Imagine my jaw-dropped, startled expression when I discovered that there appear to be (at least) two sides to almost every argument, even scientific ones. Witness the complexities behind the statement "evolution has occurred," for example.

** REVISED 3/11/07 **

Courtesy the BBC, found laying about on the Little Green Footballs site, is this little documentary on global warming. I was wondering if there was anything to the assertion that there was no credible dissent concerning the impact of Man on global climate change. Maybe these guys aren't credible; I didn't want to take the word of talk radio hosts and politicians, however.

So you may want to skip the opening montage, and some of the narrative links, if you are sensitive to counter-claims against Man-made global climate change.

I was amused by the first four title cards, however:

[cue dramatic action music]

THE ICE IS MELTING

THE SEA IS RISING

HURRICANES ARE BLOWING

AND IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT

tee, hee. Childish, I know.

Here's a sort-of abstract on a paper from the "authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change," also described here as "top scientists" in Belgium.

The website, linked to by the name of the IPCC, above, is good, I think, for getting a more accurate "feel" on the IPCC's projections, as opposed to reading media-produced documents.

Your typical temperature rise chart, covering 140 to 1000 years — up to 1/5,000,000 th of terrestrial history

For example, this, in discussing the impact of global warming on small islands:

The projected sea-level rise of 5 mm yr^-1 for the next 100 years would cause enhanced coastal erosion, loss of land and property, dislocation of people, increased risk from storm surges, reduced resilience of coastal ecosystems, saltwater intrusion into freshwater resources, and high resource costs to respond to and adapt to these changes

5 mm a year for 100 years... let's see... that's a total of... CURSE THIS METRIC SYSTEM! IT'S SO CONFUSING!... wait... oh. 500 mm. about a half-metre, or 18 inches. Looks like Galveston better add some more sand, eh?

And our GDP versus CO2 output graph:

I don't know about the IPCC, but I look at the USA and Japan charts, and notice that, as the GDP rises, the CO2 production gap increases relative to GDP. Seems to me that developed civilization might be a good thing. Almost as good for the environment as crushing poverty. Also, does "selected countries" only mean USSR, USA and Japan? Just curious.

Regarding greenhouse gasses:

This, from the University of Michigan:

... the main greenhouse gases:  carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorocarbons. ...

makes no mention of water vapor as a greenhouse gas.

From the EPA:

Some greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide occur naturally and are emitted to the atmosphere through natural processes and human activities. Other greenhouse gases (e.g., fluorinated gases) are created and emitted solely through human activities. The principal greenhouse gases that enter the atmosphere because of human activities are:

• Carbon Dioxide (CO2): Carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), solid waste, trees and wood products, and also as a result of other chemical reactions (e.g., manufacture of cement). Carbon dioxide is also removed from the atmosphere (or “sequestered”) when it is absorbed by plants as part of the biological carbon cycle.
• Methane (CH4): Methane is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. Methane emissions also result from livestock and other agricultural practices and by the decay of organic waste in municipal solid waste landfills.

Interestingly, if you select the methane link, above, you will see that some estimate that termites alone account for about 11% of natural — non Manly — methane output.

Sheesh. Termocentic planet-killers! Destroy them all!

• Nitrous Oxide (N2O): Nitrous oxide is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities, as well as during combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste.
• Fluorinated Gases: Hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride are synthetic, powerful greenhouse gases that are emitted from a variety of industrial processes. Fluorinated gases are sometimes used as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances (i.e., CFCs, HCFCs, and halons). These gases are typically emitted in smaller quantities, but because they are potent greenhouse gases, they are sometimes referred to as High Global Warming Potential gases (“High GWP gases”).

But, is water vapor a greenhouse gas?

From Wikipedia, the definitive source of all life and also term papers:

Water vapor is a naturally occurring greenhouse gas and accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect. Water vapor concentrations fluctuate regionally, but human activity does not directly affect water vapor concentrations except at very local scales.

In climate models an increase in atmospheric temperature caused by the greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic gases will in turn lead to an increase in the water vapor content of the troposphere ...

and

... (IPCC) ... lead author Michael Mann considers citing "the role of water vapor as a greenhouse gas" to be "extremely misleading" as water vapor can not be controlled by humans ...

See? That confuses me. We need better interpreters; Mr. Wikipedia makes it sound as though the IPCC doesn't want to consider the role of water vapor as a greenhouse gas because we can't do anything about it. That can't be right.

From the EIA:

Unlike Venus, Earth is blessed with an atmosphere rich in nitrogen and oxygen. Dry air near Earth's surface currently contains 78.08 percent nitrogen, 20.95 percent oxygen, 0.93 percent argon, 0.0353 percent carbon dioxide, and trace amounts of methane, nitrous oxide, carbon monoxide, ozone, hydrogen, helium, neon, ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, and sulfur dioxide (Table 2) ... Water can vary roughly from 0 percent to 4 percent of the atmosphere (by volume) depending on location, altitude, and atmospheric conditions, with the global average being around 3 percent.

Here, we see 99.03% nitrogen and oxygen, and .035 % carbon dioxide, most of which is not artificially Man-made. Average water vapor, at 3%, is a hundred times more prevalent than CO2.

Is all CO2 production, worldwide, "anthropogenic?" I sometimes think that the scientists are enthralled by popularizing fun words like "anthropogenic," and they forget what it is they are actually studying.

From the EIA again:

Given the natural variability of the Earth's climate, it is difficult to determine whether any change can be attributed to human activity. Evidence accumulated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which was established by the World Meterological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme to assess the available scientific, technical, and socio-economic information regarding climate change, indicates that global mean surface air temperature has increased between approximately 0.3 and 0.6 [degrees] C (0.5 and 1.1 [degrees] F) since the late 19th century. Although there is considerable uncertainty about whether this temperature increase has been caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, the IPCC has concluded that the balance of evidence suggests that there has been a discernible human influence on global climate.

From the EIA here:

Concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are naturally regulated by numerous processes collectively known as the “carbon cycle” (Figure 2). The movement (“flux”) of carbon between the atmosphere and the land and oceans is dominated by natural processes, such as plant photosynthesis. While these natural processes can absorb some of the net 6.1 billion metric tons of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions produced each year (measured in carbon equivalent terms), an estimated 3.2 billion metric tons is added to the atmosphere annually. The Earth’s positive imbalance between emissions and absorption results in the continuing growth in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

And another pretty picture:

Evidently industries don't absorb CO2, kicking out 6.3 units for every 3.2 surplus units the environment can absorb. The "2,000," "38,000" and "780" figures, by contrast, give you an idea of how much CO2 is present and moving around in nature, absent of industry.

And CO2, again, makes up .035% of the atmosphere in total.

Are carbon dioxide and the "trace" methane and other gases serving as catalysts? That's an interesting question.

***

I have a hard time producing a coherent picture, because there seems to be some differences of opinion amongst climatologists, even in this small sample. And Man-made global climate change is not my area of interest, scientifically. However, it has begun to interest me due to the terrific rate of "snowballing" cause and effect being popularized: warming means catastrophic warming, catastrophic warming caused by Man-made industrialization, Man-made industrialization has to be curtailed or governed by Global governmental fiat (and if you don't think this is going to have a huge impact on people who are trying to become more industrialized — to avoid dying, for example, of dysentery — you should probably think again).

The consequences of following the standard-bearers to wherever they want us to go, without question, seems a tiny bit fraught with peril. The standard-bearers sound a little too much like those infomercial fellows telling you you have a problem (flabby abs, e.g.) and that if you act NOW, get on that phone NOW and order NOW, things will get better.

"Meh," as several of my high school students are fond of saying.

My personal opinion? If things come down to a sort of 50-50 "draw" on the evidence of whether Man-made chemicals and other products are having a catastrophic impact, we would probably do well to err on the side of caution, rather than blithely go about our business.

But, I also have confidence that my children's generation are pretty smart, and that they'll cleverly respond to any actual global climate change, Man-made or no.

I mean, they'll have to, won't they? Adapt or perish? Isn't that always the way?


***

I always thought, having watched SOHO satellite imagery of the sun for some years now, that we ought to keep an eye on the sun as a primary source of global climate change. Then again, I'm a mathematician, not a climatologist, so I am willing to be taught.

**

Two things:

(1)    I don't go in for polemic, and prefer collecting evidence and models and knowledgeable theories from which to draw probably correct conclusions.

(2)    I suspect, but have yet to prove, that "Little Green Footballs" can only refer to some sort of herbivore poop. Just a feeling I have.