An Old Coal Miner Looks at Global Warming

Part 1, the Science

As a progressive who spent 36 years at a coal mine, I claim to have a unique perspective on the subject of climate change.

The  best source of real data on the science iswww.giss.nasa.gov, the website of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.  Until his retirement, this institute  was directed by James Hansen/, the man who made correct  predictions in the 1980‘s about the state of climate now and who is probably the one most responsible for raising the alarm early.

First, a few objections to climate science and the answers to them:

1. The weather models are wrong a lot, how can the climatologist models be any better?

Weather models are designed  to predict local weather over short term time scales. Climate models predict global changes over longer time scales where the random variations a re averaged out.

2.  The climatologists refuse to use good old fashioned temperatures and are messing with the data in all sorts of ways to make their point.

A perfect measurement of global temperature would require a perfect sample set.  Most weather stations are in cities (which are hotter than the surrounding area) and few weather stations are in the all important Arctic and Antarctic regions.  Many measurements have to be thrown out, modified , or interpolated to obtain a better picture.  If cities’ temperatures  were the main samples, global warming would appear worse than it is.

The measurements a expressed asanomalies,  temperature difference from a selected local mean, to minimize problems and allow averaging between stations.

3. These models rely on statistics too much.

Contrary to popular myth, statistical analysis is simply common sense in mathematical form.  It is the only way to get any meaningful scientific data in almost every case.

The old bromide, “lies, damn lies, and statistics”  is correct in the sense that statistical analysis is  often the only way to get to the truth.

4. If the summer weather is cold, a denier will ask, “where’s the global warming (heh, heh)”;  If  winter weather is hot, the same denier will say, “you gotta love that global warming (heh, heh)".

Examples from the deniers and answers to them:

There are many obfuscations and actual lies in the climate denial camp.  The one I like best involves satellite pictures of  arctic ice, showing the whole arctic ocean covered.  The presenter says, “see, it’s all there after all.”  Of course the whole of a lake will look the same covered in ice whether the ice is one inch or one foot deep.  The presenter can’t tell  thickness from space. He ignores the life risking  real researchers on the ice who actually know how thin it is becoming.

Other half truths:

1. More carbon dioxide will actually help farmers and make a better life for all.

This might be true, but do we want to bet the planet on it?

2.  The Pacific  Decadal Oscillation is responsible for the warming evidence.

Not likely--correlation  with out proof of causation.  It is much more likely that the warming is responsible for the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

3. The scientists are lying: the hacked emails prove it.

The emails are not scientific papers. A scientist expresses frustration or suggests a statistical approach in the email, but actual scientific results are enshrined in peer reviewed journals.

4. The journals  won’t publish contrary data.

Possibly true, but irrelevant.  Any theory of global warming must accept the results of  studies published in peer reviewed journals or refute those results.  As each supporting paper is published, refutation gets harder.   Quantum mechanics doesn’t refute the results of Newtonian Physics, merely expands those results into a new domain.

5. Things have been heating up since the ice age.

No doubt of that, but it is the rapid acceleration of warming over the last century that is the point of concern.  It is easy to adapt to a slow warming trend.