I recently got into an offline spat with some global warming deniers regarding a diary I wrote over at Political Cortex. Reflecting on the diary and the spat that followed, I realized that it fit well into a series of diaries I started sometime back and posted here. The first diary was called Intelligent Deception: Religious Dogma vs. Scientific Progress and dealt mainly with the right wing attack on evolution, though other aspects of the right wing anti-science campaign were mentioned. The second installment was titled Intelligent Deception Part II: The Denial Lobby and dealt directly with the global warming deniers. This diary uses the Political Cortex piece I wrote as a jumping off point for a continuation of this series of articles.

Global warming is the biggest issue of our lifetime. And our grandchildren will hate us for ignoring it. And yet ignore it we are...or at least America in general is ignoring it. We are a society in denial and it will bite us in the ass sooner rather than later.

Most likely, it already is biting us in the ass.

Science is a very specific process of hypothesis, testing and revision of hypothesis. When a hypothesis is tested, that test has to be able to solidly DISPROVE the hypothesis. Otherwise it is not a valid scientific test. A hypothesis is something you do your best to disprove. If your careful testing is unable to disprove the hypothesis, then that hypothesis is supported by your test. As years go by and many scientists submit a given hypothesis to successive rounds of testing in an attempt to disprove it, the hypothesis gets refined and further supported until it has such robust support from so many tests that we call it a "theory." A theory is not something that is proven. Nothing in science can ever be definitively proven. A theory can merely be so thoroughly supported that further hypotheses can be built upon it with confidence and very accurate predictions can be made from it. Often years later new information comes up that requires further refining of the theory, but the basics remain intact.

Global warming is a scientific theory and it is based on observation, extrapolation from existing understanding, prediction, and judging the robustness of the theory against the validity of the predictions.

There is some major shit going down on earth right now that requires explaining. The Arctic is melting. The Antarctic ice sheet is thinning andbreaking up. Glaciers are receding at a record rate...and that is record for all of known geological history, not just recorded history. And the Siberian permafrost is thawing...becoming only seasonally frozen. The scale and rate of these changes is mindboggling. You can find a summary of the myriad signs of global warming on the Union of Concerned Scientists website.

Climate change is always going on as solar output fluctuates, orbits wobble, etc. These changes can be slow or fast, but there is no evidence as far back as they can go with ice cores for a change as rapid as what we are seeing right now on Earth. So we have an unprecedented phenomenon that requires explanation.

We know for a fact that carbon dioxide and other gasses have a greenhouse effect. That is physics and cannot honestly be disputed. However, in my interactions recently with global warming deniers, they DO deny this. Yet from planetary sciences we know that a greenhouse effect, caused primarily due to water and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, is responsible for Venus having a hotter surface temperature than Mercury, and prevents the Earth from being an ice ball. The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide is VERY well studied and VERY well established and is a basis for the study of the atmosphere of any planet. Yet this basic fact of planetary scientist, a theory that can robustly explain the atmosphere of Venus and Earth as well as other planets, is now being denied by those who are part of the Denial Lobby. Why are they questioning this very well established bit of atmospheric physics? Because if they don't, a large part of their objection to global warming has to be thrown out.

So we know from planetary sciences and physics that carbon dioxide, as well as other gasses like water vapor and methane and CFCs, are greenhouse gasses. Thus one hypothesis to explain increased global temperatures and the global melting that has resulted is that an increase in greenhouse gasses like carbon dioxide is to blame. So, to test this, scientists looked for an increase in greenhouse gasses.

And they found it. There has been a CLEAR and ACCELERATING increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere. For a while there was some uncertainty in this because two measurements disagreed. The gist of the debate was whether surface or tropospheric measurements were more accurate because these two measurements disagreed as to whether temperatures are rising. You have probably mostly seen the dramatic rise in surface temperatures. Satellite measurements had shown far less warming in the troposhere even though models suggest that the surface and troposphere should pretty much warm together. Obviously, the right wing oil whores have seized on this to claim global warming is still not known to be really happening.

Reinterpretation of the data has solved this by realizing that the interpretation of the tropospheric temperatures were inaccurate. But the Denial Lobby continues to claim that there is a discrepancy in measurements. To counter this, I will air the contoversy in some detail here. The paper that reconciled the tropospheric and the surface temperature measurements is here (citation and quote of the abstract):

Nature 429, 55-58 (6 May 2004) | doi: 10.1038/nature02524

Contribution of stratospheric cooling to satellite-inferred tropospheric temperature trends

Qiang Fu1, Celeste M. Johanson1, Stephen G. Warren1 and Dian J. Seidel2

From 1979 to 2001, temperatures observed globally by the mid-tropospheric channel of the satellite-borne Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU channel 2), as well as the inferred temperatures in the lower troposphere, show only small warming trends of less than 0.1 K per decade (refs 1−3). Surface temperatures based on in situ observations however, exhibit a larger warming of approx0.17 K per decade (refs 4, 5), and global climate models forced by combined anthropogenic and natural factors project an increase in tropospheric temperatures that is somewhat larger than the surface temperature increase6, 7, 8. Here we show that trends in MSU channel 2 temperatures are weak because the instrument partly records stratospheric temperatures whose large cooling trend9 offsets the contributions of tropospheric warming. We quantify the stratospheric contribution to MSU channel 2 temperatures using MSU channel 4, which records only stratospheric temperatures. The resulting trend of reconstructed tropospheric temperatures from satellite data is physically consistent with the observed surface temperature trend. For the tropics, the tropospheric warming is approx1.6 times the surface warming, as expected for a moist adiabatic lapse rate.

And this is from the News and Views article on the same paper for those who didn't get the abstract:

Nature 429, 7 (6 May 2004) | doi: 10.1038/429007a

    Global warming anomaly may succumb to microwave study

    For years, climate researchers have struggled with an apparent discrepancy in the data on global warming: temperatures in the lower atmosphere have been rising far slower than models predict, given how fast the Earth's surface is heating.

The discrepancy has been central to the arguments of sceptics about global warming. But according to a study in this issue of Nature (see page 55) it can be explained by interactions between the troposphere -- the first 11 km of the atmosphere -- and the stratosphere above it.

    In the study, a team from the University of Washington at Seattle and the Air Resources Laboratory of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), based in Maryland, analysed microwave emissions from the atmosphere. The emissions were recorded between 1979 and 2001 by NOAA's polar orbiting satellites. The data can be used to deduce temperatures in different layers of the atmosphere. And the study finds that stratospheric cooling, a known effect of greenhouse gases, appears to account for discrepancies between temperature trends on the ground and in the troposphere.

The team, led by Qiang Fu, an atmospheric researcher at the University of Washington, subtracted the impact of such cooling from data on the stratosphere and performed a statistical analysis, which found temperature trends consistent with observed warming on the surface and the predictions of climate models.

There is one dissenting voice regarding the work of Fu, et al, which I cite here:

THORNE, Peter W.,  DAVID E. PARKER, JOHN R. CHRISTY, AND CARL A. MEARS

"Lessons from Upper-Air Temperature Records" Bull. American Met. Soc. 86(10)  2005,  1437-1742

"We can no longer absolutely conclude whether globally the troposphere is cooling or warming relative to the surface. Clearly, however, the climate system has evolved in one unique way. Hence the challenge to the climate science community is to understand the reasons for the coherent differences between available datasets, and to discern the true climate evolution. The key first step is to understand the likely sources and causes of errors and biases. Only with this knowledge can we hope to truly reconcile the differences and gain a more complete and accurate picture of the true climate system evolution."

In essence, they are indeed backpedling from their original reliance on the troposphere data, but they are refusing to admit that they were outright wrong. However, another research group has retested Fu, et al's method and found it robust:

Nature 432, (2 December 2004) | doi: 10.1038/nature03209

Atmospheric science:  Stratospheric cooling and the troposphere

Nathan P. Gillett1, Benjamin D. Santer2 and Andrew J. Weaver1

Abstract

Arising from: Q. Fu et al. Nature 429, 55-58 (2004); see also communication from Tett et al.; Fu et al. reply

Satellite observations of tropospheric temperatures seem to show less warming than surface temperatures, contrary to physical predictions1. Fu et al.2 show that statistical correction for the effect of stratospheric cooling brings the satellite-based estimates of tropospheric warming into closer agreement with observations of surface warming. Here we apply the method of Fu et al.2 to output from a state-of-the-art coupled climate model and show that simulated tropospheric temperature trends are consistent with those observed and that their method is robust.

So this disagreement has largely been resolved and BOTH increasing temperatures AND increasing greenhouse gasses seem certain. What is more is that they VERY CLOSELY CORRELATE. That means a graph of the increased carbon dioxide has the exact shape and timing of the increased temperature. This is the famous "hockey stick" graph. So right here we know from physics what effect increased greenhouse gasses will have and we are seeing that predicted effect. This is not controversy, this is proof of principle. Some people criticized me when I said this saying that a correlation is not causation. This statement is true. But when you make a prediction based on known physics and the correlation agrees with that prediction, then your prediction is correct. In this case, the correlation of the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide with increased temperatures supports the hypothesis, based on known physics, that global warming (the original observation) is being caused by an increase in greenhouse gasses. So this is not just correlation. This is the very process of prediction and confirmation that science is all about.

So where are the greenhouse gasses coming from? There is NO natural source that can be identified. The sudden release of so much carbon dioxide into the air cannot be attributed to any natural cause. Some deniers (Rush Limbaugh being one) tried to attribute increased atmospheric carbon to volcanic activity. The problem with this is that atmospheric carbon from volcanic activity is particulate, which settles out of the air with a fairly well known half life. Carbon dioxide remains in the air unless removed by other processes, such as photosynthesis or absorption into the oceans. So volcanic activity cannot explain the rise in atmospheric carbon-based GASSES. There are two main sources of increased carbon dioxide that can be found: deforestation and burning of fossil fuels.

From the Center for Earth Observing and Space Research website:

The global Carbon Dioxide budget is complex and involves transfer of CO2 between the atmosphere, the oceans, and the biosphere. Through the photosynthetic process, the land removes about 100 petagrams (10^15 g) of carbon in the form of CO2 per year. However, about the same quantity of carbon in the form of CO2 is added to the atmosphere each year by vegetation and soil respiration and decay. The world's oceans release about 100 Pg C in the form of CO2 into the atmosphere per year and in turn absorb about 104 Pg C each year. Most of the oceanic carbon is in the form of sedimentary carbonates. Burning of fossil fuels adds about 5 Pg C and biomass buring and deforestation add about another 2 Pg C to the atmosphere in the form of CO2 annually. By summing all of the fluxes of CO2 into and out of the atmosphere, we can find that about 3 Pg C in the form of CO2 is building up in the atmosphere each year. The average concentration of CO2 was about 290 ppmv in preindustrial times; now (1990) it is about 350 ppmv and increasing steadily at a rate of about 0.3-0.4%/yr. Since CO2 is chemically inert, it is not destroyed by photochemical or chemical processes in the atmosphere; either it is lost by transfer into the ocean or biosphere or it builds up in the atmosphere.

And if you graph the combined rate of deforestation and industrialization done by humans, you will get a graph with the same shape and timing as the increased greenhouse gasses and the increasing temp. What is more, if you look at the mixture of greenhouse gasses that we KNOW are at fault in warming, the only explanation to account for that mixture would be human activity. So this is another correlation, but it is in good agreement with the predictions that one would make based on theory. Hence the theory is supported.

Climate scientists are more than 90% agreed (and I get this from climatologists themselves, people working at GISS, the combined Columbia/NASA research institute in NYC) that global warming is in full swing and is due to human activity. But don't take my word for it. As Dr. Robert Watson, then Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said in 2001,

" The overwhelming majority of scientific experts, whilst recognizing that scientific uncertainties exist, nonetheless believe that human-induced climate change is already occurring and that future change is inevitable."

Anyone who argues otherwise is either lying, misinformed and/or has an agenda. Period.

And what about the consequences to us, our economy, and our society?

Do you live on a coastline...almost any coastline? Your home will be flooded, possibly within your lifetime. Tokyo, London, Amsterdam, New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle...all face flooding of varying severity. Southern Florida? Gone. Forget New Orleans. To quote from the website that displays the map of global warming effects:

Warmer temperatures increase melting of mountain glaciers, increase ocean heat content, and cause ocean water to expand. Largely as a result of these effects, global sea level has risen 4 to 10 inches (10-25 cm) over the past 100 years. With additional warming, sea level is projected to rise from half a foot to 3 feet (15-92 cm) more during the next 100 years. On average, 50 to 100 feet (15-30 meters) of beach are lost for every foot (0.3 meters) of sea-level rise. Local land subsidence (sinking) and/or uplift due to geologic forces and coastal development will also affect the rate of coastal land loss.

Richer nations will have the resources to adapt, at least to some degree. Poorer nations will not. US agriculture will be devastated. Canada, Russia and the Scandinavian nations are most likely going to benefit the most, though it is hard to predict regional effects with certainty (local coolings can occur within the context of global warming). Tropical diseases will become common in the temperate zones...already are! West Nile? Yep, moving north just as predicted by global warming scientists.

We are in the midst of global warming. It is not something we are facing in the future. We face it NOW. It is not controversial any more than evolution is. It is HAPPENING. Predictions made 15 or 20 years ago are coming to pass. Some industries are starting to take very real hits from it. The insurance industry is facing the financial burden of increased storminess. We won't have a record number of hurricanes every year. But what we saw this year was phenominal. Hurricane ZETA!!! Unheard of! My wife, a climatologist, was amazed when we hit gamma. The insurance industry realized 10 years ago it had something to fear and was one of the first industries to start lobbying for real action on global warming. Some examples:

Franklin Nutter, president of the Reinsurance Association of America has said:

"The insurance business is the first in line to be affected by climate change. It is clear that global warming could bankrupt the industry."

--from Eugene Linden, "Burned by the Warming," Time, 14 March 1994, p.79.

This and other analyses (both environmentalist and denial viewpoints) from the insurance industry can be found in the report: Climate Change and the Insurance Industry: Opportunities for Energy-Based Solutions (PDF!). Also see Insurance and Climate Change (also PDF) by David Crichton from the Conference on Climate Change, Extreme Events and Coastal Cities in Houston and London.<

The American ski industry. They are starting to be scared. There are fewer and fewer days in the ski season on average, and that is lost money to the ski industry. So they are starting to act, trying to run their industry more ecologically and starting to lobby for real action on global warming.

One tiny industry, the New England maple syrup industry, is facing extinction as the conditions for maple syrup production are moving north into Canada. This industry may go extinct in the near future.

But of course the economic impact will be much greater than a handful of industries. Hurricane Katrina was a hint as to what can happen and WILL happen more and more. Agriculture will shift north. American farming may not survive as deserts expand, though it is hard to say exactly whether America will be drier or wetter.

Is it sane to ignore all this? A truck is barrelling down the road right at you. Do you say "let's study it more?" No. That is insane. Ignoring global warming is about as insane. Yet that is what America has been doing.

But this scientific process is under attack from politicians with an agenda, from oil companies who don't want to lose profits, from scientists whose funding come from special interest groups like the oil industry, and from a few more honest scientists who my wife refers to as professional contrarians. This is a kind of societal psychosis, where facts are willfully denied in favor of ideology. This willful ignorance and psychotic denial of the reality of global warming is another front in the right wing Intelligent Deception campaign. And it is making the United States a laughing stock around the world because of our anti-Science leadership. From BBCnews:

In his final speech as president of the Royal Society, Lord May of Oxford will say scientists must speak out against the climate change "denial lobby"...

"Ahead of us lie dangerous times," he will say in his fifth and final anniversary address.

"There are serious problems that derive from the realities of the external world: climate change, loss of biological diversity, new and re-emerging diseases, and more.

"Many of these threats are not yet immediate, yet their non-linear character is such that we need to be acting today.

"And we have no evolutionary experience of acting on behalf of a distant future; we even lack basic understanding of important aspects of our own institutions and societies.

"Sadly, for many, the response is to retreat from complexity and difficulty by embracing the darkness of fundamentalist unreason."

Lord May will say that fundamentalism applies not only to organised religions but to lobby groups on both sides of the climate change debate.

The climate change "denial lobby" and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) opposed to nuclear power are not exempt from a denial or misrepresentation of scientific facts, he told reporters in London...

Another danger to the enlightenment of science came from the growing network of fundamentalist and lobby groups in the US that campaigned for creationism to be taught in science classes, he added.

"By their own writings, this group has a much wider agenda which is to replace scientific materialism by something more based on faith," he said.

He called on scientists to take a more active role in speaking out against so-called "intelligent design" and other threats to modern scientific values.

"The only thing I can see scientists doing is being more energetic as citizens - getting out there and trying to convince people that that's not a very wise way to behave," he explained. "That's no easy recipe."

The Denial Lobby will claim that temperatures are not rising. They are, according to BOTH tropospheric AND surface measurements. The Denial Lobby will claim that, okay, so maybe temperatures are rising, but it isn't carbon dioxide causing it. They ignore the known effect carbon dioxide has on the atmosphere and instead say the effect of water vapor is more important but is being ignored by climate scientists. Well, water vapor IS very important in warming. Which is why it is a VERY active area of climate research, including my wife's research. So the effects of water vapor ARE being studied, despite statements to the contrary by the Denial Lobby. The Denial Lobby also fail to explain how a sudden increase in water vapor would be happening right now other than by the known feedback mechanisms of global warming caused by carbon dioxide.

Then the Denial Lobby will admit the role of carbon dioxide but claim that natural sources are to blame, like volcanoes. Again, this ignores the fact that no natural source can be identified and the carbon expelled by volcanoes is mostly particulate (which, by the way, causes a temporary COOLING effect).

In short, the Denial Lobby is much the same as the anti-evolution Intelligent Deception lobby. They will say anything to push their own opinion regardless of the facts. There is a great deal of research that still needs to be done about both evolution and global warming. We do NOT know all we need to know about these. But to deny the most obvious, most robust theories and instead to believe far less well supported theories that just happen to be more convenient is NOT science and it is NOT intelligent. It is insanity.

I am going to mention two global warming discussions. First, Real Climate is done by an actual climate scientist, a colleague of my wife's, who (to continue the evolution comparison) can be seen as the climatologist bulldog. This is a powerful site for those who are SERIOUS about global warming. I personally find it interesting but for now I am too intimidated to participate.

And the gentleman who led the denial assault on me for the original version of this diary has his own discussion group. In his case, he may be one of the poster boys for the "skeptics," but he is not a climate scientist and, although he claims to be unbiased, his discussion of global warming is titled "The Alleged Human-Caused Climate Change" clearly indicating his bias. Nevertheless, it appears to be one of the main Denial Lobby websites. And one of his buddies who has been contacting me off line is this guy, a shil for the coal industry. So, their "skepticism" clearly suits the coal industry.