing global warming, or, at least, various components of it.
February 6th, 2007 04:02
Rick,
Let me start out by saying that my answers here represent my honest assessment of the science. I say this because want to be clear that my answers are not pushing an agenda or a political view. My responses are about as spin-free as any can be.
In short, here are the “facts”:
Globally, atmospheric and oceanic temperatures are rising significantly.
They are rising astonishingly fast (instantaneously on a geologic time scale).
We are currently the primary cause of this temperature rise.
A rapid, dramatic change in climate never bodes well for a civilization. It usually causes the civilization to collapse.
That being said, let me try to answer your questions.
1. Climatology looks at changes in weather patterns on a long-term scale. It looks at past trends in temperature, precipitation, atmospheric conditions, etc., and makes predictions based upon these trends (and lots of physics). “Global warming” is just one area of climatology, although currently it is the most significant area.
2. The study of climate trends is very important because we are intimately connected to our environment. A cold winter means higher oil prices. A dry summer in the midwest means higher grain prices. Historical studies show that more severe climate change can have more drastic consequences, including mass migration and societal collapse.
3. Short answer: there are none. Long answer: For every scientist who says the consensus model is too severe, there is one saying it is too conservative. Greenpeace will tout the guy who predicts the most dire consequences, and Exxon Mobile will tout the guy who says it is overblown. It is important to understand that both of these are outliers. If you want the summary of a consensus view, check out the U.N. FCCC report.
4. It varies. Some are short term, but there are ice core studies which span the past 650,000 years. It is the confluence of evidence from a diverse range of studies which tells us global warming is real, and that we are the cause.
5. Too numerous to list here. Let me sum it up this way: scientists try to come up with really good studies. We like the ones where the evidence is undeniable. We very rarely get those. We are also really good at tearing apart the findings of other scientists, and we are ruthless about it. In the end, the research findings we support are the ones which survive the death of a thousand cuts.
6. Predictions are made as expected ranges, not probabilities. Usually the ranges cover about 95% of expected outcomes. Currently the consensus prediction includes:
Temperature rise of 3 to 10 degrees.
A rise in sea level of 4 to 35 inches.
Increases in infectious diseases on a global scale.
Disruption of agriculture due to water stress and desertification.
7. The biggest problem is that science cannot be presented clearly in terms of sound-bites. Mainstream news does a terrible job discussing science. It hypes up findings to increase sensationalism, or pits the consensus view with a fringe view in order to push “the controversy” since that is good for ratings. Add to this the propaganda on all sides.
8. Go back an read the facts at the top of this comment. How important do YOU think it is?
Brian
February 7th, 2007 12:10
Brian,
Be patient with me…I am formulating follow-up questions based on your response. Unfortunately, time as been at a premium this week, and I haven’t thought through all my questions yet.
Thanks,
Rick
February 7th, 2007 20:04
Brian,
Here is the next round of questions/comments, in no particular order.
1. Then “global warming” should solely be looking at the temperatures of the earth, and, of course, the downstream affects of the earth’s temperature shifts. Is that correct?
2. What are the other areas of climatology that bleed into global warming, or are conveyed as relating to global warming? As I listen to the media, I want the ability to parse out what is relevant, and what is not. (In project management, we call it “scope creep”.)
3. Have these cycles been observed before, and what recorded evidence do we have of the impact?
4. I am leery of anything coming from the U.N., which has its own set of corruption issues that it refuses to deal with. Are there any other sources you can refer me to that are independent of geopolitical consortia?
5. From what you are saying, the consensus prediction extends to two standard deviations from the mean. That’s pretty much saying that any other predictions are extreme. Seriously, what scientists would tout either extreme if it is factual that the generally accepted ranges are so inclusive? In other words, what fault do they find with the prediction? (I know you mentioned poor journalism, propaganda and lobbying in your response; can you give examples of the scientists on both sides that advocate against the consensus prediction?)
6. For the consensus prediction, what is the rate of change? In other words, based on the mean, in what year would the mean be reached? And, are we talking linear, geometric, or exponential rate of increase? Are some factors more influential than others, and what are they?
7. I’m avoiding your question to #8 for the time being. I’m still looking for more knowledge.
8. What solutions are being offered by the scientific community? Do developing countries and China buy into the recommendations, considering they are/will be greater consumers and wasters of resources than we are?
9. What is the forecasted cost to combat the issues?
10. Can localized remedies be implemented to the benefit of a geographical region, or would that be a moot point?
Thanks,
Rick
February 7th, 2007 22:53
1. It actually is more complicated than just temperature. There are atmospheric pollution levels, methane percentages, etc.
2. There are other areas of research which impact climatology. For example, oceanographers look at how the ocean can hold carbon dioxide, acting as a kind of “carbon sink”, and study how that might change as carbon levels rise. Botanists look at how plant growth is affect by changes in carbon dioxide levels. All of this impacts predictions.
3. We can look at warming and cooling trends over the course of several hundred-thousand years. And we can see “anomolies” such as the little ice age in the middle ages. So we have a pretty good feel for the earth’s cycles. We have less evidence of the consequences for humans, but there are real effects. For example, there is evidence an anomalous warming trend led to the collapse of the Mayan empire. We have lots of examples in human history where shifts in climate led to mass migrations, which in turn led to increased warfare as people are forced into new territories.
4. Probably the best source for “just the facts” is a weblog called Real Climate. It is maintained by real climate scientists who are active in their field, and have set up the site to better convey current issues of climate science to the general public. They specifically avoid the political or economic implications of global warming, and try to focus purely on the science.
5. The reason some scientists can disagree with such a broad consensus is that data is being drawn from a diverse range of studies. You can’t run a single study a dozen times to find the best value like you could if you wanted the mass of an electron. Instead you run dozens of different types of studies. So one research group looks at thermometer measurements of ocean temperatures, another looks at growth rates in old-growth trees, another looks at air bubbles in ice cores. Because they are all different types of studies they yield vary differing results, and generally you think your findings are better than the other guys. This is actually very common in science. For example, in astrophysics (more my field), the consensus view is that the universe is about 14 billion years old. But there are a few who argue that it more likely only 12 billion, and others who argue it is more like 20 - 25 billion. Both extremes have good research to support their conclusions, but most studies cluster around the 14 billion range, so that is the “consensus” view.
I’m not familiar enough with the field to know the names of climate scientists holding outlying views.
6. Most trends are cast out about 100 years. The data I cited earlier is over that range, if I remember correctly. The models being conservative, I would assume they are linear or geometric. Of course some of the latest evidence is that the rate of change is accelerating, which would make it exponential. If further studies verify exponential change then the high-end predictions are right. Add to this some findings that methane is gassing out of permafrost in Siberia. Methane is even more powerful than carbon dioxide. If the trend is exponential, it is going to be very unpleasant.
The biggest unknown is what mankind will do. If countries curb carbon production, then the predictions are much lower.
7. Okay.
8. Scientific solutions would be things like alternative energy technology, or carbon sinks. There are lots of technologies which are currently being researched. The real issue is political. Do we get hard core on conservation? Do we pump money into technology R&D? Do we implement carbon taxes? I don’t know what approach China is taking.
9. That is the big political question. Personally, the long-term cost is probably zero. Partly because the cost of doing nothing is probably much higher than the cost of adapting, but also because the R&D we need to combat global warming would yield spin-off advantages and technologies which would stimulate our economy in new and powerful ways. For example, the cost of the Apollo project has resulted in medical and computer advances which have paid us back several times over.
10. Every little bit helps. But long term it is going to take a concerted effort of government, individuals and corporations.
Brian
February 8th, 2007 12:30
Brian,
Thanks for the additional info. I will likely be offline for the next week-plus, due to a combined business/vacation stint, but want to address the topic further.
I am latching onto several things so far:
1. Your comment, “if countries can curb carbon production…”. You’ve now moved into something that I can grasp conceptually and practically.
2. Your comment on methane identifies another risk that I can understand.
3. There is a decomposition of actual effort here, which I would like to investigate further. As there is decomposition of effort on the research side, there will need to be decomposition of effort on the resolution/implementation side. That is where discussion of cost, benefit, time and impact come into play on the practical and political scales.
4. I think the entire debate is being framed poorly. As you say, most of the press on this tends toward the emotional, sounding like the little boy who cried wolf. Crying wolf and doing nothing else is one thing; presenting possible solutions that show fiscal, democratic, practical benefits would likely further the progress. (Unfortunately, I think there is more benefit politically in keeping it an “issue” than in solving it. How sad is that?)
I’m not saying I am in complete agreement yet, but I am starting to look at the issue from different sides - none of them political. The more we decompose this into presentable issues and solutions (i.e. benefits & features - we all love to buy, after all), the more knowledgeable the general public will become.
Thanks,
Rick
February 21st, 2007 23:06
Rick,
You’d get answers to most of your factual questions in Tim Flannery’s book ‘The Weathermakers’. Tim is a well-respected Australian scientist who writes clearly.
You’ll enjoy knowing that he’s our Australian of the Year this year. John Howard, our conservative PM for the past 12 years, smiled as he gave the award and said that this proved that Australian of the Year was not just given to people that he agreed with. He also said that he has read Tim’s book. And we note a change in Aust Govt language and actions re climate change - toward the precautionary principle that it’s better to be safe than sorry.
Damn it! The Govt just announced a ban on incandescent light bulbs by 2010 - cos they are so energy inefficient. How is THAT for action!
A well-written science book can change the world.
February 22nd, 2007 20:36
Gillian,
Thanks for the additional reference. I may be able to revisit this topic over the next week for my next round of questions.
Rick