New Consensus On Climate Change
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-08-14/new-consensus-climate-change
The United Nations Environment Program says the news about climate change is "bad and getting worse." In the U.S. alone, thousands of heat records have been matched or set so far this year. Most climate scientists have long accepted that the planet is warming and human activity is partly to blame. But global warming deniers have had a strong voice in the debate - along with substantial research dollars from conservatives such as the Koch brothers. Diane will talk with a prominent skeptic who has changed his mind. And her guests will explore not just the dire predictions, but also possible solutions.
Guests
Juliet Eilperin
national environmental reporter for The Washington Post and author of "Demon Fish: Travels Through the Hidden World of Sharks."
Michael MacCracken
chief scientist at Climate Institute and lead editor for the book “Sudden and Disruptive Climate Change: Exploring the Real Risks and How We Can Avoid Them.”
Richard Muller
professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley, and author of "Energy for Future Presidents: The Science Behind the Headlines."
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
To address the listener who commented about researchers who are only 'chasing grant monies'. I have been in academic research for over 30 years at two major universities and the availability of monies has changed greatly. Administrators now urge researchers to not only find monies to support thir projects AND their technical help because state and federal funds are not there the way they used to be. Yes, researchers need money in order to be able to carry out their research which in every case I have observed, they have been very passionate about. Should we just be conplacent about the status quo and stay ignorant or support knowledge through research to move us forward in a world that is ever changing in every aspect?
I can't speak for the world, but the climate here in the mountains of North Carolina, which included very nice summers prior to 1965, has not seen very many of those nice summers since that time. And occasionally, such as this past winter, we had no winter to speak of. Prior to 1965, air-conditioned homes in the summer were virtually non-existent. That's the norm now.
@ecgberht
Once again you're confusing the political with the scientific. The scientific debate is not if there's warming, but how much. No scientist who's actively engaged doubts the fundamental physics; i.e., the Earth-atmosphere system is absorbing more radiation than it loses to space. This is clear from many published sensor-based analyses over the last decade or so. This imbalance shows up even before the 1980s and has been increasing since then. Unless you deny the first law of thermodynamics, this means that the earth is heating up. Most of the heat is going into the oceans (~95%), but a little has been showing up in air temperature, the focus of Muller's study.
Some of these sensors, mounted on satellites, have shown that the sun has been decreasing slightly in its intensity over the same time. So, as Muller pointed out, it's not the sun. The only cause that has stood up to close examination is green house gas forcing.
The same industries that obfuscated the dangers of leaded gasoline and delayed meaningful protections for almost 50 years are the same as those today, like ExxonMobil and Koch Industries, that sow doubt about climate change and its perils.
The Precautionary Principle must be invoked. Look it up if you don't know what it is.
ThinkPhysics wrote:
"Once again you're confusing the political with the scientific. The scientific debate is not if there's warming, but how much. "
Once again, you're confusing GW with AGW.
In fact, the debate is not if there's warming, but what is causing it.
Please see the link I provided earlier and scroll down to the SECOND graph which shows geologic periods of warming as high or higher than current and as steep a rise or steeper.
By the way, there is still serious discussion as to whether historically, CO2 rises, in fact follow temperature increases rather than preceding them and what that mechinism might be.
I mention Bastardi because he is a serious scientist who is a skeptic and is ridiculed by many because he dares to suggest a different theory.
In the church of AGW, its congregants easily make the leap from GW to AGW - whether the link can be made scientifically or not. Science needs to make that link ... not "faith".
@ecgberht
The science is in (has been for 30 years). The debates are OVER. You belong in the stone age (along with all the other climate change and evolution deniers). Besides, you are not even a scientist, are you?
Truth Seeker? wrote:
"The science is in (has been for 30 years). The debates are OVER."
That statement is absurd. Besides, a few posts ago it was "20 years". My how time flies!
You are not a "Truth Seeker". You are a dogma apologist, nothing more.
Good to hear from Dr Muller. I wonder if his study of solar effect on temperature included the correlation with solar magnetic activity. Astrophysicists Sally Baliunus and Willie Soon have written papers more that 20 years ago showing a startling correlation going back to 1750 with magnetic activity based on observed numbers of sunspots, and Norwegian climatologists have longstanding data showing increased cloudiness resulting from the solar magnetic field's influence on cosmic ray flux. If the solar influence Dr Muller checked was based on total radiant energy from the sun, then I have no argument with his results; this does not change significantly with sunspot activity.
I think also that his ideas to attack the problem of global warming are along the lines of those proposed by Dr. Lomburg of Denmark who had a similar outlook in his book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" and, more recently, "Cool It!".
A more radical idea is to investigate the geothermal input to the ocean temperature, as evinced by "hot smokers." This may be increasing as a result of increased thermal activity accompanying the reversal of the earth's magnetic field, which may have been occuring for some length of time. Great thesis topic for a grad student in oceanography or geology.
Several arguments to your post.
Yes 95% of climate scientits are in agreement. Every one of them are funded by government. It has to be a coincidence that their conclusions are exactly what governemnt want to hear.
Where in the scientific method does it say that "consensus" makes a THEORY a fact?
A basic tenet of the scientific theory is FULL DISCLOSURE so your conclusions can be verified by other scientists. This is not happening at all. Ask Michael Mann to disclose his raw temprature data. HE REFUSES. He will only release his "adjusted" temp data.
Sorry guys the ones that are anti science are the ones that believe blindly in what these people are telling you. A true scientist is sceptical and questions EVERYTHING and wants to see it all.
Niether are you. A real scientist questions everything and wants to verify for themselves. Check out the Scientific Method and then look at your post.
"truth seekeer" you are the perfect liberal.
I listen to Diane all the time. I enjoy listening to liberals and what they think so I can refute their arguments. I just realized why NPR needs government money to survive because they cannot stand on their own.
Having a woman with a speech problem as a radio host is another example of liberal stupidity.
If liberals had their way we would have:
A NFL running back in a wheel chair
A blind bus driver
a surgeon with no hands
an interior designer that is color blind
@Pagemanor
The relationship between solar magnetic activity and cloudiness is a reasonable hypothesis. The key, however, is that it's cyclic and would not eliminate the reality of green house gas (GHG) forcing; the effect would be to modulate its response. No serious climate scientist is asserting that GHG forcing is, and always has been, the only mechanism that can change the earth's radiative heat balance. For example, our planet could conceivably experience a series of mega volcanic eruptions that would completely overwhelm the current warming trajectory and replace it with a period of cooling.
Larry,
"Sorry guys the ones that are anti science are the ones that believe blindly in what these people are telling you. A true scientist is sceptical and questions EVERYTHING and wants to see it all."
Yes, THANK YOU. Perfectly stated. And then we get things like "You're not even a scientist, are you"?! The one who is willing to question everything, who is not afraid to have others question, and whose ego does not get in the way of truth ... HE is the true scientist.
What we have in the AGW debate is little more than scientific fascism.
The research I refer to (Baliunus and Soon) has filtered out the 11 year solar cycle.
There's lots of problems with the climate change propaganda ..
1. Look up the solutions that are being pushed, they don't work and will make some people ultra wealthy such as Al Gore - carbon trading etc .. or will be used to shut down the competition of certain players and help to create monopolies or more power for others.
2. The evidence is skewed and based mostly on computer models that are rigged or can not predict such things as much as you might wish they could.
3. The ocean level is not rising, how much has the ocean risen in the past 50 years ? It has risen a only a few inches but when some piece of land that is basically a sandbar washes away from erosion they will say it is climate change.
4. Time lapse photos of the poles show that the ice is not going away on the poles.
5. The politicians and the UN act like they are all concerned about global warming, but many other horrible problems such as GMO they seem to think there is no problem. That is because in reality they have their own agenda to push for other reasons.
Many other similar things are foisted on us, but when you try to look into it you see that there are many problems. Do not rely on so called experts without trying to use your own brain to understand what the issue is. That is not scientific in any way. Various professions such as lawyers, politicians, bankers, used car sales men, drug companies, and scientists who work for the UN or some other agency have their own agenda or are told what to say. Saying that most experts believe this or that is not really meaningful because of that. I recently listened to Scientific American magazine and it was mostly just rhetoric without any convincing arguments or evidence. The UN itself is just another big bunch of unelected goobers who in reality have helped cause many wars and other problems while trying to act like they want to help.
There is no layman's explanation for climate change that is easy to understand that isn't full of holes ..
Every explanation is either:
- A complex obfuscation that a layman can not decipher
- A claim that "experts" all agree and thus you should too
- An explanation that when looked into in greater detail has obvious problems.
I have never seen a climate denier who is willing to spout these deceitful talking points in person. Instead, they operate in the shadows of the internet.
What they say and do is shameful, and I think they know it — which is why you won't see them at public meetings using their real names.
What's the "new" consensus in the title of this story? The scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming has existed for years.
Muller is a high-profile maverick who evidently doesn't trust other scientists, who only believes results if he has personally analyzed them. Good that he now understands the existing consensus, but his approach seems arrogant and impractical.
gremlint wrote:
"I have never seen a climate denier who is willing to spout these deceitful talking points in person. Instead, they operate in the shadows of the internet.
What they say and do is shameful, and I think they know it — which is why you won't see them at public meetings using their real names."
Perhaps it's because they don't like having to listen to Climate Fascists like you.
You are part of the problem.
@ Think Physics
You are aware that increased CO2 can be a result of increasing the temperature of the saturated oceans?
Sadly the fake skeptic community has been able to kidnap reality and create the illusion of a "debate" when a vast majority of the relevant scientific community has moved on. Dr. Muller has a high opinion of himself but it is clear from the substance of his remarks that he failed miserably to do his homework decades ago, and has done a lot of harm by using his authority to bolster poorly supported claims in the past. The fact that he has finally accepted that science is largely truthful should not be a feather in his cap but rather proof that he failed to do his homework for years.
Specialized experts, while able to impress the public, don't necessarily know as much as they claim to, or more than the average thinking person, about other disciplines (physicists come in a broad variety). Climate science is particularly vulnerable as its experimental base is the real world, and we cannot create a duplicate.
Dr. Muller, while confirming reality, is also doing harm by continuing to push ideas that fail to meet the rigorous tests of scientific honesty. He is also bolstering his ego, which was already big enough, by claiming to be the be all and end all about climate data. This is not the case.
A lot of hardworking scientists have labored under conditions more like the McCarthy era than modern democracy, to understand and measure what they can. For their labors, the more prominent have been subjected to death and family threats and other nastiness. There is an active cadre of so-called "skeptics" (true skeptics question all sides rather than buying what they want to believe wholesale and attacking anything and everything they don't like) promoting this activity. It is popular but not ethical to treat them as 50% of the truth.
Dr. Muller's temporizing acceptance of the validity of the data is too little, too late, and the accompanying promotions he espouses still smell of Koch influence, which is hardly surprising.