The end may be near!.... Or maybe not
When I posted an item recently about a renowned hurricane researcher who claims Al Gore is completely wrong on the issue of global warming (see below), little did I realize how this would then heat up the blogosphere.
As you can see, reaction from readers was strongly opinionated, and basically fell into three categories. First, there were the “pure” scientists, who claimed that warming and mankind’s nefarious role in bringing it about were indisputable facts, and that anyone who disagreed (including the renowned researcher, Dr. William Gray) was obviously a few fries short of a Happy Meal.
Next, there were the naysayers, who agreed with Dr. Gray that Mr. Gore was “all wet” on global warming. They pointed to the fact that the Earth has had many dramatic climate shifts in its long history, and virtually none of those shifts could have been caused by humans.
Finally, we had the “above the fray” crowd, who chose not to take sides in the debate, but altruistically reminded us that whether or not there was global warming and whether or not mankind caused it, we should all do everything we can to preserve our embattled environment. You could almost hear them plaintively asking, “Can’t we all just get along?”
Whichever camp you fall into, however, it behooves all of us to make sense of an issue that could potentially have significant worldwide consequences—or not. With that in mind, I went in search of some facts to inform the debate, while completely ignoring the political falderal that has accompanied it.
Much of what I am about to present comes from a Web site hosted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The site had been updated on March 29, 2007 as of this writing.
Just the Facts
First, the mainstream media tell us that human activity since the Industrial Revolution has significantly increased the concentration of “greenhouse gases” in our atmosphere. Such gases—including water vapor and carbon dioxide—serve a useful function by trapping the sun’s heat and keeping the planet habitable—the “greenhouse effect.”
Some scientists, however, fear that a large buildup of such gases caused by human activity could eventually cause additional warming over the next century that would foster disastrous changes—for example, melting Arctic ice raising the sea level worldwide to the point where coastal communities could be destroyed.
NOAA confirms that greenhouse gas levels are indeed significantly higher, and that the average global surface temperature has risen 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit in the last 25 years. Whether or not the increase in greenhouse gases has caused this temperature rise is debatable, however, and the extent to which such a temperature increase, if it continues, would affect the Earth is also not clear.
Warming trends on Earth can be affected by a number of factors, including El Nino activity, volcanic eruptions, positions and temperatures of ocean currents, and solar weather activity, to name a few. With regard to the climatic effects of solar output in particular, NOAA notes that our “understanding is minimal.”
Another puzzling wrinkle of the warming trend is that it has not been uniform across the globe, says NOAA, meaning that some geographic areas seem to not have experienced increased temperatures. Almost makes you want to change the phrase to “regional warming.” For example, while, since 1979, Arctic sea ice has definitely decreased, sea ice in Antarctica has shown little change “or even a slight increase,” says NOAA.
Timing is also important. For example, NOAA reports that annual snow cover has been “below average” in the Northern Hemisphere since 1987, and has decreased by about 10% since 1966, primarily because of decreased spring and summer snowfall over the Eurasian and North American continents. On the other hand, winter and autumn snow cover extent has shown “no significant trend” for the Northern Hemisphere over the same period, the NOAA site says.
The Difficulties of Prediction
In the end, predictions of global warming and its effects are based on computer models that are projections based on current trends and conditions. Such models must not only take into account the multiple factors already mentioned, but also trends such as population growth, economic growth and energy efficiency. Depending on how scientists and others project such things, we may experience “a wide range of future climates,” says NOAA.
It’s also important to remember here that we are trying to predict the weather for the next century. Often, however, it seems as if we’re lucky if we can accurately predict the weather for the next week.
Given the instability of so many of the relevant factors, then, it is really difficult to side with the “pure” scientists on global warming, although they may ultimately be correct. It is also difficult to be certain that the naysayers are right, although their view may also prove to be more accurate.
As for the “above the fray” group, they may be right about being kind to our environment, but they may also be wrong about the ultimate impact, or lack of impact, mankind’s actions will have.
Someone once told me that “nothing is ever as bad as it seems, or as good as it seems.” My suspicion is that 100 years from now, that’s the way the global warming issue will be viewed, as the results, or lack of same, become apparent.
Remember that as the Year 2000 dawned, many technologists were predicting dire consequences for computer systems not prepared for the Y2K date change. While popular media would later pooh-pooh the danger, the fact is that some large systems were adversely affected, while others were spared because they were adequately prepared. In the end, it wasn’t a disaster, but neither was it a hoax.
When it comes to the idea of global warming, education, research, and a healthy dose of skepticism are the best course for an industry like ours that, much like the scientists we talk about here, tries to predict future risks and to be prepared for them.
Check out the NOAA site at www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html.
I've attempted to synthesize a lot of material into a fairly coherent article, but I'm sure I have missed some important points here, so feel free to add your comments and suggestions--within the bounds of good taste, of course. We want to hear from you!
Comments (7)
Congratulations, Ara, this is MUCH better. As one who heavily criticized your original post, I owe it to you to recognize this big improvement. As I noted, though, it required you to present much more substantive information. This is perhaps not the same as you being a scientist, but it did require you to become more of an expert that you were. I think this is a trend across the media that many reporters are grappling with.
Finally, just one comment about one quote:
"Given the instability of so many of the relevant factors, then, it is really difficult to side with the “pure” scientists on global warming, although they may ultimately be correct. It is also difficult to be certain that the naysayers are right, although their view may also prove to be more accurate."
Just because a forecast is uncertain does not mean it is not the BEST AVAILABLE forecast. This is why I think it is wise to defer to a scientific consensus. If the scientific method is working properly, the uncertainty will be refined over time, and hypotheses with be changed, refined, or abandoned if need be. However, the uncertainty IS a legitimate issue as to whether we should/need to ACT in a particular way. That's a political/societal issue, regardless of the scientific consensus.
Anyway, great follow up. Thanks
Posted by Todd Bault | April 27, 2007 11:11 AM
Posted on April 27, 2007 11:11
Maybe I'm missing something, but I thought the insurance tech blog was about technology - I mean the technology that is used to underwrite policies and pay claims.
While I'm sure that we'd all agree that global warming is an extraordinarily important topic worthy of a great deal of dicussion, but isn't it quite a bit off the track for an insurance technology blog?
Based on my many years in the insurance world, I know that the average insurance CIO/CTO and their staff have a more focused need for technology related information.
Posted by Joel Collamer | April 30, 2007 7:17 AM
Posted on April 30, 2007 07:17
Thanks Joel. Actually, this blog is devoted to ANY technologly that impacts on the world of insurance, and at least according to some, global warming will have, well, global impact, which is sure to be of concern to p-c and life/health insurers.
On the other hand, we also entertain questions and answers about the specific technologies that allow us to process claims, search for fraud, administer our companies, interface with agents/brokers/carriers--you get the picture. So, if you'd like to get a discussion going on some aspect of the carrier enterprise, by all means, have at it.
Posted by Ara Trembly | April 30, 2007 9:34 AM
Posted on April 30, 2007 09:34
Granted we should not just ignore our environment; we should not be extremists either.
If global warming is so real, why are we breaking temperature records on some days that
happened a 100 years ago? Back in the 1970s they
were preaching global cooling so they spread a
product on the ice caps to help absorb heat. Could this be why the nothern cap is melting?
And what is Mr. Gore doing to curb his consumption as he flies around in his corporate jet to preach to everybody? The hypocrisy is sickening.
What about the mega volcanos? What are the
global alarmists going to do about them?
Wait and see if we do not have a global U.N. tax
in a few years.
Start using some common sense.
Ara, you are NOT off track. People need to wake up and smell the coffee. If common sense does not prevail, wait and see how global warming will impact insurance rates and the TECHNOLOGY required to underwrite policies. If you deal with pollution risks on a regular basis, you know what I am talking about. I have been for 18
years and it is a joke sometimes.
Posted by John Diesel | April 30, 2007 10:42 AM
Posted on April 30, 2007 10:42
Just a note to Todd on his posting of April 27. Thanks very much for your kind words, but my latest posting does not in any way negate my previous remarks. If you like the information better, that's fine, but--and I know this will shock some of you--I do not worship at the altar of science, and I maintain a healthy skepticism about what science tells us. To quote another famous non-scientist: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." (Hamlet)
Posted by Ara Trembly | May 1, 2007 2:46 PM
Posted on May 1, 2007 14:46
Jerry, an agent, sent me the following comments:
Thank you for your article. It is truly refreshing to hear from someone who is not demanding absolute acceptance of one viewpoint or the other on global warming. In reality I am most puzzled by the scientists who are not willing to concede a scintilla of credibility to the "opposition’s" viewpoint. Even high school science classes taught us that it is the scientist's most basic task to question everything and to continue to do so even when a conclusion has seemingly been reached.
Maybe one of the benefits of nearing senior citizen status comes when you seem to remember something as a kind of deja-vu experience. May I point out that some of the same groups of scientists were firmly convinced that the late 1970s saw the coming of the next ice age? Oh, and many public officials also proposed fixes, most of which involved higher taxes to be paid to them to fund research, create regulatory bureaus, etc. And now we have the chance to do this again.
Thank you again for your article.
Posted by Ara Trembly | May 31, 2007 4:31 PM
Posted on May 31, 2007 16:31
Tony V. writes as follows:
Ara:
You are reliable, provacative, insightful, humorous, and accurate.
I feel empathy for people in all three categories - not because I'm unsure or unable to decide, but because I know how little I know, and I know better than to trust the so called experts, because they have so badly abused their moral authority as a group.
1> Pure science: I don't know it, and don't understand it, but your article fairly summarized a few very interesting circumstances which serve to prove how difficult it is to predict with accuracy
what the relationships are between cause and effects which are not uniformly experienced
worldwide.
2> The naysayers: I'd rather get my science reports from top world renowned scientists than from any political hack. And I want someone to explain to me how many feet thick pack ice at the north pole floating on relatively frigid waters (I guess something like 33-35 degrees F ?) can be severely
melted away in sub zero temps unless it is being exposed to warm ocean currents from below.
3> Above the fray: These may be confused, or just cowards, but I suggest that anything we do as a world human community to protect local and global environments will only benefit us and the future of the whole planet.
I suggest that the various means by which human actions are systematically destroying the oceans is a far worse problem for our survivability than is global warming. As the world population grows, transport and commerce grow, and the oceans which seem like an endless perfect dumping ground become a toxic toilet bowl. I hope I'm wrong, and that some geniuses will figure out how to reverse
the damages already done, but if I'm right, it will be the combined pollution of air, water and land that gets us before heat and rising tides.
Posted by Ara Trembly | June 1, 2007 3:45 PM
Posted on June 1, 2007 15:45