RSS

June 19, 2009

Marek Swierczynski, journalist at TVN24, Diamond Contributor (1102)

As the global climate change - rather than just warming - is a largely natural process on which the human impact is difficult to measure (though it does exist), humanity should focus on adapting to the change and minimizing the impact rather than trying to reverse what is irreversable - and I mean both climate patterns and developing needs of mankind. No one can stop around 3 bln people in China, India and Africa from wanting to have a tv, a fridge or a car - if only they can afford it. And afford they will. No one on Earth can stop the Arctic from melting even if all Europe and Australia switch from heat bulbs to energy-saving lamps. And the Arctic will be melting. This does not mean that reducing emissions is wrong - it is right, but it should be done with respect to the people, communities and economies. Charging green taxes on people is senseless if they do not support adaptation to new conditions. We should create technologies, invent jobs and promote lifestyles that make us less vulnerable to the climate change rather than try to top that change from happening - because the latter is beyond our human powers. We should not try to make excess money on "green energy markets" by creating virtual emission accounts, quotas, rights and bourses but invest in real reduction cuts by simply saving energy. Emissions rights trade is an invention of the financial system that has just collapsed before our eyes and we should not continue with it. Its adaptation and flexibility that win - not retreat.

June 19, 2009

Unregistered User

Im not sure if I can fully agree with you. I don't think I know enough about the science of climate change to credibly argue that it is not only partially but largely humanity's fault, but that is another debate.

Your suggestion to start adapting to, rather than try to halt, climate change however seems dangerous. We should be careful not to open the floodgates. People and states will be quick to jump on such argumenta to justify giving up on issues of sustainability. The current fear of climate change and the hope to lessen its adverse effects on humanity are driving the international efforts to curb emissions and develop more sustainable technologies
The amount of money that needs to be invested is already not being provided by governments and especially developing countries do not accept their responsibility to invest in those technologies. Their argument that calls for 'development first' is of course legitimate, but they too will be affected by climate change.

Personally, I believe that there is still a lot we can and must do that will actually affect climate change in a positive way aka reduce its scope and giving up on this and focusing on a life after the change could threaten these efforts.

June 19, 2009

Gregor Schueler, University of St Andrews, Silver Contributor (35)

Sorry about anonymity, I wasn't logged in...

June 20, 2009

Bernhard Lucke, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Platinum Contributor (531)

as a researcher concerned with vulnerability and adaptation to climate change, I have to tell you that we simply don't know what is going to happen. If you look at the scale of the maps in the IPPC report, "regional" means continents. Also, we know basically nothing about what internal feedbacks will do. We just know they are there and that things might quickly get out of control. Also we know too little about the role of sun activity. In any case, the consequences of climate change could be truly apocalyptic.

How past, historic climate variations of probably much smaller extent changed the course of history was summarised by Keys (1999) in his book "Catastrophe". Very worth reading.

Regarding internal feedbacks, Frederick Vester conducted a simulation which is impressive although we don't know whether it will materialise, since many of the assumed feedbacks are not sufficiently understood.


Sources:

Keys, D., 1999. Catastrophe. An Investigation into the Origins of the Modern World. Century books, London.

http://www.frederic-vester.de/deu/werke/zeitbombe-klimawandel

June 20, 2009

John Hadjisky, Blogger, Platinum Contributor (328)

The consensus described in AR4 (2007) is dissolving. This is because the global warming signal has NOT been detected (yet) in the real world. If you read the link to the EC's global warming page (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/home_en.htm) with a critical eye, it tells you all you need to know:

The consensus of models tell us to expect a signal due to human influence of 1.8-4.0°C per century. But in the 150 years since 1850 we have only seen a change of 0.76° C! Since 0.76 is less than the minimum expected warming of 1.8, we have no basis to accept the AGW model over the null hypothesis.

What's more, according to SAR (2nd AR) through AR4, 1940 is the earliest date that human emissions became large enough to matter. Therefore, of that fraction of a degree of observed warming since 1850, only the warming that happened since 1940 could possibly be due to human influence.

Some so-called scientists are attempted to declare a new consensus around the hypothesis of "climate change". This new hypothesis attempts to deal with the problem that the expected warming signal did not appear. Instead, the new hypothesis is that human emissions cause dramatic climate variations (precipitation changes, changes to flora and fauna, more extreme weather events, etc) *without any significant increase in global average temperature*. I expect that AR5 will be the formal debut of this new, climate-change-without-warming hypothesis. Its defenders will attempt to argue that it is simply a refinement of the earlier, AGW hypothesis, when in fact, it is an entirely new hypothesis that, if true, will displace critical, major elements of the AGW hypothesis from the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Assessment Reports. Note that these earlier Assessment Reports indeed discuss climate change, but only in the context of changes *caused by a change in the global average temperature*.

Will these new studies change government agenda(s)?

No. At most, it will only change government rhetoric. The relevant governments (i.e. those with large emissions) are becoming climate "realists" (in fact, most of them have been all along). By "realism" I mean they are committed to the status quo and protecting their national interests (typically, economic growth, poverty reduction, etc.)

The magic number of 2° warming is an arbitrary boundary that was devised to give policy makers a concrete goal. There is nothing special about 2° -- all the models suggest that the alleged damage due to warming varies continuously in proportion to the amount of warming. Climate realists understand this, as do many climate idealists. Both camps will give nothing more than lip service to the 2° magic number.

How should the international community proceed?

The only sane policy on global warming (AGW) or climate change (they are two very different hypotheses) is to continue to monitor the situation. We should treat the possibility of AGW (or climate change) the same way we treat the possibility of (for example) a catastrophic meteor strike. We should build systems to help us monitor both the solar system and the climate, and remain prosperous and flexible so that we may deal with whatever unexpected threats the future holds. We should avoid committing scarce resources to preventative climate amelioration, until we are certain what is the most important threat(s) we are facing (Meteors? Poverty? Epidemics? Nuclear War? Climate? Something else we haven't thought of?). We should use a cost-benefit analysis to deploy global resources as these threats emerge and become better understood.

And, we should sent the climate modelers back to the drawing board and tell them not to bother us until they are committed to testing their models against reality.

June 22, 2009

Marek Swierczynski, journalist at TVN24, Diamond Contributor (1102)

@ John
John, you hit the nail on the head with "climate realism".
Congrats.

June 22, 2009

Jens F. Laurson, Center for International Relations, Silver Contributor (30)

I don't see how such sweeping statements as posted in the question can be made based on two links, one of which go to "Der Spiegel".

Is there really no uncertainty in any part of the vast field of climate change?

Well, I wonder. And I've got me my own link:

http://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.740/pub_detail.asp

Meanwhile I'd side with Mr. Swierczynski: Adapt, don't fight it. It will destroy fewer lives than lowering global GDP would achieve, thanks to bizarre energy- and CO2 policies. (That said, there is no reason why not to minimize human effects on global warming wherever it can be done in a sound manner.)

June 23, 2009

Bernhard Lucke, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Platinum Contributor (531)

To John Hadjisk:

I regret that I have to tell you that climate change is very real. There are multiple ways to see it in the real world. One of the most illustrating ones is the very visible retreat of glaciers. If you want the examine the real hard science, see the study by Naomi Oreskes in Science 2004, who examined around 1000 articles dealing with climate. There was not a single one doubting climate change, and that during a time when there were still lots of people doubting in the public media that climate is changing.

There is no doubt that climate changes, but we still discuss the reasons. I am not convinced of CO2 as only possible reason. However, it does play a major role, and all modellers are convinced it is decisive. Therefore I cannot agree with Jens Laurson. We have to adapt, but only since we cannot completely mitigate any more. But this does not mean that mitigation is not necessary.

The current development matches the 6°C warming scenario which, if it materialises, might only be dealt with by hoping that god will save us. Perhaps the future will witness a revival of the true believers everywhere - see only what you want to see, and if things fail, well, then it is punishment for our sins. Just like during the 6th century (see Keys, 1999).

June 24, 2009

Vasily

Why do people need an irrefutable proof the warming is absolutely certainly due to CO2 emissions?
Even if not, does it really make much difference?
1) If we don't stop burning fossil fuels (to fight climate change, for example) the reserves will be exhausted very soon (50 or 100 years makes little difference) anyway and burning will negatively impact the environment, no one can expect the opposite.
2) Humanity is certainly capable of living without wasting and borrowing fossils. 150 (or 1000 indeed) years ago the technology was far less advanced and people managed quite well. And I would not be absolutely convinced the quality of life was worse than now.

What hampers transition to sustainable economy is the natural resistance to change by the current establishment, which wants to preserve status quo. The transition would require huge shifts in distribution of wealth, economic and political powers.

June 24, 2009

John Hadjisky, Blogger, Platinum Contributor (328)

@Bernhard Lucke:

Thanks for your response.

The data on glaciers are ambiguous on a global scale. In some regions, glaciers are shrinking, in other areas they are growing. For example, I can point out that the famous snows of Kilimanjaro, which virtually disappeared for a while, are now making a comeback. What does it prove? Very little. Local and regional changes cannot be extrapolated to global changes, just like the weather (or climate) forecast for this summer in Europe cannot be extrapolated to Africa or Asia. We only have about 30-40 years of global data on ice extent (meaning: amount of the earth's surface covered in ice). We need a much longer data set to spot meaningful, long-term trends. In particular, we need data from before 1940 so we can compare natural variation before human influence, and after.

But even if it were true that global ice extent is shirking, we need to consider that glaciers can grow in thickness even as they appear to shrink on the map. We still have no way to measure global ice volume, without painstaking manual surveys. Here our data is even more sparse than for global ice extent.

Finally, even if it were true that global ice volume is decreasing, we are left with no explanation as to why this should be happening, without the expected "signal" in the global average temperatures. There is no known method for CO2 (or other greenhouse gasses) to melt ice, except by raising temperatures.

You say there are "multiple ways to see it in the real world" but I suspect all of them have this same problem - how can human emissions cause warming, without producing the expected warming "signal" in the global average temperature?

As to the article by Naomi Oreskes in Science 2004. It would be helpful if you included a link, that way we don't have to guess what you're talking about. I think you mean this paper:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/sci;306/5702/1686.pdf

Science Magazine, in spite of it's publisher's claims, is not a magazine for scientists, it is for the general public. Therefore, standards of peer review are greatly relaxed. Pay attention to the blue writing at the top where it says "essay". This means that it is the equivalent of an opinion piece in a newspaper, i.e. that it wasn't even subject to Science Magazines reduced peer review requirements. Also note the erratum at the end - her "random sample" of articles was improperly constructed and therefore not representative.

There are many other problems with reports like Ms. Oreskes, if you are interested I can provide more links.

A good resource for both pro and con positions is: http://climatedebatedaily.com/

June 26, 2009

Marek Swierczynski, journalist at TVN24, Diamond Contributor (1102)

If the scientific consensus favours human impact on the climate change over the last century or so, I wonder what kind of consensus there is about historical warm periods, like the Medieval Warm Period. John, have you spotted anything on this in your research?

June 26, 2009

John Hadjisky, Blogger, Platinum Contributor (328)

@Marek

I wrote a long response, and then I remembered that I could just refer you to the skeptical community's official response to the IPCC: the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) report of 2009. It is outstanding, and peer reviewed, includes extensive citations, and really ought to be read in full. The specific question of the Medieval Warm Period is addressed in Chapter 3.

http://www.nipccreport.org/

As an aside, do read about the "fingerprint" problem, it is an entirely separate line of reasoning for why the models are wrong, that I didn't discuss in my previous comments.

Anyway, I've included what I originally wrote anyway, since it has additional links. Fair warning, I haven't checked it as carefully as my previous posts.

I've put a lot into these comments, so please spread the word and encourage people to think about this issue.

The Medieval Warm Period is the period between about 1000 CE and 1400 CE in which the global average temperature was several degrees C higher than at any point since 1940. Also, most of the temperature increase back then happened over a fairly short period (100-150 years). As far as anyone can tell, there were no catastrophic effects from this warming; sea levels didn't change much. What's more, plants in general, and the human species in particular, seemed to thrive in that modestly warmer climate.

The Medieval Warm Period is a huge problem for the global warming consensus. They have to show that the human influence will cause warming that will exceed the Medieval Warm Period in amount, or at least, in rate of warming. Otherwise, why worry?

The IPCC consensus seems to have dealt with the Medieval Warm Period in two different ways.

One part of the IPCC seems to feel that the Medieval Warm Period was a myth, that it never happened. This group is led by paleoclimatologist Michael Mann, who attempted to show via the infamous "Hockey Stick Graph" that current warming was unprecedented in amount and rate. His climate reconstructions had the incidental effect of eliminating the Medieval Warm Period. Now, many scientists, finding themselves with a dataset that failed to show a phenomena that was widely accepted as having occurred, would have questioned their own data first. Next, if they were sure of their data, they would have published a separate paper arguing that a long-held belief about the past climate had been overturned -- that would be huge news!

But instead, Mann and collegues simply published a very modest paper that dealt with the Medieval Warm Period only in passing. This paper, and Mann et. al. subsequent efforts to defend it, have been thoroughly discredited, thanks in large part to Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre. They were trained in other fields, but their outstanding work debunking the "hockey stick" has come to be accepted by most climate scientists. See:

http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=166
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB110869271828758608,00.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115283824428306460.html
Somewhat technical:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf
Interesting interview discussing motives:
http://kudlow.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2VjNWY2N2JlYTY4NmYzNDQ0Mz...

Some argue the Mann paper was a "stealth" effort designed to qualify for inclusion in the TAR (IPCC 3rd report in 2001) without attracting the attention of the mainstream paleoclimatology community, which was sure to challenge it since it would have overturned a long-held consensus about the Medieval period.

The other way the IPCC authors have tried to deal with the Medieval Warm Period is to suggest that it wasn't as pleasant a period as is thought, or else, to suggest that if we project their models far enough into the future, the models will exceed the warming seen in Medieval times. (Of course, since the models don't project very well for the c. 70 years since 1940, there's no reason to think they will suddenly become accurate at the 100 or 200 year mark!) They haven't really settled on one approach to this problem, which is normal for science but quite odd for an alleged consensus. We'll see what they come up with for the 5th AR.

June 27, 2009

John Hadjisky, Blogger, Platinum Contributor (328)

Oops, a correction. When I wrote:

"The Medieval Warm Period is the period between about 1000 CE and 1400 CE in which the global average temperature was several degrees C higher than at any point since 1940."

I meant to write:

"The Medieval Warm Period is the period between about 1000 CE and 1400 CE in which the global average temperature was several tenths of a degree C higher than at any point since 1940."

The point being, that the modest warming since 1850 (or since 1940) is not unusual, it has a precedent in the quite recent (environmentally speaking) past.

If you go back about 400,000 years (which is tiny compared to the age of the Earth which is about 4,500,000,000 years) you see multiple periods in which the global temperature was several degrees C higher than today. There is nothing unprecedented about modern temperatures.

See http://www.nipccreport.org/chapter3.html

July 7, 2009

Richard Brandlin branprop@aol.com

John: I am enjoying your thorough and thoughtful explanations of the climate "crisis". Really good work with your citations. Most sensible people I know understand the larger agenda of the climate change alarmists with regards to social re-engineering, lifestlye proscriptions and the like. I resist sounding like a conspiricy theorist, but I find a preponderence of evidence that is unsettling.