[Coral-List] Expert Disagreement in Climate, Science
Eugene Shinn
eugeneshinn at mail.usf.edu
Wed Jan 4 12:47:12 EST 2017
Do coral-list readers remember back when we all talked and worried about
global warming? As I recall that was mainly before the 1998 El Nino.
Then for about 20 years global temperature flattened somewhat and
sometime during that time global warming became “climate change.” As a
result of this change the subject became more confusing especially for
the public and coral biologists. Geologist, however, have always known
that climate has been changing. Such change is most obvious in
Pleistocene ice core records that clearly show periodic glacial and
interglacial (warming and cooling) periods as well as concomitant CO_2
ups and downs. Beside ice core data recent melting of glaciers of course
is undeniable evidence of warming. So why is it called “climate change”
instead of climate warming? And of course we have all seen the decline
in coral reefs. My 56-year photographic record in the Florida Keys
dramatically show coral demise began in the late 1970s and culminated in
the early 1980s. Unfortunately the reefs have experienced a downhill
slide ever since.
We have all worried about how to get our message to the public and
decision makers. We have not done a good job of it. I suspect the term
Climate Change has made communicating with the public more difficult.
The problem is we have used the term Climate Change almost
interchangeably with CO_2 /Methane and greenhouse gases. As a result the
whole complex subject has become emotional economic and political.
Emotions are so strong that if one questions whether CO_2 is the cause
he or she is labeled a “Climate Change Denier.” Why not CO_2 or Carbon
denier? These arguments must be very confusing to nonscientists. So when
a politician calls Climate Change a hoax does he or she really mean
temperature has not risen or fallen in the past 100 years or do they
mean that they do not believe CO_2 and other greenhouse gases are the
cause? These become difficult questions when we don’t clarify what we
mean. Regardless what skeptics may believe they are nevertheless branded
climate deniers and compared to those who believe the Earth is flat.
Good scientists have always been skeptics regardless of the subject.
The recent election has multiplied our concerns and postings on the list
continue to confuse global warming with climate change. The term Climate
change logically means temperature can go down as well as up. So why
can’t we just say what we mean? To make the subject even more confusing
many have begun to say carbon is the major cause of warming when they
should be saying Carbon dioxide. As scientists we like to see evidence
based on a controlled experiments. Those are experiments where we treat
X number of organisms with varying amounts of a substance B, and compare
results with X number of subjects not treated with substance B. I
realize that’s old-fashioned scientific proof but it is straightforward
and even the most ardent skeptics can understand the results.
Unfortunately we cannot perform these kinds of straight experiments. We
lack reference planets the same distance from the sun as earth to serve
as a reference. What we have done is show experimentally in the
laboratory (as did Svante Arrhenius back in 1896) that raising CO_2
levels increases adsorption of infrared radiation and thus raises
temperature. We then infer (note I said infer) that CO_2 also raises
atmospheric temperature as it does in laboratory experiments.
We know the computer climate model outputs are mathematically correct
but do we really know they accurately replicate nature? A little bias
one way or the other can influence the outcome. One should also be
suspicious because many models (there are more than 20) is that while
CO_2 has continued to rise since 1998 global temperature did not rise at
the rate predicted by most models. The public and many politicians are
often reminded of these problems so it is no wonder that many are
confused and remain skeptical. I am confused as anyone. The message in
the Australian youtube does not clarify the problem for most of
us..<https://www.youtube.com/embed/BC1l4geSTP8> I suggest we drop the
term climate change and say what we mean-----global warming.Gene
--
No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS)
------------------------------------ -----------------------------------
E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor
University of South Florida
College of Marine Science Room 221A
140 Seventh Avenue South
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
<eugeneshinn at mail.usf.edu>
Tel 727 553-1158
---------------------------------- -----------------------------------
More information about the Coral-List
mailing list