We assume that many of our readers will be interested in the declaration of the G8 summit in Heiligendamm (Germany), which was agreed yesterday by the leaders of the G8 countries. We therefore document the key passages on climate change below. As usual we refrain from a political analysis, but as scientists we note that it is rewarding to see that the results of climate science are fully acknowledged by the heads of state.
The declaration states:
CLIMATE CHANGE
48. We take note of and are concerned about the recent UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports. The most recent report concluded both, that global temperatures are rising, that this is caused largely by human activities and, in addition,that for increases in global average temperature, there are projected to be major changes in ecosystem structure and function with predominantly negative consequences for biodiversity and ecosystems, e.g. water and food supply.
Fighting Climate Change
49. We are therefore committed to taking strong and early action to tackle climate change in order to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Taking into account the scientific knowledge as represented in the recent IPCC reports, global greenhouse gas emissions must stop rising, followed by substantial global emission reductions. In setting a global goal for emissions reductions in the process we have agreed today involving all major emitters, we will consider seriously the decisions made by the European Union, Canada and Japan which include at least a halving of global emissions by 2050. We commit to achieving these goals and invite the major emerging economies to join us in this endeavour.
50. As climate change is a global problem, the response to it needs to be international. We welcome the wide range of existing activities both in industrialised and developing countries. We share a long-term vision and agree on the need for frameworks that will accelerate action over the next decade. Complementary national, regional and global policy frameworks that co-ordinate rather than compete with each other will strengthen the effectiveness of the measures. Such frameworks must address not only climate change but also energy security, economic growth, and sustainable development objectives in an integrated approach. They will provide important orientation for the necessary future investment decisions.
51. We stress that further action should be based on the UNFCCC principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. We reaffirm, as G8 leaders, our responsibility to act. We acknowledge the continuing leadership role that developed economies have to play in any future climate change efforts to reduce global emissions, so that all countries undertake effective climate commitments tailored to their particular situations. We recognise however, that the efforts of developed economies will not be sufficient and that new approaches for contributions by other countries are needed. Against this background, we invite notably the emerging economies to address the increase in their emissions by reducing the carbon intensity of their economic development. Action of emerging economies could take several forms, such as sustainable development policies and measures, an improved and strengthened clean development mechanism, the setting up of plans for the sectors that generate most pollution so as to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions compared with a business as usual scenario.
52. We acknowledge that the UN climate process is the appropriate forum for negotiating future global action on climate change. We are committed to moving forward in that forum and call on all parties to actively and constructively participate in the UN Climate Change Conference in Indonesia in December 2007 with a view to achieving a comprehensive post 2012-agreement (post Kyoto-agreement) that should include all major emitters.
53. To address the urgent challenge of climate change, it is vital that major economies that use the most energy and generate the majority of greenhouse gas emissions agree on a detailed contribution for a new global framework by the end of 2008 which would contribute to a global agreement under the UNFCCC by 2009. We therefore reiterate the need to engage major emitting economies on how best to address the challenge of climate change. We embrace efforts to work with these countries on long term strategies. To this end, our representatives have already met with the representatives of Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa in Berlin on 4 May 2007. We will continue to meet with high representatives of these and other major energy consuming and greenhouse gas emitting countries to consider the necessary components for successfully combating climate change. We welcome the offer of the United States to host such a meeting later this year. This major emitters’ process should include, inter alia, national, regional and international policies, targets and plans, in line with national circumstances, an ambitious work program within the UNFCCC, and the development and deployment of climate-friendly technology. This dialogue will support the UN climate process and report back to the UNFCCC.
Rod, Imagine if we applied your standard to quantum mechanics, or relativity, or the theory of evolution. We cannot accept a theory until we explain it to every moron who thinks light flatulence with a match is about as exciting as life gets. Now, keep in mind. I am not talking about the standard for taking political and economic action, but the standard of scientific proof. You are asking for unanimity of even the uninformed and uninterested. Unanimity is not possible even among experts. Einstein rejected quantum mechanics to his dying day. Should we quit studying quantum computing because of that? And if you feel that such unanimity is not required to accept quantum mechanics or evolution, why is it necessary for anthropogenic causation of climate change? Rather, would it not be more reasonable that the public becomes involved at the policy stage–the stage where it actually affects their interests? I have faith in people’s ability to understand their interests most of the time. I do not have faith in their ability to concentrate long enough to understand every detail of Earth’s climate.
Re 397 erratum
I meant to write: “…as if an incorrect or misleading comment by me (or another NON-climatologist)…”
RodB: I think it’s far simpler than that. If person A says, “I’ve determined something here, so we have to upset the global apple cart”, he ought to have to explain it a bit. It’s not our onus to prove him wrong.
My first reaction to this was that the folks upsetting things on a global scale are the folks dumping a poision into the global atmosphere. Just because throwing your wastes into the sky hasn’t killed the ekosystem yet doesn’t mean it is safe. In fact, the Permian Extinction tells us just the opposite, that it is damned dangerous (>95% of sea vertibrate species and ~75% of land species went extinct, iirc. It was triggered by CO2 from siberian volcanic activity.) Compared to that, one point of GDP growth for a century is small potatoes in my book. It seems to me that if you want to continue to release fossil carbon, you have an obligation to demonstrate that it is safe. And the physics isn’t on your side.
My second thought is, who gets to vote? Are you inclined to include the 500 million people who rely on the Ganges for food and agriculture? Recall that there are estimates, based on observed retreat, that the glaciers that feed the Ganges will be gone in 20-30 years. Will you give a vote to the folks in Bangaladesh, who are almost certainly going to get flooded out in the next two centuries, if not a lot sooner? How about the Brazilians, who are starting to see the failure of the rains that sustain the amazon?
I suspect that if everybody got a vote, the SUV drivers, and the carbon industry, would lose. From my point of view, yours is the elitist position.
Rod, you sure have made this thread go on, I salute you for that. “ought to explain it a bit.” That is a reasonable statement, can’t really disagree with it. Keep in mind, however, that the explaining part is where the itch is. Faced with an explanation of difficult concepts, many simple minded people will be lost and retreat to what is well known and clear to them. RC does the best job I’ve seen so far on climate science, although a good science writer would serve the site well to make the difficult topics more accessible for the like of me (stratospheric cooling or IR absorbtion/radiation come to mind).
John, thanks for your input and the links, very interesting stuff there.
If the people at the G8 summit had agreed to implement emissions laws to avoid dangerous climate change and limit global warming to below 2degC and if everyone worked with these laws could the warming still be kept below 2degC?
Is it actually possible to stabilise at 2degC?
re 405 Luke
Well, you could find at least a partial answer to your question in the 2007 report of the IPCC 3rd working group (the Summary for Policy Makers sums it up nicely): http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf
To stabilize the CO2 concentrations around 450 ppm (which would be the equivalent of a 2 degree rise in temperature compared to the pre industrial global mean temp.), we should cut our use of GHG by at least 50% by 2050(the range given is 50 to 85%).
I think 50% by 2050 is what the Germany has pushed for during the G8 summit.
Now, is it doable? I like to be optimistic, but I got a bit of a choc when I read in the same report than human GHG emissions had raised by 70% between 1970 and 2004 (going from 29 gigatonnes equ. CO2 / year to 49 gigatonnes equ. CO2 / year).
Ok, I let you read the report who’ll give you much more accurate clues than me to answer your questionsâ?¦
[[I believe that our supposedly civilized has failed its citizens by failing to teach them the rudements of informal logic and rationality. ]]
Hear, hear! I wish kids had to take at least one class in logic in elementary school or high school. If most of the populace could recognize an ad hominem argument, a fallacy of composition or division, or a non sequitur, perhaps fewer people would believe stupid things.
I (#384) had written:
Barton Paul Levenson (#407) wrote:
I can’t believe I forgot the work society!
But yes, I believe that informal logic is something that needs to be taught as part of a high school education. (If it were taught much earlier, it might all too easily be forgotten.) I have thought as much for a fair number of years now. Over a decade at least.
It might also help to slip in a little self-referential argumentation to show why radical skepticism is self-defeating and suplement the critique of circular reasoning, explain what “prove a negative” actually means – and give instances of where you can prove a negative while explaining why the initial burden of proof lies with the individual who asserts the positive. Then I would include a little elementary induction, black swans example might be nice, and could be tied together with the “initial burden of proof.” Then perhaps throw in a little regarding the scientific method.
But I probably wouldn’t want anything more – beyond what is traditionally regarded as informal logic. Some might consider this little adendum to the traditional a bit much, but one can dream…
In 394 Rod wrote:
So the collapse of the Greenland ice sheet wouldn’t be adequate for you — it would have to be the whole Arctic, to convince you, eh? You’re a tough audience!
I echo Ray’s post in 401: Do you hold other scientific disciplines to a similar standard of evidence? For example, the case for the Big Bang is similarly inferential and not falsifiable by direct experiment. Is your level of doubt about the Big Bang comparable to your doubt about AGW?
Much of geology and astronomy is also inferential — maybe you doubt the theory of plate tectonics, or the modern interpretation of the H-R diagram?
If your doubts apply equally across these disciplines, then I suppose you have a consistent position. If not, why are you particularly doubtful about climate science?
re 401 (Ray): [Now, keep in mind. I am not talking about the standard for taking political and economic action, but the standard of scientific proof.]
Point well taken. I was referring to the political and cultural actions demanded, which does require the “approval” of even dummies, not just the science, which does not. Whether the populace agreed or not with relativity, QEM, or evolution had zero affect on their lives and it mattered not (much) to the scientists. I think my point is still (somewhat) valid, however. While RC is a scientific and not a political blog/forum, none-the-less the scientific posts are awash with telling us what we all must do, now!
re 404: [Faced with an explanation of difficult concepts, many simple minded people will be lost]
True; I didn’t say it is easy for y’all. One mitigating factor is that you really don’t have to convince the populace, “just” their political/cultural representatives. (If it would have required populace approval we never would have fought the Revolutionary War, WWI, WWII, maybe the Korean War, or, likely, Viet Nam. The Spanish-American War would have been a cinch, though.) This is ethical provided the politicos are truly looking out for the people, which might cause a problem in many countries.
re 409 (Jim): Yeah, I was being hyperbolic — the greenland ice sheet would probably do it!
I answered in another post that the difference is the effect on lives, societies, and cultures, of which AGW is potentially tremendous, the Big Bang theory is not. Actually, while not as great as my concerns with AGW, I do have serious doubts (or at least unanswered — and maybe unanswerable — questions) with the Big Bang. I buy plate tectonics, relativity, QEM (though it drives me crazy); “H-R diagrams” doesn’t ring a bell; I have minor questions with the holes in evolution (as an extension of the Big Bang). NB! But all this is just for the record; not trying to stir the pot here…….
Re 412:
Sorry “H-R diagram” is the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, from which astronomers first inferred stellar development from birth to death.
Political and social considerations aside, is there something about climate science in particular which makes you doubt the AGW result? Maybe some systematic errors or procedural flaws unique to climate science?
Rod, Hertzsprung-Russell diagrams (or H-R diagrams) relate a star’s state of evolution to its color brightness and color–pretty cool, really:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-R_diagram
Really, my contention with the denialists is that they seem to start from a position of opposition to what they assume will be the required remedies (a not unreasonable qualm given some discussions) and jump right into opposing the science. The thing is that their opinions on economic and/or political measures are valid (at least if they are informed), but the generally don’t have a clue about the science or even science in general. The premise behind scientific consensus is that the people who are gathering and interpreting the evidence are most likely what it means, what its limitations are and what positions/hypotheses/theories would be supported by it. When you venture outside of that group, understanding decreases exponentially with distance from the data. It is not a reasonable position to reject science because it cannot be explained to a person who cannot follow a logical argument based on induction and who considers Rush Limbaugh or James Inhofe a scientific authority.
On the other hand, I would not arrogate to myself to decide what is in their best interests, so they must have a voice in policy. The irony is that by rejecting the science, they abdicate their position in the debate over what to do about climate change–where their true interests and expertise could be useful.
Like I said in #368, much of this discussion has almost *nothing* to do with climate science, but rather psychology (especially fallacy #6 from that list, Appeal to consequences of a belief).
Rod B is at least being honest: he has set the bar very high for believing AGW because if he believed it, he would have to think about changing lifestyle. Possibly his strong disbelief in the effects of smoking/secondhand smoke is similar.
In politics, money counts, and fossil fuels companies (and tobacco companies) have a lot to spend to protect their interests, hence it is often easier to buy votes in legislatures than convince voters. Greenland & Antarctica could melt, but it’s unlikely that that evidence would change Joe Barton’s position on AGW.
re: #407
yes: logic & especially critical thinking should be taught (and thank goodness, in some places it is, or at least was, when I was in in high school). Learning early to evaluate conflicting sources, weigh evidence and detect BS is priceless.
A little game theory & decision theory is helpful.
Finally, basic probability & statistics are likely more useful for many people than trigonometry or calculus.
Hence, I think some simulation games are especially helpful for education.
SimCity or Civilization would be good examples:
– probababilistic, unlike chess/go, which are deterministic
– incomplete information, unlike chess/go
– short-term decisions have long-term delayed consequences
– continual trade-offs are required in doing resource allocation
In some versions of Civilization, global warming effects were sometimes relevant.
Apparently Microsoft is looking for games that incorporate global warming.
John Mashley (#415) wrote:
Civilization might not be that bad as it tends to be more cerebral. But games that incorporate themes like climate change have always made me twitchy. At a certain level, games could descend just a little too far in the direction of that “Left Behind” game, bypassing the critical faculty which is an individual’s center of independence and going for indoctrination.
One positive development though – Google Earth. It is a sign of what is possible by means of the internet, showing people what is actually happening in various parts of the globe, tied into various educational sites. Another thing I would like to see is a wiki which explains everything from the basic physics that is required in order to understand climate change, the greenhouse effect, the carbon cycle and so on. Bring it all together in one organized resource available to anyone with a connection to the web.
I remember seeing some comments not too long ago from people looking at northern Canada through Google Earth. They saw these lakes, quite circular, but they didn’t know what they were. I saw them and I knew immediately what they were: thermokarst lakes, forming in the permafrost, releasing methane into the atmosphere.
A couple of weeks ago, I had to reach my wife but I didn’t know the telephone number of the bookstore she worked at or even the name of the store itself. But I had been there. I had a general idea of where it was located. With Google Maps I was able to bring up the bookstores in that neighborhood, find one that looked like it was in the right place, then look at the pictures of the front of the store and even read reviews of the store by people who had visited there. I recognized the store immediately from the pictures, including one showing the chest-high folding heavy wood sign out front.
Imagine what you could do with that in illustrating the various forms of feedback which exist in the melting of glaciers, the drainage channels, the dark snow absorbing sunlight. There is that video of the Arctic cap from 1958 to I believe 2003 where it looks like it is being sucked down a drain and there is the video of the scientists scrambling to save their instruments when observing a glacier. Then there are the before and after pictures of glaciers and the charts showing global glacier decline. A great deal can and will be done by means of the web.
re: Google Earth: yes, a Good Thing. We used it when it was Keyhole, and before that, ran the demo “From Outer Space to in your Face” at SGI.
GE is a (good) mechanism for accessing data, but not a mechanism for giving young people practice in making decisions, especially complicated ones with long-deferred results.
Global warming wasn’t a major point (in Civ), it was just something that tended to hit if there were several large civilizations fighting wars and industrializing heavily and early with coal. I just remember once what a shock it was the first time warming started turning good farmlands into dustbowls, although it was less deleterious than nuclear wars.
re 413,414: I am familiar with Hertzsprung-Russell diagrams, just didn’t click on “H-R” at first. It is pretty cool; I’m quite taken with the whole stellar evolution thing and once wrote a (really bad layman summary) paper on it.
There are subtleties in the “denialist problem” that need to be understood. I agree with what Ray says: one should not blindly deny AGW just because he fears the difficulties of its remedies. With a subtle but significant difference, before I jump into and support the remedies, which might be horrendous even if necessary, I want to strongly challenge the science, with some basis and not just willy-nilly, and prove their case almost until they are sick — but hopefully sometime before we all die from AGW!
Hello again, back for just one question:
I have been reading literally hundreds and hundreds of pages of Roger Pielke Senior http://climatesci.colorado.edu/ , and he seems to be coming down like a ton of bricks on the IPCC. He seems to be a respected colleague and in friendly terms with many RC folk. Or this is the impression you get with googling. My question is about his recent criticism. Roger Pielke is very articulate and his rhetoric is psychologically impressive. He comes across as principled, logical and very intelligent. But behind the carefully expressed words, his criticism is very serious in nature. He only stops short of accusing the IPCC of scientific Fraud and corruption. But he isn’t saving his words when describing (in detail and with numerous references) how the science has been politicized. In short his position is that, scientific consensus does not exist and to hide the reality, that AGW research is full of uncertainties, the select few IPCC authors (purely for political reasons) have deliberately and arbitrarily decided to ignore or minimize the findings of contradicting PEER REVIEWED climate assessments, so not to damage the image that is sold to the public, media and the politicians.
He seemingly proves(?) this with a comprehensive statistical analysis of the conclusions and implications of the accepted and ignored peer reviewed(so not to forget!) papers. Accepted = in line with the IPCC consensus. Ignored = challenging the IPCC consensus. If Mr Pielke is even 30% correct in his direct accusations, then this is nothing short of a scandal.
And he goes even further by indicating that the very reason the IPCC discussion process is not publically available, is to hide that fact.
I also read hundreds of comments. Even the best attempts at rebutting his claims (some of them familiar names on RC) seemed weak, incoherent and lacking in substance. Why isn’t the discussion process open? I can’t find anything with googling either. I am gobsmacked. There were also other scientists, mathematicians and computer experts on his webblog (climatescience), agreeing with him, shattering the precious image of consensus. And he seems to be saying that this deliberate distortion of scientific process has been going on for some two decades. That the complex and uncertain process of scientific study has been turned into “scientific fact” to sell it to the public for political gain.
You have had time to reply to this mostly pointless fraud Beck in 3 or 4 different editorial pieces. The accusations leveled by Mr. Pielke on IPCC are far more far reaching and serious in nature, and supported with concrete hard evidence, or so it seems. It’s not just about who is right or wrong anymore, but now we are discussing the integrity of AGW research, a subject that is directly linked to world wide political structures and literally trillions of dollars.
Mr. Pielke’s accusations are far too detailed, analytically supported and comprehensive to be ignored, and above all – far too serious.
Can anyone explain to me, why not to take what he is saying seriously?
Re 410-412 rod b (and other skeptics):
There is certainly less consensus among economists about the potential costs of dealing with AGW than there is among climatologists that AGW is real (they don’t call economics the “dismal science” for nothing). How do you decide which economists to believe?
I almost feel I should apologize for taking this discussion back to its nominal topic, but folks might find this article in Rolling Stone of interest. It ends up with the G8 Summit, but lays out some interesting history prior to that.
Yeah, climate science is a big ‘ole commie conspiracy dedicated to driving humanity back to the stone age.
Oh, by the way, in those hundreds of pages, did Pielke explain why and when the laws of physics changed so CO2 doesn’t trap IR?
I started looking at Pielke’s stuff on the U of Colorado site. I saw a lot (really a lot) of editorial pieces, critics of other non peer-reviewed works (books, etc…) and I had to go back to work before I could actually find something peer-reviewed or of consequence. I don’t doubt that the guy has a lot of publications but I have not seen much meaty stuff yet (couldn’t look in depth, though). He is an environmental scientist, apparently with a focus on climate and he seems to write a lot about policy. I gathered that he thinks we should do more on adapting to climate change because it is inevitable and not so much to influence it because it might be useless to try. Any of the contributors or regular bloggers here care to comment on his work?
Rick Brown (#421) wrote:
It seemed a little over the top in the first couple paragraphs (although not by that much, I suppose), but the rest of the article was rather insightful. As usual, starting with the conclusions they want to reach, then working their way back to a denial of the reality.
Nice to know the details – and I personally wasn’t aware of the extent to which the G8 had been derailed by US politics, or for that matter, the extent of Exxon’s influence in this administration. And yes, I like the comparison to the origins of a certain conflict. I expected as much but it is nice to know some of the details.
One of the things which has me worried is that when we pull out of that civil war, Iran already has clear intent of moving in, Saudi Arabia has suggested the same, and Turkey may do the same – and the Kurds claim lands in Turkey. The whole thing could become just the sort of conflagration with the Middle East spinning out of control that would distract the world when we most need to act on limiting climate change.
It could be this administration’s greatest legacy.
Incidently, my apologies for dragging US politics into this, but at this point it seemed appropriate.
Well, it appears I was looking at Pielke Jr., who is actually a political scientist. From what I gathered so far, Pielke Sr (a meteorologist) has based his argument on CO2 playing a minor role and land use being more significant. He also seems to promote adaptation to climate change by focusing on specific local vulnerability. The skeptic community latched on some of his commments about ocean heat content that were based on the flawed data that readers of this thread are familiar with. He is critical of the IPCC because of a process in which according to him, scientists review their own work. He also rejects the qualificative of climate skeptic and is clear on his opinion that humans are changing the climate. That’s where I got so far.
“Yeah, climate science is a big ‘ole commie conspiracy dedicated to driving humanity back to the stone age.”
Mr. Pielke is a climate scientist.
“Oh, by the way, in those hundreds of pages, did Pielke explain why and when the laws of physics changed so CO2 doesn’t trap IR?”
No. But he did explain several strong reasons why we the signifigance of anthropogenic CO2 forcing should be re-assessed. I especially liked the articles, and links on the computer models. How inexcact and speculative the science of CAGW is behind the facade. How the anthropogenic CO2 forcing is modelled as that which cannot be explained by other causes. Then when someone suggests other causes in peer reviewed articles, such as: regional heterogenuous climate forcings, landscape change climate forcing, black carbon deposition on snow and sea ice climate forcing, cosmic ray climate forcing, expanded solar (see Abdussamatov and 80 and 200 year cycles, discussed above) climate forcing.. all these are automatically dismissed as insignificant. The reasons for such dismissions are more political than they are scientific. An open study process does not exist re: IPCC, and the discussion process happens behind closed doors for this very reason.
Mr Pielke’s detailed analysis of such distortion of scientific integrity is very convincing. I find it curious that e.g. the superiority/inferiority of different models is not seriously debated in the IPCC process, but the scale of vastly varying results is expressed in a simple 1.5C-4.5C form. It’s not like these models would be perfect, yet presumably “the debate is over”. For an example, very recently NASA compared satellite data on ocean rainfall to AOGCM modelled results (which are quoted in the IPCC reports, to be likely correct) and found out that “The increase in global rainfall associated with global warming may be three times greater than currently predicted,”. In other words the models were way off the mark on rain, droughts and floods. Yet they were supposed to be “likely correct. And are still thought to be so by policy makers reading the latest IPCC report.
I am becoming more convinced in the belief, that to understand AGW research a politically involved layperson (such as myself) needs to look at the psychology of AGW research, and then apply common sense.
Let me quote Jim Clarke on Mr. Pielke’s page:
“While the scientific method dictates that we adhere to logical analysis and the incorporation of all legitimate data into the development of our hypothesis, our human nature compels us to adopt a paradigm and defend it beyond any reasonable measure.
Evidence that this is occurring in the AGW debate is found in the type of arguments used to defend the paradigm. The most obvious is the ad hominem attack, like blatantly calling someone a shill. Often the attacks are more subtle, like making unsubstantiated references to possible motives or guilt through (unproven) association. The truth is not important. It is only the allegation and how often it is repeated that matters.
The consensus argument is another sign that the paradigm is being supported by less than scientific reasoning.
Perhaps the most widely used technique by those who claim scientific understanding of AGW is the selective use of a logical argument. In this case the defenders use sound reasoning to question alternative ideas, but they refuse to apply the same logic to their own ideas. We see this again and again in the AGW debate.”
For an example Barton Paul Levenson here noted recently that he believes the most exact estimation for the warming effect of doubling the atmospheric CO2 would be 2.8 degrees Celsius. That would be the result of global CO2 negligence and/or indifference. But this 2.8 C is derived from an abductive analysis. In the computer models that gave this answer “2.8C” the numerical values given to the various climate forcing parameters like listed above (regional heterogenuous climate forcings, landscape change climate forcing, black carbon deposition on snow and sea ice climate forcing, cosmic ray climate forcing, expanded solar climate forcing and n. UNKNOWN climate forcings) may not reflect the true signifigance of these non C02 climate forcings. Some of them anthropogenic some of them natural. Increase these numerical values a bit and the answer the model will give will be significantly less than 2.8C.
So I reason from all this, that it is only logical to assume, that the answer will be towards the lower end of the scale. For an example 1.7C anthropogenic warming and -0.4C solar cooling along the 21st century wouldn’t necessarily result in a negative outcome for the planet.
As a result, and I like Mr. Pielke’s environmentalist philosophy on this, CO2 obsession can present a danger to the environment.
Our resources to tackle environmental problems are limited. Excessive concentration on CO2 is likely to diminish the resources to fight: deforestation, ocean resource depletetion, biodiversity loss and global clean water shortage.. among many others.
Clean water shortage is today affecting a billion people. By 2025 it could affect 3 billion people. An estimated 100 billion dollars minimum (and growing, that’s an old figure from couple of years ago) is needed annually to prevent a global humanitarian crisis from occurring. And that is only clean water shortage.
Clean water shortage is a problem we can confirm with 99%+ certainty. As are deforestation, and biodiversity loss and ocean resource depletetion.
The probability of CAGW is much much less than that. Even the worst case scenario of “probably 2.8C plus/minus other factors” isn’t necessarily as devastating as are clean water shortage and deforestation.
And the case for the worst case scenario seems very questionable. Even the metrics to count these values used in the modelling are not exact by any means, as Mr. Pielke explains on his weblog. (See for an example: Important New Paper On The Urban Effect On Temperature And Other Climate Metrics, http://tinyurl.com/2o59dl
Yet, trillions may be invested into curbing CO2 emissions in the next 50 years. Some of that money could be put into good use on clean water and forestation just to name a few, PROVEN, extremely serious environmental concerns.
So it’s not only about the cost of CAGW, but also how Green and environmental friendly CAGW truly is?
I will have to ponder on these questions a lot more, but that’s where I will stop for a moment unless given strong reasons to think otherwise.
In 416, Timothy wrote:
Imagine, for example, The Climate Hot Map done with Google Earth.
In #426, climate skeptic? wrote:
While not disagreeing with these details, I’ll suggest that if you’re concerned about the health of the oceans, you need to be concerned about anthropogenic CO2 emissions. The oceans are clearly becoming more acidic, and they may become more anoxic, because atmospheric CO2 concentration is increasing.
re: #426 Climate Skeptic
Over in Some Are Boojums, I offered CS to negotiate a Long Bet due no later than 2020, i.e., a testable proposition based on Abdusamatov’s claim that we’d start seeing a temperature downturn around 2012-2015, which I deem unlikely (modulo big volcanoes and El Nino gyrations, so bet has to be crafted carefully.)
http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=7
Start with Site Admin, June 15th, 2007 at 3:36pm to see the relevant discussion.
Since CS is *still* mentioning Abdusamatov, I again make the same offer, except I’ll go further, and offer that we check out and choose a mutually acceptable “third-world water” NGO to receive the winnings, i.e., somebody like Global Water. With each of us betting $1000, this would *guarantee* some water-NGO $2,000 no later than 2020.
Of course, this is one of those strange bets where I’d really prefer to lose than win: it would be wonderful if solar irradiance suddenly dropped enough around 2012 to cool the planet.
(If this is deemed too off-topic for RC, we can go back to Some Are Boojums to negotiate).
Re: health of the oceans;
There were fish in the oceans, when atmospheric CO2 levels were 10x times higher than today.
In other words, there are more pressing concerns. Above all anthropogenic nutrient loading (from agriculture, industrial activity, sewages, chemicals etc.) and overfishing.
The concern is extremely valid, that if we concentrate our environmental worries, fears, media attention, resources, efforts, money, research and so forth excessively on CO2, which may or may not be a serious problem, then we risk neglecting other, more proven environmental issues, and the planet isn’t necessarily better off for it.
I hadn’t realised this myself earlier, when I supported radical CO2 emission reductions on the precautionary principle. But this is way more complex than that. It’s not an utopia and the green resources are limited (see it as x.xx% of GDP with the rest going to personal life, security, health care, education and so on), while the world population is growing and the strain on natural resources becoming ever more demanding. What if anthropogenic CO2 isn’t a serious problem and we continue on the IPCC trail? Then we could spend trillions for the chance to film Don Quijote on any given square mile of coastal line on the planet? OK we get cleaner air, earplug collections and other side benefits, but seriously that money could have been spent n. times more effectively for the good of the environment. In other words the cost/benefit analysis of CAGW politics comes with potentially huge losses attached. If we prevent catastrophic warming fair enough, then the IPCC route was the lesser evil and the resources were well spent. But if CAGW loses the C, the end result will be misused resources and the neglection of more serious environmental concerns.
We need an analysis of how likely do scientists consider the C in CAGW. If Pielke is right that in computer modelling the “C”, first order climate forcings were totally neglected and that even the metric system isn’t reliable then I firmly believe that we should put (radical) CO2 reductions on hold and wait till 2020 when more research into the subject, and above all temperature trends are likely to answer the question. In the meanwhile Merkel should be more concerned about the dying Baltic sea than CO2.
re: 426. “The consensus argument is another sign that the paradigm is being supported by less than scientific reasoning.”
This is patently false. Consensus is brought about by scientific reasoning. And if you really want to get a feel for Pieke’s slanted “science”, read his testimony before Congress last year and the comments here on RC.
[Response: Wrong Pielke… – gavin]
[[ expanded solar (see Abdussamatov and 80 and 200 year cycles, discussed above) climate forcing.. all these are automatically dismissed as insignificant. The reasons for such dismissions are more political than they are scientific. ]]
No, that’s a completely bogus picture. First of all, solar forcing is considered in all the models. Second, it can’t be causing the present warming. There are three reasons, all of them scientific and not political, as to why.
1. The Solar constant hasn’t increased noticeably for 50 years. We’ve been measuring it from satellites like Nimbus-7 and the Solar Maximum Mission.
2. Increased sunlight would heat the stratosphere first. But the stratosphere is cooling, something predicted by the climate modelers on the basis of increased greenhouse gases. Ozone depletion accounts for some of this, but not enough.
3. Increased sunlight would heat the equator more than the poles (Lambert’s cosine law). Instead, the poles are heating faster, another feature of the warming predicted by the climate modelers on the basis of increased greenhouse gases.
re 426
“Our resources to tackle environmental problems are limited. Excessive concentration on CO2 is likely to diminish the resources to fight: deforestation, ocean resource depletetion, biodiversity loss and global clean water shortage.. among many others. ”
Limited by what and by how much?
All those environmental problems you cite will be strongly worsened under a warming climate. Basically, when you try to protect a resource, like water, you have to protect it from every sources of danger. If you spend several billions of dollars to provide clean water to regions that don’t have, meaning introducing water treatment processes, and that a few years later you have a general drought due to consequences of global warming, what will be the point of having water treatment processes without any water to treat anymore? You will have lost your investment because you didn’t take account of all the parameters that could have limited your resource.
What you apparently fail to understand is that you don’t tackle environmental problems and their sources separately. To be efficient, you have to deal with all the parameters at the same time.
“Some of that money could be put into good use on clean water and forestation just to name a few, PROVEN, extremely serious environmental concerns.”
Some of the money already isâ?¦ Have you heard about the Millennium Development Goals?
http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/
Or about Official Development Assistance?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_development_assistance
In 430, climate skeptic? wrote:
Were there? It seems a consensus is developing that above 1000 ppm, the oceans essentially die. You’re claiming that at 3850 ppm, the oceans will be fine? Color me skeptical.
Re #430 [There were fish in the oceans, when atmospheric CO2 levels were 10x times higher than today.]
As with many aspects of GHG-related problems, the key is not absolute values but the speed of change. There are processes stabilising the pH of the oceans, but these operate over thousands of years – too slow to buffer the current CO2 increase. See the topic on this site (under “Oceans”):
“The Acid Ocean â�� the Other Problem with CO2 Emission”. It will be corals and some important kinds of phytoplankton – organisms that secrete CaCO3 to form their skeletons – that are directly affected.
[In other words, there are more pressing concerns. Above all anthropogenic nutrient loading (from agriculture, industrial activity, sewages, chemicals etc.) and overfishing.]
These are certainly serious problems – but are likely to interact synergistically with changes in temperature, acidity and salinity caused by GHG emissions. Incidentally, one major source of excess nutrient loading – agricultural nitrates – are also a major source of N2O, a significant greenhouse gas.
With respect to water availability, one of the major concerns about AGW is the melting of glaciers in the Himalayas and Andes, upon which hundreds of millions of people depend for water. This is already happening.
Re 426 climate skeptic: “(see Abdussamatov and 80 and 200 year cycles, discussed above)”
We’d love to see them, but so far you have not even seen them yourself let alone shown them to us, yet you cling to them as if they were proven fact while dismissing hard data that is publicly available.
I’m sorry, but I don’t believe that you are a skeptic.
Your willingness to grasp at things that only hint at supporting some other causation suggests that you are little more than a denialist posing as a skeptic. Perhaps that is what the question mark in your signature indicates?
“Some of the money already is”
That’s not the point, is it? Much more could and should be spent.
“No, that’s a completely bogus picture.”
I can’t believe you mean that seriously. You picked one out of many parameters. Let’s look at the others: regional heterogenuous climate forcings, landscape change climate forcing, black carbon deposition on snow and sea ice climate forcing, cosmic ray climate forcing, and n. unknown climate forcings. So even if Abdussamatov and his colleagues are wrong about their theories, this does not validate “the C”. The C is derived from abductive analysis, in which these other climate forcing parameters in the computer models are usually given insignificant numeric values (it’s possible that some of them are neglected totally). They are so called secondary forcings (if I got the terms right), and when you have a warming of x=Celsius to explain, and you count out, dismiss, neglect other parameters (whether it is justified, is upto debate and not bogus argument at all) then of course you will derive a catastrophic numeric value for the anthropogenic CO2 climate forcing. And it bothers me that this data (the modelled parameters) is not made available. These parameters are in the very core of this discussion and these are kept secret from the public. Could anyone give a sensible answer why this is so?
“All those environmental problems you cite will be strongly worsened under a warming climate.”
Under a catastrophically warming climate, yes. Whether the climate is warming catastrophically that is the question. If it isn’t and we spend trillions on it, don’t you agree that that money could have been put into much better use for the environment and humanity in general? On clean water, forestation, population planning and so on.
“Were there? It seems a consensus is developing that above 1000 ppm, the oceans essentially die.”
Consensus? Ocean acidification was brought to the spotlight by the Royal Society two years ago. If you read through their paper, you will notice they admit their conclusions are hugely speculative. If I understood correctly, we are just starting the first direct measurements in Alaska. Also about this problem, a lot more will be known by 2020. It’s again hypothesis versus much more proven concerns. The disastrous effects of anthropogenic nutrition loading and overfishing on the oceans are proven with very high certainty. And no, the oceans will not die from 0.3-0.5 degree surface water acidification.
“With respect to water availability, one of the major concerns about AGW is the melting of glaciers in the Himalayas and Andes, upon which hundreds of millions of people depend for water. This is already happening.”
That depends on the C in CAGW. The planet has got warmer in the past three decades, that will naturally have an effect. Whether that trend will continue catastrophically is another question. AGW isn’t a grave concern in itself. The planet warming by 1 degree Celsius wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing. There would be plusses and minuses evening out.
Let’s imagine an alternative scenario:
Radical CO2 reduction is put on hold until 2020 and in the meanwhile we can improve energy efficiency among other things and concentrate on research. Now if by 2020 global temperatures have not risen noticeably from 1995, 1997, 1998 etc. and in addition studies into non CO2 climate forcings have revealed concrete doubts about the strenght of anthropogenic CO2 forcing, and studies into ocean acidification have allayed initial fears, would you still support spending trillions of dollars on curbing CO2 emissions as first order environmental and humanitarian priority? And if still so, why exactly?
So to conclude my position: Let us put radical changes on hold until around ~2020 or so. It won’t be too late by then to have a global Marshall plan, if the worst case IPCC scenarios are starting to look probable. And if they aren’t looking probable at all, then we have just saved ourselves trillions of dollars to be spent on more pressing concerns.
Is there a fault in this logic?
RE #437 [So to conclude my position: Let us put radical changes on hold until around ~2020 or so. It won’t be too late by then to have a global Marshall plan, if the worst case IPCC scenarios are starting to look probable.] It probably would be too late, because of the time-lags involved. That’s one major flaw in your logic.
Re 437 climate skeptic: “Is there a fault in this logic?”
Yes, a huge fault: waiting until 2020 means that CO2 will for certain not only continue to rise, but accelerate (China just surpassed the United States in annual CO2 emissions), requiring much more draconian future cuts to reduce it to a less damaging level.
And that continued CO2 rise will mean an even higher rise in temperature and an acceleration in feedbacks.
Your logic also excludes a third path: IF some other factor or factors were to emerge between now and 2020 the course of action can be changed.
Again, you are perfectly willing to do nothing on the strength of unproven “what ifs,” yet unwilling to take action based on real, concrete data suggesting a world-wide threat.
You’re clearly posting to the wrong forum.
Jim Galasyn wrote:
Different fish. It’s been a long time, and the fish that had evolved to live at 3850 ppm are all extinct. Their modern descendants have evolved to survive under present conditions, and have most likely long lost the ability to survive early high-CO2 conditions. The GEOCARB III estimates (by proxy) )show CO2 levels of about 4000 ppm in the late Devonian (an age known for its numerous fossils of bony fish), about 375 million years ago. (See this graph .) There are a number of different estimates for CO2 levels throughout the Phanerozoic, and some disagreement amongst them, but all agree that it has been over 100 million of years since CO2 levels approached 3850 ppm. “Climate skeptic’s” claim is true, but irrelevant; our concern is with fish alive today, not with fish extinct for over 100 million years. See also Nick Gotts’ comment above.
re 437
“Under a catastrophically warming climate, yes. Whether the climate is warming catastrophically that is the question. If it isn’t and we spend trillions on it, don’t you agree that that money could have been put into much better use for the environment and humanity in general? On clean water, forestation, population planning and so on.”
Numbers please.
As far as I’m concerned, the economic studies I have read about the cost of GW are pretty clear : the cost of not doing anything to mitigate GW is way superior to the cost of actually doing something (5 to 20% of the annual world GDP by 2050 in the first case, around 1% in the second). And this is not for the worst case scenarios.
So by mitigating GW you actually save money (that means more will be available to resolve the other problems), and you also tackle one of the main causes of future (I should also say present) environmental and social catastrophes.
You’re apparently reluctant to spend money to mitigate GW because it’s not 100% sure it’s gonna get worse. You’re right, it’s not 100%, but itâ��s around 95%. Sorry, but I’m not playing on a 1 on 20 bet (specially when my kids are the ones who’ll have to pay if I lose). Putting money on mitigation of GW is not loosing money, itâ��s a long term return investment.
re 434: [It seems a consensus is developing that above 1000 ppm, the oceans essentially die.]
(Sigh!) As hard as it is to swallow, consensus is neither a good argument nor a proof of any scientific hypothesis. And that is the best that the 1000ppm deal is. (I’m tired and have to take a nap…..)
re: #439
In the discussion over in Some Are Boojums, http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=7,
search for “fervent green activist”, which CS describes as being one for 10 years, noting that CAGW started as a political movement of ex-marxists, ex-trotskyists, etc.
CS says: “Having also ridden myself of the baggage of idealism, I started to look at the CAGW in a new light. All these green movements preaching the mantra,…”
This endless discussion with CS has little to do with climate science, and a lot to do with psychology. People vary widely in their tolerance for uncertainty. If someone is comfortable only with YES/NO answers, has 100% faith in YES, and that faith gets punctured, they may well flip over into 100% faith in NO, rather than into MAYBE (WEIGH EVIDENCE). Without any pejorative connotations, this seems akin to someone who replaces a strong religious faith with equally ardent atheism.
Meanwhile, unless posts cross, CS, you still hasn’t even commented on my proffered Long Bet from #429, even though it guarantees extra money to something you claim is important [and actually, which I think is important as well.] You keep talking about waiting until 2020, and I offer to negotiate a bet that ends about then, so that sounds like a good match to me. Maybe RC denizens can help us craft a well-specified, testable bet in place of neverending discussions.
re “You’re clearly posting to the wrong forum.”
Jim, did you just declare RC an exclusive mutual admiration society? Darn, and I was getting so much out of RC, too.
In 440, llewelly wrote:
Thank you for the clarification. It was an entirely different biosphere back then. During the Carboniferous, there were cockroaches a meter long. Clearly, some life can survive rapid climate change. But it’s just as clearly in our interest to maintain the biosphere in which we evolved.
Climate Skeptic, I entirely agree with your concerns about land use and overexploitation of the oceans. Perhaps you’ll agree that rapid climate changes have occurred in the geological past, and at least some of these were coupled to atmospheric CO2 and were accompanied by mass extinctions. I argue that all these converging pressures, including AGW, are creating a biological crisis that is unprecedented in Earth’s evolutionary history.
Is mitigating climate change really an either/or proposition? Either we adopt CO2 reduction strategies or we concentrate on the other stressors? It seems to me that the necessary mitigations can be multifaceted and complementary; reducing carbon emissions and fixing atmospheric CO2 can be accompanied by, e.g., improved public transportation and increased organic argriculture.
Re 444 Rod B: “Jim, did you just declare RC an exclusive mutual admiration society?”
Nope, just observing that CS is clearly not very happy here and is not at all likely to get the satisfaction he is seeking.
A question for climate skeptic? You seem unwilling to assign any value to scientific consensus.
Supposing you have terrible chest pain and enter a hospital where you are checked by 100 doctors. Ninety-seven of them, of whom seventy are cardiologists, tell you that you have serious blockage of a coronary artery that requires immediate intervention. The remaining three, two of whom turn out to be dermatologists, tell you that, no, you may have a pulled muscle and, if that is the case, cardiac surgery would waste money and place you needlessly at risk. They suggest you wait and see if the pain goes away.
So I guess you would check out of the hospital and go play golf?
[edit – please keep personal statements out of it]
Isn’t it amazing how climate change turns climate skeptics into Albert Schweitzer. Whenever anyone brings up remediation of climate change, they discover a very new, but abiding passion for ridding the world of poverty or waterborn deseases, etc. However, even if we give them the benefit of the doubt here, the fallacy is to view the problems of climate change, water quality, poverty and even human rights as decoupled. Climate change will exacerbate all of these problems, and if anyone thinks they’ll be able to convince the developing world to put their dreams of a better life on hold in the name of climate remediation, I would like to be present (with first-aid kit in hand) when they present their modest proposals. The future of Earth’s climate depends critically on the energy decisions that will be made where demand is increasing most rapidly. It is GLOBAL climate change–the solutions will require action on a global effort to translate global commitments down to community and even individual levels.
In 448, Ray wrote:
I retain some hope that developing nations can “skip ahead” to renewables, much as they have with wireless telecommunications. Native Energy provides an interesting model.
I donâ??t know Jim. Mind you, continued AGW emissions require people to emit them. If we push on with current trends in both the east and the west (and in spite of Hansens hopes it looks likely we will) we will see such climate change that population (and hence emissions) will decline. Along with that decline is a decline in the function of the emitting technology.
What happens to Asian populations and industry when the Himalayan glaciers are wrung out to a drip? The sea rises a mere metre or two? The drying Amazon dumps its carbon load? Reduced algae growth substrate (pack ice) causes the global fishery to collapse? Central Africa desiccates? Most great American and European coastal cities are blowing bubbles? The wheat belts of the world are dust bowls?
But that population decline will not occur before CO2 is so far above temperature equilibrium that for many generations the reduction in emissions wont make a useful difference to our predicament anyway.
There is absolutely no sign of a global consensus at the requisite level to see action on a global-war-type footing that could lead out of this mire in one piece. None.