[at-l] Why I'm skeptical about Global Warming(long)

[jbryankramer at msn.com (J Bryan Kramer)]

I've been thinking about the Global Warming (GW henceforth) issue as I drove
back and forth from work this weekend. Just why am I so unconvinced about
the GW issue?

First,  I think there is evidence that the earth is warming up, the big
question is why is it doing so. My major concern with the GW crowd is that
they are so religiously convinced and intolerant of skepticism. Now I expect
such from the environmental crowd but do not expect such from professional
scientists. As Jim mentioned science does not function in such an
environment. Every scientist needs to be able to see the pro and con
arguments of whatever issue he is involved with. And seeing such he needs to
be able to come up with tests, experiments, that will eliminate one or the
other.

When I went to high school we were taught about one of the most famous
issues in the history of science and how one side was rational and the other
hostile, intolerant and inflexible. I'm talking about the Vitalism War that
Louis Pasteur had a big hand in winning. The point of this was that science
progresses when scientists can dispassionately examine all the facts, those
that support their theory and those which do not.

Physics is in the midst of just such a struggle now. The Standard theory
co-exists with String Theory and several other contenders. But when I read
an article, written in Scientific American, by one or other proponents of
one of these theories you almost always find that the author takes pains to
show all sides of the issue. "We believe this but Dr Smith's group has a
contending theory and here is what needs to be done to show one or the other
is correct." I don't recall seeing petitions being circulated by one group
or the other... One Thousand Botanists say String Theory rules!

Well, we do see just that sort of thing going on in the GW crowd. Its more
like a political or religious rally than science.

Now to specific issues I have, and I'm not going to provide references,
these are things in my mind that need to be answered.

1)  The Data quality, in my mind it's bad. The thermometer wasn't invented
until the late 1700's and apparently widespread temperature history readings
were not maintained for quite awhile after that. The Mann paper doesn't
start using real temperature data until 1905 IIRC but uses surrogate data
instead. That's why when I see headlines like coldest winter, hottest summer
and so on I just shake my head. We are looking at a dataset which has a
thickness of a sheet of very thin paper laid on top of the grand canyon,
with 3000 feet of unknown data represented by all those geological strata
below.

Now of course there are surrogate data markers but these are at least one
step removed from the actual value being measured, tree ring thickness and
such. These probably are resonable but being surrogates they can be
manipulated. This manipulation is the source of a lot of the fighting going
on now.

2) Computer models, the quality of current computer models is pathetic. They
only measure a small set of variables, they use a gross scale.. they divide
up the athmosphere is large blocks and too few layers. And are very
suceptable to being tweaked to produce the desired results. I think we are
years away from producing powerful enough computers to produce a fine
grained model. Gigo rules in this case.

One test of the models is whether they can go back and reproduce what has
already occurred. In other words they should be able to run a model and get
data out that reproduces the climatic changes from say 1700 to 1900. But
these models can't do any such thing. So if they can't reproduce past data
why should anyone expect future data output is anything but fiction?

3) Carbon Dioxide: why has CO2 been higher in the past, a lot higher, in
periods when global temperature has been much lower? It does not compute.

4) Kyoto: even the proponents of Kyoto have admitted that it would have zero
real effect on future temperature trends even if you accept the models
above. Even the countries that have done the most chest beating have made no
progress whatsoever in meeting the goals of the treaty. Indeed I suspect
that Europe regards Kyoto as a way to cripple the US economy since they've
already crippled their own by ultra-high taxation. Kyoto is just politics
not science.

4) Solar effects, there have been a lot of studies in the last few years
that show that the sun may be a long period variable star and global
temperature tracks these solar cycles. None of this is factored into the
computer models above. There is even a Cosmic ray theory which I would off
hand rate as unlikely.

5) Antarctic thawing, we are about 16,000 years out of the last glacial
period and indeed could, when you look at the historical data, be concerned
that we might be in danger of starting the next one. There is evidence that
ice melts in the Antarctic during inter-glacial periods and we are seeing
ice melting down there. But there is evidence that the ice sheets are
becoming unstable because of heat added from geological activity at the
bottom of the ice which melts the base of the ice sheets and lets them slide
into the ocean. How this can be blamed on CO2 is beyond me.

6) History: there are plenty of historical data, church records and so on
that show that there was a very warm 400 year period from 1000-1400 or so.
But the hockey stick proponents are determined to ignore this. You don't
deal with facts that contradict your theory by pretending that these facts
don't exist.

There are plenty more issues but this is long enough. We need to look at all
sides of this and if there is a real problem then we need to come up with
rational and effective plans. The only rational position is one of
interested skepticism. Anything else smacks of Lysenkoism.

Bryan