Guest post by Thomas Fuller
Climate Central’s interview with Harold Shapiro, head of the InterAcademy Council which reviewed the IPCC, had the money quote–but it didn’t come from Shapiro, it came through him.
Shapiro reported that John Christy said, “if they do this, if they adapt both the letter and the spirit of what you’ve said, things would be a lot better. ”
One can hope.
In the spirit of assessment, we can offer a sort of ‘back to school’ look at climate change as a cultural and political phenomenon at this point. Let’s at least try.
Shapiro’s team at the IAC provided lots of meat and potatoes advice and recommendations to the IPCC on how to do its job better.
The jury’s obviously still out, but they could improve dramatically in time for their fifth assessment report. But there’s no doubt that the IPCC has been put on notice and that they understand that some of the things that got them in trouble in their 4th Assessment Report cannot be repeated. This should lead to a more centrist, consensus-driven look at the evidence.
The United States Congress is clearly not going to pass Cap and Trade. However, they are evidently not going to kneecap the EPA, which will be free to force utilities and very large emitters to reduce emissions. Also a centrist move.
Bjorn Lomborg has switched the emphasis of his message, in time to help get publicity for his new film, and is now stepping up his calls for concrete action (and concrete sums of money) to fight climate change. It’s a move back to the center for him. This time around, the heatwave in Moscow and floods in Pakistan and China were only briefly blamed on climate change, before cooler heads made it clear that at worst they served as previews of coming attractions.
And the transition between El Nino and La Nina is actually being discussed in fairly reasonable tones–this year’s heat is not being extravagantly pronounced an irrevocable tipping point, and next year’s cooling may be the reason why. We all know it’s coming, and we all know it’s La Nina, not the ultimate end of global warming.
Is there a center growing for discussion on climate change? It would be certainly nice to think so. In the blogosphere, more bloggers and commenters on the ‘skeptic’ side seem willing to preface their criticism with a frank admission that the physics of CO2 acting as a greenhouse gas is not very controversial. On the ‘warmist’ side, there are some who are beginning to examine some of the claims made in their name, and to admit that people like Steve McIntyre or Anthony Watts are not devils incarnate.
As a ‘lukewarmer’ I’ve been in the middle for a while, with some very good company, people like both Pielkes, Lucia Liljegren, and more. It’s tempting to think people are moving in our direction.
But being in the middle doesn’t automatically make us right, and some of this movement is illusory, end of summer tolerance in all probability. Joe Romm will certainly launch another tirade against the existence of Roger Pielke Jr. on this planet, and Keith Kloor will call out Michael Tobis and we’ll probably be back at each other’s throats by Labor Day.
Kind of a pity–there’s a lot we could be doing. We could be agreeing to let wind kind of rest for a couple of years and pushing for solar power to get more attention. We could be trumpeting the energy efficiency gains from LED lighting. We could be examining in closer detail the new nuclear power plant designs and the specification sheets for the new electric cars.
When the advocates for a better climate are all busy ripping each other apart (and I have been as guilty as any in this regard) the people making the decisions are a more detached lot, who may not feel the same sense of urgency.
Hard core skeptics may say that’s okay. But even they think that better technology will supplant, or at least supplement, fossil fuels as it becomes cost-effective–and most would cheer it if it came.
I read elsewhere that ‘We’ll never have a kumbaya moment. Too much bad blood.’ But the Palestinians and Israelis have just agreed to face-to-face talks. This puts some of our quarrels in perspective.
Thomas Fuller http://www.redbubble.com/people/hfuller
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Owen says:September 3, 2010 at 7:38 pm
Tom,
Get away from this crowd – you’re not appreciated anyway. Move toward the powerful and spectacular real science that is being done by climate scientists worldwide. The science is solid, unlike the continually-reinforced paranoia on this site.
————————————————————————————
Owen. ‘Powerful and spectacular real science that is being done by climate scientists worldwide’
Yeah riiiight!
Doug
*****
Owen says:
September 3, 2010 at 7:38 pm
******
Joke of the Day.
Gail Combs says: September 3, 2010 at 2:38 pm
Thank you. Until CAGW is put into the political context and people start waking up we will remain in very big trouble.
MONEY, FOOD, ENERGY
Conspiracy? I do not think so. It looks like a well executed plan to me.
——————————————————————————————————-
Well, if you see where China and India are going, it doesn’t seem to be headed towards a cosy world government – rather independent and competitive sovereignty which, I for one, hope is so. They are cornering all the world’s primary resources and have the money to do so too – thanks to the economic greed and profligacy of the US and Europe.
I think that what the US and the other western countries should be doing is establishing and developing viable alternative energy resources, instead they are hell bent on destroying their own economies and tilting at windmills. I’m sure that Gail is right in saying that the CAGW is driven politically. I would add that the Climate scientists are merely pawns in a wider game plan
Doug
Owen says:
September 3, 2010 at 7:38 pm
Tom,
Get away from this crowd – you’re not appreciated anyway. Move toward the powerful and spectacular real science that is being done by climate scientists worldwide. The science is solid, unlike the continually-reinforced paranoia on this site.
=========================
Obviously written for PR value, not a phrase wasted.
It plays upon emotion.
Owen says (September 3, 2010 at 7:38 pm): “The science is solid, unlike the continually-reinforced paranoia on this site.”
Thanks for dropping by, Dr. Mann. 🙂
“…..We all know it’s coming, and we all know it’s La Nina, not the ultimate end of global warming….” Thomas Fuller.
“….if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought….” Orwell.
We all know it’s coming, and we all know it’s La Nina, not the ultimate end of global warming (or indeed climate change).
We all know it’s coming, and we all know it’s La Nina, not the ultimate end of global warming partly due to human activity.
We all know it’s coming, and we all know it’s La Nina, not the ultimate end of harmful human-caused global warming.
We all know it’s coming, and we all know it’s La Nina, not the ultimate end of catastrophic human-caused global warming.
Which is it?
The different positions in this political debate (not scientific) can never have fruitful dialogue until the terms used by those trying to limit the use of carbon-based fuels become more precise.
But the IPCC’s central claim of 1.6 W/m^2 AGW forcing is grossly exaggerated because it assumes ‘cloud albedo effect’ forcing of -0.7 W/m^2 for which there is no experimental evidence. So, you have to halve that claim and revisit the models thus further reducing predicted AGW, a mess of the first magnitude.
How did climate science fall into this trap? Because the models over-predicted, ‘global dimming’ became the mantra: the ‘direct aerosol effect’ is true; the ‘Twomey Effect’ had apparently been verified. But his theory, greater optical depth for smaller droplets, more backscattered light, breaks down for thick clouds [maximum albedo is 0.5 and you can’t explain that by standard aerosol optical theory.
The real smoking gun is in NASA literature. It puts out a totally false physical explanation – ‘more, smaller droplets reflect more sunlight, up to 90%, because of higher surface area’. It’s as wrong as you can get, and the physicists know it.
There’s clearly a second optical effect, an intense pseudo-geometrical backscattered lobe superimposed on the diffused background: I’ve got some ideas about it. So, when AR4 was published, either there was gross scientific incompetence or its central claim was knowingly untrue and the false science was part of that deception.
The final proof? When I put this argument recently on ‘Real Climate’, it was deleted within a few minutes.
Gary”
“Now I do think there’s a good non-AGW case for phasing out subsidized flood insurance even if sea levels were unquestionably falling, but I see that as a different subject. I also see your hydro projects (who would remove hydro-power to prevent CAGW?) and nuclear licensing issues as something to be decided on their own merits, not on the current state of climatological knowledge.”
Then you’ve missed what Tom and I have argued. There are things we should REGARDLESS of the truth of AGW that will MITIGATE the situation SHOULD IT PROVE to be true.
The notion that you decide the nuclear issue “on its own merits” is irrational.
Like this: One can hold that nuclear should play a larger role based on the following:
( For example ONLY )
1. we should limit our dependence on foreign oil.
2. it would reduce C02 emissions and that may help with GW
Now, your position seems to be that one should not even consider the possible truth of the second reason, because the first reason is reason enough. I find no rational basis for rejecting the CONSIDERATION of reason 2. Seems like icing on the cake.
Nothing is considered “on its own merits” We have a proposed course of action and many reasons to support it. What you are afraid of, it would seem, is giving any credence to any concern over AGW. That stikes me as narrow and doctrinaire.
Pat Frank.
will increasing C02 ten fold from current levels WARM the planet or cool it?
Simple question.
Steven Mosher says:
September 4, 2010 at 12:56 am (Edit)
Pat Frank.
will increasing C02 ten fold from current levels WARM the planet or cool it?
Simple question.
Not at all if Miskolczi is right. A tiny bit if Spencer is right. We’ll roast in Hell if Hansen is right.
Who do you think is right?
Simple question.
Bob Ryan:
“One of the enduring traits of scientists of all disciplines is that in the main they believe in Ockham’s Razor.”
Well, Ockhams razor is not a scientific method. It is a pragmatic consideration.
Gosh I hate quoting wikipedia.. but they actually do a fair job
In science, Occam’s razor is used as a heuristic (rule of thumb) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models.[5][6] In the scientific method, Occam’s razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result.[7][8][9][10]
In the scientific method, parsimony is an epistemological, metaphysical or heuristic preference, not an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result.[7][8][9][10] As a logical principle, Occam’s razor would demand that scientists accept the simplest possible theoretical explanation for existing data. However, science has shown repeatedly that future data often supports more complex theories than existing data. Science tends to prefer the simplest explanation that is consistent with the data available at a given time, but history shows that these simplest explanations often yield to complexities as new data become available.[5][8] Science is open to the possibility that future experiments might support more complex theories than demanded by current data and is more interested in designing experiments to discriminate between competing theories than favoring one theory over another based merely on philosophical principles.[7][8][9][10]..
tall.
1. There is no evidence whatsoever to support Miskolczi view of things. None.
2. Spenser does not hold to a “tiny bit” for a tenfold increase. please reread him
I’m below the IPCC projections. if you want a number go with 1.5 to 2C per doubling.
Although I did like Spensers last paper a lot, but I need to go through it more completely.
The Imminent Threat of Global Mousing Due to Climate Change.
Abstract:
Due to Anthropmorphic Global Warming the fate of the planet is in peril. The InterPlanetary Consensus Committee has therefore compiled a Synthesis Report in conjunction with the Consensus Research Unit of Prestigious University, headed by Professor Emeritus and lots of people smarter than anyone. We have reached the alarming conclusion that no time must be wasted in debate and percentages of GDP must be dedicated immediately to the goal of mitigating a catastrophic threat.
The Imminent Threat of Global Mousing Due to Climate Change.
Mice have a rapid reproduction rate; the gestation period is approximately 18 to 21 days. The typical litter size is 4 to 12 young.[1]
Large show mice can weigh up to 100 g. [3]
Scholarly scientific investigation has proven this and there is full consensus.
Computer models were developed to understand the impact of these undisputed facts.
Figure 1 shows the population projections.
http://img519.imageshack.us/i/mousepop.gif/
Figure 1- Population of mice without depopulation augmentation technology implementation.
As the graph shows, it will be only a matter of months until the population of mice outnumbers every other creature on the planet.
These estimates are extremely conservative because science has shown that rodents are coprophagic [2] which makes them a kind of perpetual motion machine and unstoppable.
Figure 2 shows the estimated projected computer generated calculations of the mass of this population (Kg).
http://img69.imageshack.us/i/mousemass.gif/
Figure 2- Computerized projection of the GMOM project analysis of global mouse mass (Kg).
It is apparent that such a mass of mice, if they were flung off the equator and into space, could entirely consume a moon made of cheese if there is no action taken to prevent lunar rodent change.
How much time do we have, exactly?
The mass of the moon is precisely Moon 7.349e+22 kg [4]. As our scientific model proves, in 3.2 months, the mass of mice will exceed the mass of the moon. Therefore they will be capable of consuming a mass equal to the moon in the next mouse generation. Three weeks later the mass of mice will exceed the mass of our own planet.
Conclusions:
We have a computer model which tells how many mice it would take to eat the Moon if it were made of green cheese – so the Moon must be made of green cheese.
We have to take prompt action on the mice and it won’t be cheap- tighten your belt.
References:
[1] Moro, D. and Morris, K. (2000) Movements and refugia of Lakeland Downs short-tailed mice, Leggadina lakedownensis, and house mice, Mus domesticus, on Thevenard Island, Western Australia. Wildlife Research
[2] Hilscher-Conklin, Caryl. “Coprophagy: Rattus Biologicus: Healthy Behavior For Your Rats”. Rat & Mouse Gazette. Rat & Mouse Club of America
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fancy_mouse
[4] nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov
San Francisco Psuedo – it’s all the outrage!
The IPCC was formed to prove that AGW is a fact so their outpourings are only within their remit. The fact that they have spent billions of our money to fail shows that they should be wound down. They have never considered science as the resignation of scientists like Bob Carter et al. demonstrate. They wanted the science to be at the forefront of the reports but this request was refused.
The science is quite clear. The ice core data shows that temperature rises occur 600 to 1000 years before parallel rises in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. This alone shows that CO2 does not drive climate. It also shows that current small rises in CO2 concentrations may be due to the Medieval Warm Period. But if that does not convince then look at the overall annual global atmospheric CO2 budget. Our addition to this through burning fossil fuels is 3% of the total the remaining 97% is natural. Historically atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been much higher than today’s 385ppmv. During the Hadaean and Archaen CO2 concentrations were over 20%. There was no free oxygen in the atmosphere. That only appeared after the evolution of cyanobacteria which had a rudimentary ability to photosynthesise CO2 to oxygen which was taken over by plants later in the Pre-Cambrian. CO2 levels have been fluctuation ever since and today we are at an all time low so more is needed for plants to thrive, and to increase crop yield to feed the billions of humans now living. At no time in the geological past has CO2 levels led to any runaway climate change that we have been warned about. This has never happened so why would it happen now with CO2 levels, which have been proved not to drive climate, so low.
All these scares are alarmist claptrap for political reasons which I will not dwell on now.
Owen says:
September 3, 2010 at 7:38 pm
LOL. Wow, Owen; trolling for converts to your CAGW/CC religion. You people must be getting really desperate now.
To “Steve Mosher”
“Well, Ockhams razor is not a scientific method. It is a pragmatic consideration.”
I think that is what I said. Normatively OR should be a pragmatic choice as the simplest theory is, normally, the simplest theory to refute. The problem, as Lakatos and Kuhn identified, scientists become committed to a core of theoretical ideas and highly resistant to changing them – they maintain them through ad-hocracy, the denial of counter-factual evidence, and gerry-mandering access to the literature.
Jim: excellent summary on the history of the financial crash and the great depression. Obviously a number of factors obviously came together – not least Carter’s Community Reinvestment Act – however, the depth of the financial crash came through the belief that the risk inherent in large sub-prime mortgage books could be managed through engineering structured financial products. It is this element of the story where over-commitment to an over-simplified perception of individual and market behaviour became unstuck. That’s the point; immature disciplines like finance and climate science are not good at handling complexity.
Steven Mosher says:
September 4, 2010 at 1:29 am
tall.
1. There is no evidence whatsoever to support Miskolczi view of things. None.
2. Spenser does not hold to a “tiny bit” for a tenfold increase. please reread him
I’m below the IPCC projections. if you want a number go with 1.5 to 2C per doubling.
Although I did like Spensers last paper a lot, but I need to go through it more completely.
Mosh
1. Doesn’t look like much of a rebuttal to me. Miskolczi at least attempts to use empirical data, unlike the hockey jockeys. And his theory is quantified, and internally consistent. So what exactly is your objection?
2. What “tenfold increase”? Spencer estimates a possible 0.6C rise for a doubling of co2, with the caveat that uncertaintaies in estimating a sensitivity for the climate system in the presence of unknown radiative forcing make quantification highly uncertain. He also notes that a negative cloud feedback of ~6w/m^2 renders co2 increases harmless. Take your own advice on re-reading him.
if you want a number go with 1.5 to 2C per doubling.
Well I’m not going with that number, but if you are, then thanks for letting me know where you stand. I’d be interested to know what evidence you think supports such a figure though.
Cheers.
(Sarc On)The absolute worst thing to happen to the Great Climate Debate was Herr Albert Gore (aka Fat Albert, Big Al, ‘The-One-Who-Knows-All’, ‘The Massage Girls Worst Nightmare’, etc., and so on ) and, of course, his financial and political puppitmeisters. Too simple? Well sometimes the most exasperating Gordian Knot or Rubic’s Cube does have a simple explaination for ‘How to begin’. Half the world hates Albert for various very good reasons, ranging from the way he looks to the way he sounds. The other half wouldn’t trust him to drive their Mother-in-Law from Miami to Key West in a Cat IX hurricane. The only way the world is going to come together and move on (no pun intended) regarding ‘Climate Anything’ is for Tipper to have her day in court (or in the kitchen on a very cold, or hot, dark night with no witnesses). (Sarc Off)
**********
Bob Ryan says:
September 4, 2010 at 4:25 am
It is this element of the story where over-commitment to an over-simplified perception of individual and market behaviour became unstuck. That’s the point; immature disciplines like finance and climate science are not good at handling complexity.
************************
I do agree with you there, but Wallstreet was the last domino in a long chain. Without the first domino, we wouldn’t have had the crash, at least that particular one.
As I’m sure you know, economics is sometimes called the dismal science, even though it isn’t really what I would call a science. Climate science is in the same boat to the extent that one can’t run an experiment with a second Earth as a control. We need to come up with a good pseudonym for climate “science.” (The Pitiful Science?)
Steven Mosher says:
September 4, 2010 at 12:53 am
“Like this: One can hold that nuclear should play a larger role based on the following:
( For example ONLY )
“1. we should limit our dependence on foreign oil.
2. it would reduce C02 emissions and that may help with GW”
You left out whether or not nuclear is cost competitive with other electric generating methods. Hint, in the US South East nuclear is cost competitive with coal and in the US midwest nuclear in not cost competitive with coal.
Let’s look at the US South East.
1) New Nuclear is cost competitive with all fossil fuel choices.
2) The US Southeast has lousy wind
3) The US Southeast has fair, not great sunshine
4) The US Southeast has very little exploitable hydro resources
Nuclear power wins based on direct costs alone. This is the first order analysis.
One can then engage in a second order analysis of indirect costs if one chooses.
I.E. The indirect costs of being dependent on foreign oil or the indirect costs of coal ash vs nuclear waste or the indirect costs of CO2.
Other regions of the US and other regions of the world have different direct costs.
The AGW side continues to make a ‘regardless of first order cost comparisons action must be taken’ argument. This leads to a number of proposed solutions that just plain upset people, like Solar Panels in Seattle. Our state legislature ‘solved’ the climate problem, we have a 54 cent/KW feed in rate on Solar Power. A few people put up solar panels, everybody else did the math and realized that even with the feed in rate the payback is 80 years and the panels only last 20 years. As far as the ‘legislature’ is concerned, they ‘solved’ the global warming problem, they gave the activists everything they asked for. Case closed.
Ref – Jim says:
September 4, 2010 at 6:25 am
_______________
?Psycliogy? ?Psyclimology?
—————-
Pascvaks,
etamilcology? [ climate spelled backwards ] : )
John
I don’t believe that you can advance technology by throwing money at it.
If you accept Moore’s law you in effect accept that in the longer term the advancement of a particular technology is not based on the funds thrown at it, but is a function of time. That makes sense to me, because the major advances in a particular technology tend to come from other fields. In the case of the semiconductor it would be things like quantum physics, optics, materials and printing. Throwing money at scientific research in microchips may have perfected the current technology but would not be responsible for major advances – if it already had enough funding for people to take the technological achievements in other fields and incorporate them in the technology.
The likes of lomberg ignore that at their peril. We cannot solve the environmental problems by throwing money at research in the nearterm. Research has to be broadbased. Governments cannot predict the best technology 20 years from now – and even if they could, they would not be able to predict the technology advances in other fields that would drive it. Buying solar panels now to make the market is pointless because it redirects the panels from uses where they would be more effective, and there is already enough of a market to motivate using any technology to reduce the costs.
Pascvaks says:
“(Sarc On)The absolute worst thing to happen to the Great Climate Debate was Herr Albert Gore (aka Fat Albert, Big Al, ‘The-One-Who-Knows-All’, ‘The Massage Girls Worst Nightmare’, etc., and so on )”
I thought he invented the internet – probably started up Real Climate.
John Whitman says:
September 4, 2010 at 9:53 am
etamilcology? [ climate spelled backwards ] : )
_________________________
Yes! YES! It works! IT WORKS!!!
They’re Etamilcologists!!!! That’s perfect!!!!!
Mann, Jones, et al, And Fat Albert’s an Honorary Etamilcologist.
Wuenderschoen! Ausgeschinet! Wuenderbar!
Ref – Djozar says:
September 4, 2010 at 12:03 pm
“I thought he invented the internet – probably started up Real Climate.”
____________
On the internet issue he’s delusional. I was at that meeting in Virginia. He wasn’t there;-)
Now the ‘Real Climate’ question is debateable. I recall Clinton sent Hillary to that one.