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.
Steven Mosher, simple question, complicated answer, Steve. No one knows. No one knows whether 10x over current CO2 will have any effect on global temperature at all.
Several years ago, I had occasion to research the deep history of the geology of Earth while working on a book chapter about the chemical origin of life. Figure 3 in E. Tajika and T. Matsui (1993) “Degassing history and carbon cycle of the Earth: From an impact-induced steam atmosphere to the present atmosphere” Lithos 30, 267-280, plots an estimate of atmospheric CO2 vs. average air temperature for the last 4.5 Ga. Two billion years ago, CO2 partial pressure was about 0.1 atm ~ 100,000 ppmv ~ 256x today’s level. Average air temperature was about 2 degrees warmer than now. Over the intervening 2 billion years, CO2 decreased to recent levels, while average global temperatures hardly moved. Where’s the driver?
This site shows CO2 vs. temperature for the last 600 Ma. Scroll down to “Similarities with our Present World,” to see the Figure. Let’s see anyone even find a CO2-temperature correlation, much less any indication that CO2 leads temperature.
The CO2 record from fossil plant stomata, by the way, show the ice core record to badly under state the amount and variability of atmospheric CO2 levels over the last 15 thousand years.
Wikipedia is wrong about Ockham’s razor.
Ockham’s razor is not at all a heuristic or a metaphysical principle. It says that theories should not be encumbered with unnecessary add-ons. This is not metaphysics. Science is theory and result. Any unnecessary or ad hoc addition to theory provides no explanatory value and is therefore necessarily a-physical. That makes it a-scientific.
So, Ockham’s razor states part of the core scientific methodology, which is that theories provide falsifiable explanations, and no more.
It is also not true that, “science has shown repeatedly that future data often supports more complex theories than existing data.” The opposite is true. Newton’s Gravitational Mechanics is not more complex than Copernican hypercycles; nor is Einstein’s Relativistic Mechanics more complex than Newton’s GM. That is, RM does not add complexity to classical GM. It is a compact theory. Evolutionary theory is far simpler than even a naturalistic theory of the separate emergence of species, much less a theory of supernatural special creation, and plate tectonics is far simper than the ad hoc explanations of flood geology or the necessarily convoluted geological explanations of a stationary continents theory.
Being able to wrap our minds around the deep meaning of modern theory has become more difficult, but the theories themselves have become simpler and more inclusive. That is, our theories have become more powerful and able to bring far greater varieties of observables under a single unified explanation that, in its general form, can be written in a compact way. H(psi), after all, equals E(psi).
Steven Mosher says (September 4, 2010 at 12:53 am): “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.”
Well, let’s see if I’ve misunderstood. In your example, the anti-AGW aspects were “icing on the cake” for a hypothetical project that presumably stood on its own merits. But suppose we’re in a coal-rich region deciding between a coal-fired power plant and nuclear, and on the applicable time scales the coal plant comes out ahead on all economic and environmental considerations except AGW. What weight do you assign to the anti-AGW aspects of the nuclear plant? If your answer is anything greater than zero, then I don’t think I’ve misunderstood you.
“What you are afraid of, it would seem, is giving any credence to any concern over AGW. That stikes me as narrow and doctrinaire.”
Is it? Using AGW purely as a sales pitch can backfire:
Steve: “We should build this nuclear plant because it’s economical, er, and it fights AGW. Yeah, that’s it. AGW.”
Hansen: “OK. And we should sequester CO2 at that coal plant because that also fights AGW.”
Steve: “No, that makes no economic sense.”
Hansen: “What?! I thought you wanted to fight AGW!”
Steve: “Er, I do, but not when it costs jobs and–”
Hansen: “Hypocrite! You don’t want to fight AGW! You’re a tool of the [pick one] industry!”
In politics, nuance is the first casualty. Considering the pitfalls of humoring the alarmists, I’d say my view is actually broader than yours. BTW, speaking of the broad view, accelerated economic growth would mitigate ALL potential problems, not just CAGW, which is yet another reason not to get hung up on anti-AGW “icing”.
“The notion that you decide the nuclear issue ‘on its own merits’ is irrational.”
So let’s throw in yet another extraneous factor? That’s rational? WUWT?
Gnomish says:
September 4, 2010 at 1:35 am
“The Imminent Threat of Global Mousing Due to Climate Change.
[…]”
Brilliant!
Gary:
” Using AGW purely as a sales pitch can backfire:”
who said anything of the sort?
Steve: “We should build this nuclear plant because it’s economical, er, and it fights AGW. Yeah, that’s it. AGW.”
Since that is not how I argue, It’s rather besides the point. You clobbered the strawman. funny how he always loses
If they don’t kneecap the EPA, this voter will surely spend the rest of her life voting for conservatives, no matter what kind of religiosity or misogyny invades their thinking. I am so disillusioned by our Democratic party that I am finding it difficult to remember why I ever was a registered Democrat in the first place.
I thought at one time the Democratic party was the party of equal opportunity and privacy rights (IE if I qualify I should have equal pay and equal opportunity to have whatever job I can get, and stay the hell out of my private life, including who I bed and whether or not I birth).
This climate change fiasco has changed my view of politicians from black to white, and white to black. I feel like a coal flipped out of the BBQ, left to burn or die on my own.
Pamela: I am not surprised to see you wind up where you are, considering you are sensible and liberal (using the dictionary meaning of the word). The dems have fallen off the left edge of the table leaving most of the genuinely liberal ground to the GOP.
“I can be patient; I can stay with Re[a]gan. I and my hundred knights. ”
Like Lear, we have at times put our trust in the wrong people. Let’s hope the likes of us make out better than he did!
Steven Mosher says (September 5, 2010 at 11:36 pm): “Since that is not how I argue, It’s rather besides the point. You clobbered the strawman. funny how he always loses”
From your earlier posts, I gathered you assigned a weight > 0 to AGW in economic decision-making. You then wrote that I had misunderstood you and Tom. In my “strawman” post I considered the alternate possibility that you see AGW purely as a sales pitch. I’m glad that you don’t, glad that I understood you the first time, and disappointed that you give any credence at all to the CAGW boogeyman.
Pamela Gray says (September 6, 2010 at 9:06 am): “I am so disillusioned by our Democratic party that I am finding it difficult to remember why I ever was a registered Democrat in the first place.”
Hi, Pamela, I’m a life-long Republican and believe me, I don’t think “our” guys are that much better than “your” guys, if at all. “Government” has grown steadily under both parties, and as we’ve seen, any power we grant our politicians (whatever their party) will eventually be abused. The problem isn’t having “the wrong guys” in power, it’s having anybody with such powers over our lives.
“I thought at one time the Democratic party was the party of equal opportunity and privacy rights (IE if I qualify I should have equal pay and equal opportunity to have whatever job I can get, and stay the hell out of my private life, including who I bed and whether or not I birth).”
I effectively work about 5 months a year for “government” at all levels, which means someone else already runs nearly half my “private life” just in financial terms. I’d register Libertarian if I thought they had a hope of accomplishing anything.