A friend of mine sent me an interesting bit of Youtubery about the whole Global Warming issue. At the time of this writing, it had over 600,000 views – at least the version that I was sent – and had a very high rating (for whatever that’s worth). But like most Global Warming commentary, it’s complete crap.
Granted, the guy has worked his butt off making a series of videos intended to address the most blatant holes in his initial video. But my problem isn’t so much that he is advocating “immediate and significant policy changes” to address “global climate change,” but that his first attempt to do so was disguised as some sort of clinic on risk management that points to his conclusion regardless of the scientific debate currently underway (despite global warming proponents’ protestations to the contrary). According to him, the issue could be broken down into a nice decision grid like this:
The left column represents the possibilities that anthropogenic (man-made) Global Climate Change (GCC) is True or False, while the top row indicates our choice as a civilization of action or inaction about it. He uses the “worst case scenario” condition for the four outcome boxes to say that if we don’t act and GCC is true, than the resulting catastrophes would be so much worse than if we acted and GCC was false. His argument boils down to choosing the column with the most pallatable worst-case since we have so much trouble determining what row we’re working in.
This isn’t how risk analysis is performed, and the comments he received about it were quick to point out the fallacy of such a decision-making method that neglects the inherent complexities that ultimately do affect decision making, like the probability of the outcomes. For instance, if we examine what we should do to stave off an alien attack on Earth using this method, we come to the conclusion that the economic disaster caused by preparing ourselves for such a thing is a better worst case scenario than extinction by Deathray.
Again, he addressed this in subsequant videos, but inevitably, the facade of his supposedly reasoned and objective approach fell away to reveal the same rhetoric as other Global Warming advocates. After much hand-wringing attempts to save the original premise of trying to circumvent the “politics” of the debate, the truth finally comes out. His opinion is that the “experts” at the IPCC are right and we have to do something drastic to save the planet. That’s fine. But the line that the rise in global temperature on Mars and the fact that carbon dioxide levels lagged temperature changes in the ice core records are “irrelevant” was what really got me.
As a physics teacher, perhaps he’s gotten so used to having what he says be completely and unquestioningly accepted by his mushy-brained young students, but such a statement by a man of science cannot go unchallenged. The very basis of the GCC theory is hinged upon the notion that “green house gases” trap heat in the atmosphere such that the input of more of these gases by human activity has caused a chain reaction that has increased the average temperature of the planet. The idea of this mechanism is an outgrowth of studies a long time ago that showed a correlation between carbon dioxide and average global temperature (as measured by thermometers in limited locations across the planet).
The first problem is that correlation does not equal causation – or simply, just because the atmospheric CO2 concentrations rise along with global temperature does not necessarily mean that rising CO2 causes rising temperatures. Research since these early readings has been focused on proving such causation, and in many cases taking it for granted. The Green House Effect as the engine behind Global Warming makes one assumption and one implication (among others, but I will only address these two). The assumption is that the rate of solar energy input entering Earth’s atmospheric climate system is static. And the implication is that the increased concentration of green house gasses like CO2 will precede the measure of global temperature increases.
The facts about Mars and ice cores that Mr. Physics here accepts as true but rejects as irrelevent speak directly to those issues. Because Mars is warming despite zero observed internal temperature-affecting activites, an increase in solar radiation is strongly implied. Coupled with the correlation between increased solar flare activity and increased global temperatures throughout history, there is a strong possibility that the sun is pumping more solar energy into our climate system today than it was 100 years ago prior to the reported 0.74°C (1.33°F) increase. Such a thing would mean that a) human activity may not be responsible for any significant climate change and b) that the current warming is cyclical (since solar flares has been observed to have cycles) and will eventually reverse. Sure, correlation doesn’t mean causation, but some correlations are stronger than others. Because the ice core record from the Antarctic shows that the increase of CO2 concentration lags temperature increases (in many instances by 100 years), than there is a strong possibility (almost a certainty really) that temperatures change first, and the atmospheric CO2 increases are a result as opposed to the other way around.
There is one thing he said, though, that I agree with. Since most of us are unqualified to substantively discuss this issue (even MIT-educated rocket scientists like yours truly), we should leave it to the experts to work out amongst themselves. And in the mean time, instead of rushing to do something about a problem we’re not sure really exists like so many people irresponsibly advocate, we can simply work towards things we can all agree would better mankind like alternative energy and clean-running vehicles.
I have a feeling this whole GCC thing will go away, just like the Global Cooling scare of the 70’s and the previous Global Warming scare of the 50’s. I just wish that in the midst of all the media hype, all these students of “science” might make themselves students of history as well and save us all from their Chicken Little Cry Wolf act.
