From:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Jul7.html

Climate Change: The Science Isn't Settled

By James Schlesinger

Monday, July 7, 2003; Page A17

Despite the certainty many seem to feel about the causes, effects and extent
of climate change, we are in fact making only slow progress in our
understanding of the underlying science. My old professor at Harvard, the
great economist Joseph Schumpeter, used to insist that a principal tool of
economic science was history -- which served to temper the enthusiasms of
the here and now. This must be even more so in climatological science. In
recent years the inclination has been to attribute the warming we have
lately experienced to a single dominant cause -- the increase in greenhouse
gases. Yet climate has always been changing -- and sometimes the swings have
been rapid.

At the time the U.S. Department of Energy was created in 1977, there was
widespread concern about the cooling trend that had been observed for the
previous quarter-century. After 1940 the temperature, at least in the
Northern Hemisphere, had dropped about one-half degree Fahrenheit -- and
more in the higher latitudes. In 1974 the National Science Board, the
governing body of the National Science Foundation, stated: "During the last
20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more
sharply over the last decade." Two years earlier, the board had observed:
"Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of
high temperatures should be drawing to an end . . . leading into the next
glacial age." And in 1975 the National Academy of Sciences stated: "The
climates of the earth have always been changing, and they will doubtless
continue to do so in the future. How large these future changes will be, and
where and how rapidly they will occur, we do not know."

These statements -- just a quarter-century old -- should provide us with a
dose of humility as we look into the more distant future. A touch of that
humility might help temper the current raging controversies over global
warming. What has concerned me in recent years is that belief in the
greenhouse effect, persuasive as it is, has been transmuted into the
dominant forcing mechanism affecting climate change -- more or less to the
exclusion of other forcing mechanisms. The CO2/climate-change relationship
has hardened into orthodoxy -- always a worrisome sign -- an orthodoxy that
searches out heretics and seeks to punish them.

We are in command of certain essential facts. First, since the start of the
20th century, the mean temperature at the earth's surface has risen about 1
degree Fahrenheit. Second, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has been
increasing for more than 150 years. Third, CO2 is a greenhouse gas -- and
increases in it, other things being equal, are likely to lead to further
warming. Beyond these few facts, science remains unable either to attribute
past climate changes to changes in CO2 or to forecast with any degree of
precision how climate will change in the future.

Of the rise in temperature during the 20th century, the bulk occurred from
1900 to 1940. It was followed by the aforementioned cooling trend from 1940
to around 1975. Yet the concentration of greenhouse gases was measurably
higher in that later period than in the former. That drop in temperature
came after what was described in the National Geographic as "six decades of
abnormal warmth."

In recent years much attention has been paid in the press to longer growing
seasons and shrinking glaciers. Yet in the earlier period up to 1975, the
annual growing season in England had shrunk by some nine or 10 days, summer
frosts in the upper Midwest occasionally damaged crops, the glaciers in
Switzerland had begun to advance again, and sea ice had returned to
Iceland's coasts after more than 40 years of its near absence.

When we look back over the past millennium, the questions that arise are
even more perplexing. The so-called Climatic Optimum of the early Middle
Ages, when the earth temperatures were 1 to 2 degrees warmer than today and
the Vikings established their flourishing colonies in Greenland, was
succeeded by the Little Ice Age, lasting down to the early 19th century.
Neither can be explained by concentrations of greenhouse gases. Moreover,
through much of the earth's history, increases in CO2 have followed global
warming, rather than the other way around.

We cannot tell how much of the recent warming trend can be attributed to the
greenhouse effect and how much to other factors. In climate change, we have
only a limited grasp of the overall forces at work. Uncertainties have
continued to abound -- and must be reduced. Any approach to policy formation
under conditions of such uncertainty should be taken only on an exploratory
and sequential basis. A premature commitment to a fixed policy can only
proceed with fear and trembling.

In the Third Assessment by the International Panel on Climate Change, recent
climate change is attributed primarily to human causes, with the usual
caveats regarding uncertainties. The record of the past 150 years is
scanned, and three forcing mechanisms are highlighted: anthropogenic
(human-caused) greenhouse gases, volcanoes and the 11-year sunspot cycle.
Other phenomena are represented poorly, if at all, and generally are ignored
in these models. Because only the past 150 years are captured, the vast
swings of the previous thousand years are not analyzed. The upshot is that
any natural variations, other than volcanic eruptions, are overshadowed by
anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

Most significant: The possibility of long-term cycles in solar activity is
neglected because there is a scarcity of direct measurement. Nonetheless,
solar irradiance and its variation seem highly likely to be a principal
cause of long-term climatic change. Their role in longer-term weather cycles
needs to be better understood.

There is an idea among the public that "the science is settled." Aside from
the limited facts I cited earlier, that remains far from the truth. Today we
have far better instruments, better measurements and better time series than
we have ever had. Still, we are in danger of prematurely embracing
certitudes and losing open-mindedness. We need to be more modest.

The writer, who has served as secretary of energy, made these comments at a
symposium on the 25th anniversary of the Energy Department's C02/climate
change program.

The Washington Post

"Dr. Convection" <Convection@convection.ca> wrote in message
news:KpqOa.384522$ro6.9299294@news2.calgary.shaw.c a...
> From:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Jul7.html
>
> Climate Change: The Science Isn't Settled

This is total crap. See comments in other post.

Climates rise and fall. Every 10,000 years or so there's a rapid drop
in global temperature (for reasons currently unknown, Humans haven't
existed long enough yet), which throws the world into an Ice Age. The
Ice Age runs its course, then it warms up again. Simple.

I believe it has something to do with Earth's magnetic fields. Perhaps
the Sun goes through some weird phase for a while which EFFECTS the
Earth's magnetic fields! Or any other combination of unknown
variables! There just isn't enough data yet. Humans have only been
around for 2 million years, tops - of which only the last few Millenia
have been dedicated to scientific study. Anything is possible when one
has so little data on a phenomenon.

"Tycoon37" <tycoon37312@msn.com> wrote in message
news:f27cf93b.0307072304.f441631@posting.google.co m...
> Climates rise and fall. Every 10,000 years or so there's a rapid drop
> in global temperature (for reasons currently unknown, Humans haven't
> existed long enough yet), which throws the world into an Ice Age. The
> Ice Age runs its course, then it warms up again. Simple.

And wrong! Do some reading.

>
> I believe it has something to do with Earth's magnetic fields. Perhaps
> the Sun goes through some weird phase for a while which EFFECTS the
> Earth's magnetic fields! Or any other combination of unknown
> variables! There just isn't enough data yet. Humans have only been
> around for 2 million years, tops - of which only the last few Millenia
> have been dedicated to scientific study. Anything is possible when one
> has so little data on a phenomenon.

Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmm

In article <KpqOa.384522$ro6.9299294@news2.calgary.shaw.ca> , Convection@convection.ca says...
>
>From:
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Jul7.html
>
>Climate Change: The Science Isn't Settled
>
>By James Schlesinger
>
>Monday, July 7, 2003; Page A17
>
>Despite the certainty many seem to feel about the causes, effects and extent
>of climate change, we are in fact making only slow progress in our
>understanding of the underlying science. My old professor at Harvard, the
>great economist Joseph Schumpeter, used to insist that a principal tool of
>economic science was history -- which served to temper the enthusiasms of
>the here and now. This must be even more so in climatological science. In
>recent years the inclination has been to attribute the warming we have
>lately experienced to a single dominant cause -- the increase in greenhouse
>gases. Yet climate has always been changing -- and sometimes the swings have
>been rapid.

Nice to see the old war horse can still tow the party line.
Another economist telling the scientists what is correct. This article is
loaded with the usual denialists rhetoric. Notice, however, that he doesn't
point to the satellite "temperature" record. It would appear that the
denialist camp has figured out that they can't hang their hat on the MSU TLT
this year, since 2002 turned out to be a warm year, which bumped the trend up
into positive territory.

>There is an idea among the public that "the science is settled." Aside from
>the limited facts I cited earlier, that remains far from the truth. Today we
>have far better instruments, better measurements and better time series than
>we have ever had. Still, we are in danger of prematurely embracing
>certitudes and losing open-mindedness. We need to be more modest.

The science is settled. Increasing CO2 will warm the planet.
The problem is finding the signal amongst several other influences which have
been larger than the change due to CO2 SO FAR. When the signal is detected at
a level of certainty beyond doubt, then it will be too late to go back and
undo all that preceded.

>The writer, who has served as secretary of energy, made these comments at a
>symposium on the 25th anniversary of the Energy Department's C02/climate
>change program.

He was also Secretary of Defense, as I recall.
As one who tried to interest the DOE in solar energy more than 25 years ago,
I wonder where we would have been today if the U.S. had required at least
some consideration of solar energy in building houses.....

--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson@skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------

"Tycoon37" <tycoon37312@msn.com> wrote in message
news:f27cf93b.0307072304.f441631@posting.google.co m...
> Climates rise and fall. Every 10,000 years or so there's a rapid drop
> in global temperature (for reasons currently unknown, Humans haven't
> existed long enough yet), which throws the world into an Ice Age. The
> Ice Age runs its course, then it warms up again. Simple.

Wrong. By the way, we have a correlation with multiple orbital cycles but no
clear causation. Without the mechanism we only have correlation which
establishes a hypothesis, not a theory.

>
> I believe it has something to do with Earth's magnetic fields. Perhaps
> the Sun goes through some weird phase for a while which EFFECTS the
> Earth's magnetic fields!

Geee. What kind of effect? Or do you mean 'affects'? By the way, the
Svenskmark hypothesis is pretty much discredited.


> Or any other combination of unknown variables!

IF they are unknown you cannot base your theory on them. This sort of
'handwaving' is not science.

> There just isn't enough data yet. Humans have only been
> around for 2 million years, tops - of which only the last few Millenia
> have been dedicated to scientific study. Anything is possible when one
> has so little data on a phenomenon.

*You* have little data but that is because you are ignorant, not because the
field is so hard. Try reading more and learning somehting about the current
state of the science before posting. I really suggest reading the summary of
the current science at http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm

When you have digested the current science basis we can discuss any
competing theories.

"Tycoon37" <tycoon37312@msn.com> wrote in message
news:f27cf93b.0307072304.f441631@posting.google.co m...
> Climates rise and fall. Every 10,000 years or so there's a rapid drop
> in global temperature (for reasons currently unknown, Humans haven't
> existed long enough yet), which throws the world into an Ice Age. The
> Ice Age runs its course, then it warms up again. Simple.

Wrong. By the way, we have a correlation with multiple orbital cycles but no
clear causation. Without the mechanism we only have correlation which
establishes a hypothesis, not a theory.

>
> I believe it has something to do with Earth's magnetic fields. Perhaps
> the Sun goes through some weird phase for a while which EFFECTS the
> Earth's magnetic fields!

Geee. What kind of effect? Or do you mean 'affects'? By the way, the
Svenskmark hypothesis is pretty much discredited.


> Or any other combination of unknown variables!

IF they are unknown you cannot base your theory on them. This sort of
'handwaving' is not science.

> There just isn't enough data yet. Humans have only been
> around for 2 million years, tops - of which only the last few Millenia
> have been dedicated to scientific study. Anything is possible when one
> has so little data on a phenomenon.

*You* have little data but that is because you are ignorant, not because the
field is so hard. Try reading more and learning somehting about the current
state of the science before posting. I really suggest reading the summary of
the current science at http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm

When you have digested the current science basis we can discuss any
competing theories.

swanson@nospam_on.net (Eric Swanson) wrote in message news:<beefn0$4hkj$1@news3.infoave.net>...
> As one who tried to interest the DOE in solar energy more than 25 years ago,
> I wonder where we would have been today if the U.S. had required at least
> some consideration of solar energy in building houses.....

Well, there is at least modest progress in some places. The solar
contractors around here [Silicon Valley] claim a large jump in solar
PV installations over the last 2 years, such that at least 3 of the
nearby ones had 6-month installation backlogs.
I suspect part of this the CA state rebates, some is the irritation
over the electricty gyrations/fiasco a few years ago, and some is
probably the continuing decline in prices, and some is people just
wanting to do the right thing. Fry's (an electronics++ store) sells
PV panales in some of its stores, always a leading indicator.

http://www.californiasolarcenter.org...0030408-8.html

Describes a recently-opened, modestly-priced (for here) housing
development with integrated solar PV roof tiles and other
energy-efficient features. They're also doing a similar design for a
much larger development in Watsonville. [That was an early article;
about half the homes sold the first week after opening.]

Of course, California is a fairly good place for solar PV.

swanson@nospam_on.net (Eric Swanson) wrote in message news:<beefn0$4hkj$1@news3.infoave.net>...
> As one who tried to interest the DOE in solar energy more than 25 years ago,
> I wonder where we would have been today if the U.S. had required at least
> some consideration of solar energy in building houses.....

Well, there is at least modest progress in some places. The solar
contractors around here [Silicon Valley] claim a large jump in solar
PV installations over the last 2 years, such that at least 3 of the
nearby ones had 6-month installation backlogs.
I suspect part of this the CA state rebates, some is the irritation
over the electricty gyrations/fiasco a few years ago, and some is
probably the continuing decline in prices, and some is people just
wanting to do the right thing. Fry's (an electronics++ store) sells
PV panales in some of its stores, always a leading indicator.

http://www.californiasolarcenter.org...0030408-8.html

Describes a recently-opened, modestly-priced (for here) housing
development with integrated solar PV roof tiles and other
energy-efficient features. They're also doing a similar design for a
much larger development in Watsonville. [That was an early article;
about half the homes sold the first week after opening.]

Of course, California is a fairly good place for solar PV.