Is NASA Chief Michael Griffin Right to Question the Urgency of Global Warming?

[D H]

Michael Griffin turned up the heat this morning on global warming in an interview on National Public Radio.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10571499"

NASA administrator Michael Griffin defends the space agency's programs, including plans for a permanent moon base and manned missions to Mars. He also says that while NASA studies climate change, the agency has no authorization to "take actions to affect climate change in either one way or another."​

The zinger:

"I have no doubt that … a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change. First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown. And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take."​

Griffin's statement has attracted attacks from the left and praise from the right. Griffin did not deny that global warming is occurring or that we are causing it: The right is a bit premature in its praise. He merely advocated caution in doing something about global warming. It appears the left can't handle that.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There is no reasonable doubt that we will have to adapt to a warmer planet. What is laughable is the idea that significant changes won't be catastrophic for millions if not billions of people.

Where we end up might be fine, but getting there will be hell if the changes happen too quickly.

 

[Smacal1072]

Alright, so we have no business trying to fix global warming. Now ask yourself: "Do I want my grandchildren living underwater?"

 

[drankin]

Alright, so we have no business trying to fix global warming. Now ask yourself: "Do I want my grandchildren living underwater?"

Well, at least we want have a water shortage problem. Now if the answer is
"no, I don't want my grandchildren living underwater", what can be done about it? (I'd move them to a higher elevation). If the whole world quit burning fossil fuels today would that cause the Earth to get cooler? Would the Earth continue getting warmer? Would the temp stay the same?

My bet is that the Earth would continue to get warmer, regardless. But, just like the GW via mankind, it's speculation.

 

[Evo]

Alright, so we have no business trying to fix global warming. Now ask yourself: "Do I want my grandchildren living underwater?"

Sea levels rise and fall all the time, and sea levels never rise or fall worldwide at the same time

 

[D H]

Alright, so we have no business trying to fix global warming.

More to the point, does NASA have any business trying to fix global warming? Remember, NASA share of the federal budget is a whopping 0.6%.

 

[PRDan4th]

I think Mr. Griffin's comments are right on! Global climate has been changing for millions of years and will continue to change no matter what mankind does. As in all prior cycles, man must adapt to survive by moving to higher ground or higher or lower latitudes to find comfortable space to live.

The real question is: "are we (mankind) doing anything to cause very rapid changes in global climate?" If so, can we do anything about it? The two major sources of CO2 are deforestation and fosil fuel combustion for energy production. We should be able to mitigate both activities with rational economics. Carbon taxation may not be the best way, however. I see a potential in methane production from sub-sea hydrate formations and CO2 sequestration in sub-sea hydrate "mines" that had been used to produce the methane. The global methane hydrate supply is huge! It should be able to replace almost all other hydrocarbon fuels and reduce CO2 production enormously!

As we evolve into the Hydrogen economy methane steam reforming/shift conversion and CO2 extraction will allow easy CO2 hydrate sequestration.

 

[edward]

Michael Griffin turned up the heat this morning on global warming in an interview on National Public Radio.

It looks like someone turned up the heat on Griffin.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Sea levels rise and fall all the time, and sea levels never rise or fall worldwide at the same time

During ice ages sea levels fall worldwide I thought? And then they rise again when the glaciers melt... all that water needs to come from somewhere

 

[Andre]

okay here we go again. For those who know me, nothing new here, carry on.

"I have no doubt that … a trend of global warming exists.

It may be observed that the trend of lower trophosphere satellite temperatures has stabilized as of 2002. So it's not warming today in general. Anyway, intented here is something else, the idea that increasing CO2 increases the surface temperature. I agree. Peeing in the ocean makes it warmer. Definitely.

The clean physical warming effect of CO2 can be calculated to be about one degree celsius per doubling after thermal equilibrium is regained, that is, which takes several decades to centuries. The instanteneous warming effect is only 0.7 degrees. So to get the scary 3 +/- 1 degrees Celsius of Hansen et al a boost is needed from "positive feedback". This positive feedback is supposed to have acted in the ice ages but it is refuted along three independent lines.

This means that the nett feedback is negative which means that the actual increase of temperature will not exceed one degree per doubling CO2. I believe the term here is underwhelming.

I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change. First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown. And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take."

Even if the doubling temperature increase was high enough to worry, there is still the Lomborg principle, the best of our efforts would delay the alleged inevitable a few years. Is it worth to cripple the society to gain a bit delay, or is it better to strenghten society and be ready to fight the consequences directly?

About melting ice sheets and sea levels. The Earth appears to be currently recovering from it's coldest era in the last 10,000 years, the ninetheenth century. That will melt off a few glaciers, what else is new? Remember that the ice sheets survived the early Holocene Thermal Optimum with flying colors, a period of 3-4000 years when the Earth was 2-5 degrees warmer than today.

 

[drankin]

okay here we go again. For those who know me, nothing new here, carry on.



It may be observed that the trend of lower trophosphere satellite temperatures has stabilized as of 2002. So it's not warming today in general. Anyway, intented here is something else, the idea that increasing CO2 increases the surface temperature. I agree. Peeing in the ocean makes it warmer. Definitely.

The clean physical warming effect of CO2 can be calculated to be about one degree celsius per doubling after thermal equilibrium is regained, that is, which takes several decades to centuries. The instanteneous warming effect is only 0.7 degrees. So to get the scary 3 +/- 1 degrees Celsius of Hansen et al a boost is needed from "positive feedback". This positive feedback is supposed to have acted in the ice ages but it is refuted along three independent lines.

This means that the nett feedback is negative which means that the actual increase of temperature will not exceed one degree per doubling CO2. I believe the term here is underwhelming.



Even if the doubling temperature increase was high enough to worry, there is still the Lomborg principle, the best of our efforts would delay the alleged inevitable a few years. Is it worth to cripple the society to gain a bit delay, or is it better to strenghten society and be ready to fight the consequences directly?

About melting ice sheets and sea levels. The Earth appears to be currently recovering from it's coldest era in the last 10,000 years, the ninetheenth century. That will melt off a few glaciers, what else is new? Remember that the ice sheets survived the early Holocene Thermal Optimum with flying colors, a period of 3-4000 years when the Earth was 2-5 degrees warmer than today.

And the human race, with little technology, survived just fine.

 

[edward]

A newly released study indicates that the climate scientists at NASA have a big disagreement with Griffin.

On Wednesday, Griffin's own agency put out a news release about a research paper written by nearly 50 NASA and Columbia University scientists and published in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. The paper shows how "human-made greenhouse gases have brought the Earth's climate close to critical tipping points, with potentially dangerous consequences for the planet."

White House science adviser Jack Marburger said he was not disturbed by Griffin's remarks, but distanced them from President Bush, who on Thursday announced an international global warming proposal.

I haven't seen Bush's global warming proposal. If it involves mounting a thermostat on the atlantic conveyer and appointing a global warming czar I wouldn't be surprised.

http://www.wtop.com/index.php?nid=220&sid=1154755

 

[siddharth]

Here's what Bob Park said on his weekly column on Bush's proposal and Griffin's statement

President Bush rejected the Kyoto treaty six years ago, saying it would "harm our economy." "Climate change" did not show up in Bush's vocabulary until his 2007 State-of-the-Union address. Yesterday, however, pressured to take action, he trotted out his "new international climate change framework," declaring "the United States takes this issue seriously." Other leaders at next week's G-8 summit, who are leaning toward a bold German plan to reduce greenhouse emissions 50% by 2050, are unlikely to be impressed. The plan outlined by the White House is classic Bush: it contained no concrete targets or dates, no enforcement mechanism, no penalties for noncompliance, and it wouldn't take effect until four years after Bush leaves office.

Just two hours before the President's remarks, Michael Griffin, the man Bush picked to head the agency charged with collecting climate change data, was interviewed on National Public Radio. He defended cuts in programs to monitor climate change: It frees resources for a manned moon base, and a new crew transportation vehicle to take astronauts to the Moon, Mars and the space station. He saw no need to take action against global warming. "Who has the privilege of deciding that this is the best climate for all other human beings," he asked? Just two months ago the IPCC report detailed the enormous cost of global warming on human life. Where has he been?

(http://www.bobpark.org/) (Current issue)

 

[Smurf]

And the human race, with little technology, survived just fine.

So as long as the bare minimum number survive that we can still call it the human race (species), that's cool? I dunno, I personally have higher goals in mind for humanity.

 

[Andre]

So as long as the bare minimum number survive that we can still call it the human race (species), that's cool? I dunno, I personally have higher goals in mind for humanity.

There was no such thing as bare minimum numbers surviving. Several thousands of years ago the whole of the Sahara, Egypt, Mesopotamia had ideal climates. Mediterenian and moist. The land of milk and honey. The crate of several civilisations. Then the big drought started and after that several civilisations perished under averse climate conditions. All without anybody regulating anything with carbon dioxide.

A reasonable assessment of the contribution of CO2 to climate here:

http://www.webcommentary.com/asp/ShowArticle.asp?id=websterb&date=070601

 

[inol]

It may be observed that the trend of lower trophosphere satellite temperatures has stabilized as of 2002. So it's not warming today in general.

You could say that about the period 1980-1986, or the period 1987-1996
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Satellite_Temperatures.png

 

[PRDan4th]

The debate is over, all scientists agree: "The sky is falling!", Chicken Little.

 

[edward]

The debate is apparently only heating up. The latest NASA research is below, tipping points and all.

Tipping points can occur during climate change when the climate reaches a state such that strong amplifying feedbacks are activated by only moderate additional warming. This study finds that global warming of 0.6ºC in the past 30 years has been driven mainly by increasing greenhouse gases, and only moderate additional climate forcing is likely to set in motion disintegration of the West Antarctic ice sheet and Arctic sea ice. Amplifying feedbacks include increased absorption of sunlight as melting exposes darker surfaces and speedup of iceberg discharge as the warming ocean melts ice shelves that otherwise inhibit ice flow

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2007/danger_point.html

 

[Evo]

This is an excellent article written by Prof Bob Carter, a geologist at James Cook University, Queensland, engaged in paleoclimate research. I suggest you read the article in it's entirety before commenting.

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.

Does something not strike you as odd here? That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of Earth's recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn't seem at all odd to many thousands of independent scientists. They have long appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the public appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/...0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html

 

[Andre]

Yes, there has been a lot of discussion about this paper elsewhere. Bob told that the title was invented by a brilliant sub editor. He had never said something like that. Other than that, there is the discussion of starting point bias. 1998 had the strong El Nino but that was followed by a prolonged La Nina. In fact there are the other ENSO events and some volcanic cooling from La Pinotuba and La Chichon volcanoes that biased the record, so you could find any trend you wanted.

I pointed out earlier that the global temperature record is trendless since Jan 2002 with very little ENSO activity. But that doesn't say anything for the future.

 

[ice109]

and george blew up the twin towers too :uhh: @ the guys above

 

[Andre]

The curing process from apocalypitis:

http://www.ewire.com/display.cfm/Wire_ID/3967

WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Jun. 1 -/E-Wire/-- "NASA's top administrator, Michael Griffin, speaking on NPR radio made some refreshingly sensible comments about the present global warming scare," said Robert Ferguson, Director of the Science and Public Policy Institute. "Many rationalist scientists agree with him, clearly demonstrating there is no scientific consensus on man-made, catastrophic global warming," said Ferguson.


Griffin said he doubted global warming is "a problem we must wrestle with," and that it is arrogant to believe that today's climate is the best we could have and that "we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change."


While NASA scientist, James Hansen, was sharply critical of his boss, other scientists from around the world came to Griffin's support.


Said Dr. Walter Starck, an Australian marine scientist, "Griffin makes an important distinction between the scientific findings of climate change and dramatic predictions of catastrophic consequences accompanied by policy demands. The former can be evaluated by its evidence, but; the latter rest only on assertions and claims to authority. Alternate predictions of benefits from projected changes have been proposed with comparable authority and plausibility. For example, unless one chooses to define the Little Ice Age as "normal" and "optimal" the net effect of any warming has only been beneficial and any anthropogenic contribution very small indeed. Dramatic predictions of imminent disaster have a near perfect record of failure. Griffin's note of caution in the escalating concern over climate change deserves sober consideration...cont'd

 

[Astronuc]

From "There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998", cited by Evo in post #19

Since the early 1990s, the columns of many leading newspapers and magazines, worldwide, have carried an increasing stream of alarmist letters and articles on hypothetical, human-caused climate change. Each such alarmist article is larded with words such as "if", "might", "could", "probably", "perhaps", "expected", "projected" or "modelled" - and many involve such deep dreaming, or ignorance of scientific facts and principles, that they are akin to nonsense.

from "Global Insanity Over Global Warming" cited by Andre in post #15

On the eve of a solar minimum that could usher in the coldest climate period since the Little Ice Age, . . .

:rofl: It seems both sides of the debate/argument are alarmist.

 

[Andre]

From "There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998", cited by Evo in post #19

On the eve of a solar minimum that could usher in the coldest climate period since the Little Ice Age, . . .

from "Global Insanity Over Global Warming" cited by Andre in post #15
:rofl: It seems both sides of the debate/argument are alarmist.

Really

People in W-Europe are longing for the white christmasses of Charles Dickens and the famous Frisian http://library.thinkquest.org/11529/cityskating/What_is_the_Eleven_Cities_Skating-tour.htm every year. They also wonder when it will ever cold enough again to close up the cabrio's.

I guess, that's human nature, if you want to be in the lime light, the best is to preach an apocalyptic sermon.

 

[Astronuc]

Really

People in W-Europe are longing for the white christmasses of Charles Dickens and the famous Frisian http://library.thinkquest.org/11529/cityskating/What_is_the_Eleven_Cities_Skating-tour.htm every year. They also wonder when it will ever cold enough again to close up the cabrio's.

I guess, that's human nature, if you want to be in the lime light, the best is to preach an apocalyptic sermon.

Yes - really!

I would tend to agree that there is a lot of hype about GW/AGW. Unless one is intimately familiar with the raw data and the algorithms used to develop the scenarios/trends/hypotheses/theories, it is difficult to judge.

Now on the other side are the climate skeptics who seem to write off AGW, and question GW. I find it somewhat amusing that now some are clamoring about another 'Mander Minimum' - what with a comment like "a solar minimum that could usher in the coldest climate period since the Little Ice Age". Maybe - maybe not.

What if the next minimum is more like the Dalton minimum, or the Oort, Wolf or Spörer Minima. It would appear that the Spörer Minimum would be accompanied by the coldest weather since the Maunder Minimum - assuming those theories are correct. But could mankind's changes to the environment mitigate the effects of another solar minimum?

And what about the Medieval Maximum - ~1100-1300 AD. The current maximum could spike - or it could hit a new plateau for the next 200 years. Perhaps the mechanism causing the rapid rise of the current maximum means that it will shutdown with a similar rate. The Oort minimum preceded the Medieval maximum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg

How does one draw a conclusive cause and effect with the solar cycle and global temperature variation - with so many other variables invovled - e.g. volcanic activity?

See also - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

 

[BillJx]

I'm no scientist but in the power plant where I work, I do habitually allow for response delays in thermodynamic systems. The atmosphere and oceans constitute a very big system, and I'd expect a long delay between a climate change input and the resulting changes. If it acts like any other system, I'd expect a similar response delay when we try to reverse the change.

From what graphs I've seen, CO2 has varied from about 180 ppm during glaciations to about 280 ppm during interglacials. Andre has better figures, I'm sure. It's now at 380 ppm.

To me, it looks very much as though the warming hasn't really started yet.

 

[Andre]

Alternately, using the same reasoning, it took about 800 years lag, (after the assumed warming in the ice ages), that the CO2 started to rise. So why couldn't the current rise also partial be explained by the warming of the Medieval Warm Period?

 

[alexandra]

Some news from Australia:

New study into Australian Climate change gives hope for the Kyoto Protocol
by Jay Wynne
Tuesday June 05, 2007

A new study issued today has revealed the likely changes in Australian weather patterns as a result of ‘inevitable’ climate change.

The ‘Climate Change, Risk and Vulnerability’ report states that higher temperatures, more drought, severe cyclones and storm surges can all be expected with future human-induced changes in climate.

The government commissioned report has been released at a time when the country has been gripped by severe drought, and the news will be hard to take for farmers. The on-going drought over the last few years has caused many farmers to turn their hands to other careers. Crops have failed, water supplies have been in short supply and many industries have been affected, although recent heavy rains have helped to alleviated the problem.

The report states that Australia could be up to two degrees Celsius higher by the year 2030, which in turn could mean facing more bushfires and heat waves as well as more frequent floods, stronger cyclones and a change in ocean currents.

More: http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/world/news/26072005news.shtml

No cause for concern, though... it's just all part of the 'natural cycle'; all the CO2 being spewed into the air has absolutely no effect at all, nosiree! All's well with the planet, so let's carry on with 'business as usual' - or, as we Australians would say, 'No worries, mate!'.

 

[Astronuc]

Back to the OP -

Environment
NASA Chief Regrets Voicing His Views on Climate
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10801610
by Renee Montagne

Morning Edition, June 7, 2007 · NASA head Michael Griffin says he regrets voicing his views on climate change. Griffin had told Morning Edition he wasn't sure global warming was a problem. On Monday, he told a gathering of scientists and engineers that he had tried to keep his opinions separate but that got "lost in the shuffle."

 

[PRDan4th]

Sounds like they got to him!

 

[drankin]

Sounds like they got to him!

LOL, yep! I'm not surprised.

 

[tonyjeffs]

Global warming is caused by the desire of politicians to get the public interested in 'something else'.

 

[IMP]

Creating the fear of global warming is just to prepare everyone for the coming "air tax". The ability to tax air is like a dream come true for the gov. You just wait, money is going to fly out of all our pockets, maybe at super-luminal speeds (sorry Einstein)...