According to this story in today’s New York Times, Europe is looking to increased use of coal to meet its energy needs. As you might imagine, this news is not being received warmly by those who are concerned about levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. However, according to this item by Australian scientist-engineer Philip Chapman, we soon may wish we’d burnt more of the stuff.
I realize, of course, that for me to present these two items in the same breath may remind some of the desire that “intelligent design” advocates always express to have their creationist claptrap taught alongside real science. It does appear that there is a broad consensus among experts that global warming is real, as well as a somewhat less broad consensus that it is anthropogenic. There are important differences, though, between this disagreement and the intelligent-design “debate”, chief among which that neither side in the global-warming dispute is serving as a Trojan horse for fundamentalist religious mumbo-jumbo: both camps are making arguments based on an appeal to our understanding of climatology, such as it is.
I simply don’t know enough to have an opinion, frankly — I have heard persuasive arguments from both sides, and haven’t the expertise to judge — but I do know that there is something in me that is very wary of new religions, especially those that make pious calls for us to unite under the guidance of a new secular priesthood and make enormous economic and political sacrifices. What I really ought to do, rather than japing in ignorance from the sidelines, is to take the time to learn as much as I can about the relevant science, read very carefully the arguments on both sides, and try to come to an informed and independent opinion.
But there are only so many hours in the day, especially with all this free-will business to look after. So for now, japing it is.
9 Comments
Am testing out my new ID.
Did you see “The Great Global Warming Swindle”? Much the same connection is made between solar activity and significant climatic change.
Kevin
Malcolm
the spaceweather.com site is intriguing–it was noted in Phillip Chapman’s article-
JeanieO
A little bit of research would seem to indicate that a dearth of sunspots would portend colder weather. The science seems solid.
However I noticed a piece on PBS yesterday that Texas ranchers were up in arms about 11 proposed coal-fired electrical generating powerplants. Seems the winters have not been severe enough to kill off the grasshoppers. A court case ensued and the number of new plants has been reduced to 4.
I’ve done no research as to whether an Ice Age would be generally helpful in providing additional grass for the Texas cattle population but I’d guess it should cut down on grasshoppers.
JK
Hi Kevin,
No, I haven’t seen that. I did see this, though, today:
Scientists Urged To Make A Stand On Climate Change
Hi Jeanie,
Yes, Spaceweather.com is a good resource. I’ve been getting their newsletter for a few years now.
JK, I think you are probably quite right about the grasshoppers. It’s one of those glass-half-full things: mile-thick sheets of ice covering Minneapolis and Boston, but fewer grasshoppers in Texas. (Actually, I guess as far as Texas is concerned, that’d be a win-win.)
I am coming in late to this discussion so I guess this may not be read but JK, I am curious, on what grounds do you come the conclusion that the “The science seems solid”. That article in the Australian is simply a string of unsubstantiated assertions, many of which are wrong.
A decade of declining temperatures? 2007 0.7 deg cooler? Nonsense! Look here for what NASA has to say about 2007.
Where did he get the 0.7 number from? According to this blog Chapman is comparing January 2007 to January 2008. If that is where the number came from, it is of no value what so ever.
Solar cycle 24 is neither unusually late, nor expected to be unusually weak. Check out this excellent discussion of solar cycles for more information.
Malcolm,
With respect, I must take objection to this statement: “both camps are making arguments based on an appeal to our understanding of climatology, such as it is.” The relevant analogy between the ID supporters and the climate change denialists is that both groups have lost the fight within the scientific community and are now pushing their views through public relations campaigns. Both groups focus only on observations that support their position, misrepresent information and lie for their cause. The Chapman article is a case in point.
oops here are the links:
2007 temperature.
The blog discussing the 0.7 degree number
The solar cycle discussion
Thank you Andrew — I was hoping you might join in. I’ll take a look at these links when I get a moment, and I hope our readers will also.
As I have said, climatology, unlike evolutionary theory, is not an area that I flatter myself as having any particular familiarity with, and I am eager to learn more.