05/15/2008: "Guest Editorial"

More on “Global Warming”! By Charlie Bodenstab

I’m compelled to revisit the issue of global warming due to the constant drumbeat that accompanies the (two past columns) subject. Since the issue has become so politicized, let me state my core belief so that I’m not immediately dumped into the “Global Warming Deniers” category, and then totally dismissed.

* There is no question in my mind that the planet has been gradually warming for the past many decades following a historic pattern of warming and cooling cycles.

* There is no question that we must become better stewards of our environment and make Herculean efforts at maintaining and improving it.

* There is no question that we must reduce our use of hydrocarbons, and particularly that of imported oil.

Having said this, I do not agree that the “debate is over” with the assertion that the primary reason for global warming of the past decades is due to “excessive quantities of manmade CO2 being discharged into the atmosphere”. The arguments offered to support this absolute statement do not appear solid, and, contrary to a plethora of reports, do not have the universal and unequivocal support of the many thousands of scientists.

.
(continued from front page)

In a recent “60 Minutes” interview Al Gore was asked “there seems to be a number of eminent scientists that have gone on record at not supporting this claim of manmade CO2 being the primary cause of global warming. What are your feelings about that?” His response was, “Well you know Leslie, these people are holdouts that are really not much different than the people who deny the holocaust or claim that the earth is flat.”

What a stupid, arrogant statement! The only way you could excuse such an insulting utterance is that he misinterpreted the question, which he clearly did not. In fact, his other statement that “the debate is over!” is also ridiculous. In science, the debate is never over. That is the strength of science; it provides the energy and intellectual stamina to move forward to new discoveries and understanding.

One of many problems I have with the global warming predictions being offered is that they are based on mathematical models that presume to describe all the key variables and interactions that make up our infinitely complex global climate and therefore allow us to project into the future. Having been intimately involved in some of the early complex model building I find the claim hard to accept.

A key element of any mathematical model of a highly complex system is that it must be validated. That is, one must run the model through a set of data that it has never seen before, but which represents actual events, and then see if it reasonably predicts what actually happened. In my past experience we did this over and over only to constantly find that we had left out a variable, missed an obscure interaction between two or more variables, or failed to understand some other aspect of the subject, which then lead to an inaccurate result. Each time we went through the process however we would get a greater understanding and “tweak” the model accordingly. Eventually the model started to look reasonable.

Too often however, we found that all we had done is to adjust the model sufficiently to make it match the results we were looking for and actually were no closer to reality then when we started. To safeguard against this situation we would then subject the model to an entirely new set of actual conditions to see how it performed and only if it could get through that rigorous process could we tentatively declare success.

How can you do that with a climate model? What body of data do we have for the past few hundred years that reflects the infinite number of variables and conditions that existed long before we had the ability to record the needed data? We don’t and didn’t! These current models are not validated and they simply reflect some scientists’ current analytical expectations without any solid basis to be sure that they have covered all the issues and conditions. I have read a number of the published papers on the subject and they are a mass of jargon, but it is possible to verify the point just made. In fact, what I see when I read these papers, is an incestuous grant-feeding frenzy.

So why is all this so critical? Let’s say Al Gore is way off in his assertions, but after all, he has awakened the nation to a serious problem and triggered some needed action. The point is that if you don’t define a problem correctly you will never solve it, and may in fact do more damage than good. If you need a contemporary example, consider the current massive effort of solving the oil availability problem with corn based ethanol. A recent “Time Magazine” cover article went into great detail to point out that what is going on has triggered one of the worst ecological disasters imaginable and with absolutely no positive benefit in reducing the use of hydrocarbon based fuel – it’s original purpose! Ponder the magnitude of that statement for a moment.

Since the effort is fueled (forgive the pun) by government subsidies, it now has a life of its own, needing no economic justification. Sadly, the poor and disadvantaged of the world are paying the highest price for this folly through brutal escalation of basic food prices, and our environment will pay its price as well. The situation is the direct result of an incorrectly defined problem, incomplete understanding of the various interactions, and an atmosphere of “this is good, how you dare question it?” Sound familiar?

There is an even greater risk with this obsession on CO2. Let’s say that the globe starts to swing back to one of its normal cooling stages as it repeatedly has done in the past, thereby more than offsetting any CO2 effects. Any citizen has a right to say that they have been duped and suddenly the whole program of energy conservation and environmental preservation has been seriously tarnished. The reaction to feeling duped could be a terrible regression of interest and actions in solving our bona fide environmental problems. Moreover, the resources that were expended to reduce CO2 will have been squandered, when they could have done immeasurable good if allocated to areas more solidly grounded in protecting the environment.

There is an old saying, “If you do not know where you are going, any road will get you there.” In this case if you have not properly defined the problem you are trying to solve, no road will get you there. I have a horrible feeling that the Al Gores of the world are taking us down a very unfortunate road with very counterproductive implications.