Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
What temperature should the planet be?
Reading Richard Fulmer’s excellent post about Exxon being accused of holding illegal opinions on global warming reminded me of my response to my incredulous friends who just can’t believe that I don’t believe in science. My skepticism of the global warming issue produces such a strong response that I have developed a simple, reasonable set of questions to pose to my friends, which express my uncertainty:
- What do you think the correct temperature of the world is?
- Should that temperature always be the same, or is some variation acceptable (or even healthy)?
- Who gets to pick that temperature? Mosquitoes? Polar bears? Camels? Plankton? What’s best for one may not be ideal for another.
- Note that right now, we believe that it is cooler than it has been for 90% of the time since the last Ice Age. So it is likely to be getting warmer over the next few hundred years, if everything evens out statistically. This, of course, is presuming that we are not entering another Ice Age now, or if something else happens – hard to say. Would it be better if it got warmer, or if it got cooler? Are you sure?
- Also note that we have only been collecting satellite data on planet temperatures for the past couple decades. Our satellite data continues to improve, we think – it was of dubious accuracy in the beginning of the space age. Before that, we looked at a bunch of thermometers of varying accuracy in various locations and averaged them together somehow. So we’re judging climate trends which occur over the course of hundreds of millions of years based on 10-20 years’ worth of “data” which we think might be close to accurate. Until we improve it next year. The difference between that and pure guessing is not much.
- Do you think it’s likely that our understanding of climate science 100 years from now will be the same as it is now? Are we sure about all this? Remember that just 20-30 years ago we were certain that the next Ice Age was imminent. Perhaps we were right then. Perhaps we’re right now. Perhaps there’s some other possibility we haven’t thought of yet. All we know is that our 5-10 year models that we’ve done over the past several decades have all been no better than pure guessing – usually wrong. In my job as a doctor, I would not make a decision on patient care based on such inconsistent data. That’s not called settled science. That’s called malpractice.
- The primary source of energy on this planet is the Sun. Previous variations in temperatures have been mostly linked to changes in solar output. Will the output of the sun increase in the next 10 years? 100 years? 1,000 years? Or will it decrease? Are you sure?
- Are there any major volcanic eruptions scheduled in the next couple hundred years? If so, what impact will that have on the weather? Are you sure?
- The most potent greenhouse gas is not CO2 – not even close. We believe that the most potent greenhouse gas is, by far, water vapor. What factors control the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere? We have no idea.
- So, suppose we figured out how to install a thermostat on the planet. And we could make it cooler if we decided it was too warm. Or warmer if we decided it was too cold. Should we do that? If so, who’s in charge of the thermostat? Are you sure? We’ve spent enormous amounts of time & energy “improving” our environment via importing Japanese Beetles, or moving snakes to change squirrel populations, or protecting forests by putting out small fires, etc – our record is dismal. There are always unforeseen variables. As it turns out, the complexity of our environment is close to infinite, like the arrogance of those who claim to understand it all.
- Should people, who currently can’t figure out which bathroom to use, be in control of the entire planet? Are you sure?
Once my friends understand my concerns, they generally will at least cut me a little slack. And if I persist in looking at the problem logically, my friends will generally change the subject. Which is fine with me. Because when it comes to climate science (ie, understanding the whole world), I don’t know what I’m talking about. And neither do they. That is one thing I am absolutely sure of.
Published in General
I had the same response to people who worried about population: Are you part of the problem or part of the solution?
I don’t mean to be rude, Randy, but what world do you live in and do you accept immigrants? Which part of the (take your pick): Yale Halloween hissy fit/Mizzou Hissy Fit/2016 post-election crying room hissy fit/etc ad nauseum leads you to believe that anything rational happens at an American college on a regular basis?
Amen, brother.
Back in the 1990’s the Kyoto treaty was being discussed and I remember reading that if the world doesn’t pass and abide by Kyoto, the temperature would increase by some amount by 2100. Where if we do pass it and abide by it, we would still hit that temperature, but not until 2101. Which is kind of like being told that you are projected to die at 80, but if you stop eating and drinking everything you like, you can live to 80.3.
As to what is the right temperature, I have a somewhat similar question from townhall.com in my e-mail inbox:
“Too many Americans are NOT passing this Constitution quiz. Can you?”
So what would be the right number of Americans to fail it?
@richardfulmer has a similar discussion on the member feed. His basic point is that there are 8 questions he asks when discussing global warming:
I go through a similar process when discussing Global Warming. My first two questions are basically the same as his. The third is this:
3. What are the costs and benefits of global warming? Who is better off and who is harmed? Do the costs outweigh the benefits?
From there I go on to:
4. What are the current methods of mitigating global warming? How effective are they? Who benefits and who is harmed? Do the harms outweigh the benefits?
5. What are the proposed ways to deal with global warming? Who potentially benefits and who is harmed? Do the harms outweigh the benefits?
Usually, the discussion comes to a dead stop on item 3. We’ve told so much that global warming only has bad consequences that the possibility of positive outcomes is unimaginable.
This is constantly trotted out as if it actually means something. Skeptics like me are 100% in agreement with CO2’s status as a greenhouse gas. But that doesn’t mean what people think it means. Let me illustrate by comparison to a real greenhouse made with glass: if one constructs the greenhouse with single panes of glass, almost all of the infra-red energy that gets into the greenhouse is trapped, even with relatively thin panes. Now, double the “concentration” of glass by making it thicker. How much more infra-red energy is trapped by the thicker glass? None. Why? The thin pane caught practically all of it.
We have always had more than enough CO2 in our atmosphere to absorb effectively all of the infra-red frequencies that it is capable of absorbing. Adding more CO2 doesn’t actaully add more total heat energy to the world. What the models say it should do is move the heat somewhat higher in the atmosphere (upper troposphere, really) due to where it’s being absorbed on the way in and on the way out, plus the higher convection from ground to space.
The models all predict this shift, but it hasn’t shown up in any actual measurements — neither the military’s long history of regular weather balloons, nor any satellite data. Some heavy background here. This was my first cluebat, several years ago, that “climate change” alarmism was complete [expletive]. I find this particular skeptic proposal extra amusing.
A fine post, TY. I remain willing to believe that mankind contributes to climate change. However I am skeptical about policy based on political driven “science” that relies on questionable models and evidence. We can see and feel a pot hole, an unsafe bridge, failing schools, etc.. Lets fix them first.
It means nothing more or less than what I said. Many posts here though seemed to at least suggest that the basic physics aren’t crystal clear. They are. I then explained the problem I have with “all else equal” deal and catastrophic outcomes. You are now mostly rebutting an argument that was never made.
I generally agree with the processes you have laid out here other than the notion that additional atmospheric CO2 doesn’t “trap” additional surface radiated energy. It is asymptotic, but it does.
If it’s such a great post, then why didn’t it get 100 comments?
Oh, wait. It just did.
Ha!
You may not have intended to spike the ball with the assertion that the “The most basic elements of the science are rather clear and incontrovertible”, whic you so conveniently clipped, but that is what alarmists lead with when pitching their “fear” to lay people.
Yes. But how many zeroes are between the decimal point and the first significant digit? The models the alarmists trot out have few zeros and predict large climate swings. With what should be measurable changes in the troposphere. Which aren’t there. Not to mention the lack of warming at the surface. The evidence is that there are many more zeros. The point’s distance from your asymptote is indistinguishable from zero, through decades of upper atmosphere temperature measurement.
The other series of events that taught me the truth was the hockey stick saga. Alarmists pooh-pooh any criticisms of tree-ring based historical temperature reconstructions because the unadjusted temperature history, when used to train the models, produces models that show no cause for alarm. No other “indicator” of past temperatures can be tortured to deliver the nice flat temperature profile through the middle ages and spike in the past few decades that gives them model coefficients they like. Alarmists need to adjust the history of the past couple millennia or their grant gravy train dies.
The Climategate whistleblower events exposed the shenanigans, but the ever-compliant media swept it under the rug.
PT – I am not an alarmist. If pointing out the fact that the basic physics are well understood bothers you so much and appears to you to be akin to the arguments that alarmists make, then perhaps some reflection is in order.
As for the middle paragraph, I am not sure what you are arguing against? I didn’t say anything about the hockey stick, I share many of your concerns about how historical temperatures are adjusted and I agree that many of the models have serious flaws. I never said otherwise.
Last, there have been measurable changes in the troposphere even though those measurements have some issues. Now the rise has been much slower than that predicted by almost all of the climate models and very little over the past 15 years or so but temps have risen over the past 35-40 years. Troposphere data is actually a sore spot for the alarmists because it doesn’t conform to their predictions but it is not true to suggest there has been no rise.
And then there are the scientists who think that CO2 follows warming, not causes it. Their science is ignored.
Correct, for the most part. I never said otherwise and that in no way, shape or form negates the basic physical “greenhouse” properties of CO2 that I was speaking to here.
I may have jumped to a conclusion too quickly. My apologies. For future reference: Among climate skeptic, your lukewarmer ID followed by the “simple experiment” reference is like holding a neon sign saying “I’m a troll!” Much like liberals try to camouflage themselves with “I’m a conservative, BUT ….”
BTW, I can’t speak highly enough about the proprietor of ClimateAudit.org. He’s the Canadian statistician who helped expose the hockey stick errors { fraud, IMNSHO }. His site is the last word on the topic for math geeks like me.
That was really for the lurkers and non-members, now that this hit the main feed. (-:
Entirely explainable by solar forcing, and the recent lack thereof. As you note, the alarmists are unhappy, as the past two-and-a-half decades cannot be explained by CO2 models.
Fair. I don’t entirely agree with your last point but there is obviously something going on that doesn’t comport with the models.
I read McIntyre quite frequently. Good stuff.