Guest Post by Thomas Fuller
It is not often that I get called a ‘denialist’ and a ‘troll’ for the dark forces of Al Gore on the same day, but it does happen.
It’s because I am a ‘lukewarmer,’ one who believes that the physics of climate change are not by theselves controversial, but who believes that the sensitivity of the earth’s atmosphere to a doubling of concentrations of CO2 is not yet known, but is likely to be lower than activists have claimed.
I suppose it should bother me that I am getting slammed at activist websites such as Only In It For the Gold, Deltoid and ThingsBreak because they think I don’t go far enough, and slammed again here and at The Air Vent because I go too far. Although I want to be liked as much as the next fellow, it doesn’t, because the reasons given for slamming me never seem to match up to the reality of what I write.
Critics here have focused on a lack of substance, so I’ll try and address that in this post. I’m a bit amused at one commenter who yesterday said I understood nothing of energy. (Shh! Don’t tell my clients–I just delivered a 400-page report on alternative energy, and they’ll be ticked off…)
And I’m equally amused that I have to acknowledge that Michael Tobis (at last) got one thing right in a comment yesterday, when he wrote that the real problem we face is coal–and Chinese coal at that. (More on that in a minute.)
The LukeWarmer’s Way
The operation of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is one of the least controversial ideas in physics. The calculations that show a temperature rise of between 1 and 2 degrees Celsius if concentrations double is also widely accepted, including by all skeptic scientists without (AFAIK) exception.
We don’t know the sensitivity of the atmosphere to a doubling of CO2, so the effects of feedbacks are not know. Activists think it is 3 degrees or higher. Contrarians think it is very low–1, maybe 2, tops, some thinking it is even lower.
If activists are right we have a very big problem on our hands. If contrarians are right we don’t. If both are wrong, there is a lukewarmer’s way.
If you believe that about 2 degrees of warming is headed our way this century, it will be a problem–probably not for those reading this, because of our fortunate geography, but for those in the developing world, who will have to add droughts, floods and heatwaves to their current long list of miseries. And it’s not really the size of the temperature rise that worries me, although having a 2 degree average means it will be greater in some places, and again, probably in the least fortunate locales. But it’s really the speed of change that will make it tough to adapt to.
So as a lukewarmer I believe that if there are ‘no regrets’ options, by which I mean things that make sense for us to do no matter what happens to the climate, that we should move quickly to do them in hopes that it will a) help prepare for whatever temperature rise comes our way and b) may serve in some small way to lessen the total temperature rise and its impacts.
The devil is in the details, obviously, and a bigger devil lies in who should decide and how much authority we give them. And we probably don’t get to pick and choose at the right level of detail.
For example, I have no problem with the EPA actively encouraging power plants to shift from old coal configurations to combined cycle natural gas. It’s not a permanent solution but it’s a quick win. But I do have a problem with them classing a school with 3 buses as a major emitter of CO2 and getting them involved in the bureaucratic nightmare of emission control.
I do not want Maurice Strong to control our approach to the world’s environmental issues. I’m reading his book right now (‘Where On Earth Are We Going?, with a foreward by Kofi Annan), and it is horribly bad, and horribly wrong. I’ll give it a full review later, but suffice it to say that I wouldn’t trust him with any responsibility at all.
But there are some in both government and science who I do trust. And I’m willing to work towards helping them get to where we need to go. If a panel composed of both Pielkes, Judith Curry, Mike Kelly, John Christy, Richard Lindzen and a few others were to work on proposed solution, I’d be pretty happy. I might be alone in my joy, I realize.
Another no regrets option I’d like to see is a review of building planning, permitting and insurance in areas that are already vulnerable to tropical storms and floods. We are in the silly situation right now where middle class workers in the Midwest are subsidizing rich people who rebuild ruined but rich second homes in Florida or Malibu Canyon.
We could also allow planes to use modern technology to choose the most fuel efficient routes, descend directly rather than in stages and unblock no-fly spaces left over from the Cold War.
I’d like to see greater use of X prizes to stimulate innovation, as it did with private spacecraft. I’d love to see prizes for utility level storage or better use of composites for distribution, or improvements to HVDC transmission. Prizes almost always work.
I’d like to see more base research done on superconductors, for example, and other technologies that are threatened with being trapped in the Valley of Investment Death.
And I don’t think that list of no regrets options is too controversial, either here or with the activists. (I’m sure I’ll hear about it if it is.)
But the real problem is counting to 3,000. Because a straight line extension of energy consumption gets us to 3,000 quads (quadrillion BTUs) by 2075, with 9.1 billion people developing at present trends and GDP growing at 3% per year.
If those 3,000 quads are supplied by burning coal, we’ll choke on the fumes, no matter what it does to temperatures. China has doubled its energy use since 2000, it may do so again by 2020, and 70% of their energy is provided by coal. The massive traffic jam into Beijing a couple of weeks ago, 90 miles long and lasting three or four days, was composed primarily of small trucks bringing coal into China’s capital. And the pollution and soot that is caused by China’s coal travels–to the Arctic, hastening ice melt and over the rest of the world, as small particulates and just general haze.
So I also advocate pushing for renewable and nuclear energy. I think we’ll need them both. Nuclear is ready to roll right now, but it’s expensive and time consuming to put up as many plants as we’re going to need. Solar is on the verge, and I’d like to give it an extra push. Natural gas is a temporary solution in terms of emissions, but at current prices we can’t ignore its advantages.
We also need to push piecemeal solutions that will not solve our problems by themselves, but are important contributors at a local level, such as geothermal power, or small hydroelectric and run-of-river installations.
No matter what you or I believe about climate change, we face an energy issue that we need to address today. Our coal plants are dramatically cleaner than they used to be. China’s are not. If we don’t want the air we breathe to taste of China’s coal, we need to work on better solutions.
And the worst of all possible worlds is where we don’t do the right thing on energy because we are at war with each other about climate change.
I’m a firm believer in markets, and I like free markets better than the other sort. I also think they work better with light regulation. I think it’s legitimate to nudge the energy market in the direction we want it to go, without giving the reins and the saddle to government bureaucracy. And I do think it can and probably will work.
So I’m not a ‘denialist.’ I’m not a ‘skeptic.’ I’m a lukewarmer–and I’m right.
Thomas Fuller http://www.redbubble.com/people/hfuller
Thomas Fuller
There would be no global warming without new technology. And that’s not because new technology uses so much energy.
It’s because new technology has allowed us to measure new phenomena, and old phenomena with radically more powerful tools.
Mike Smith gives us an example in his book ‘Warnings’, a great story about how technology addressed the warning system for U.S. tornadoes (and which is advertised here on the right hand column). He notes that many tornadoes that are called in to reporting centers today would never have been noticed before, thanks to a growing American population and the ubiquity of mobile telephones.
The same is more or less true of hurricanes. Before satellite coverage began in 1969, we really didn’t know exactly how many hurricanes actually happened in a given year, nor how strong they were. If they didn’t make landfall, they would only be catalogued if planes noticed and reported them, and they would only be measured if specially equipped planes basically flew through them and charted their strength.
It’s certainly also true of measurements of ice extent, volume and area, which would not be possible without satellite imagery.
New technology has had a radical effect on the time series of measurements made for extended periods before the technology was adopted. Sailors used to measure sea surface temperatures using a thermometer in a bucket lowered into the sea. When Argos buoys began providing a network of more accurate measurements, there was a break in the timeline. When surface stations converted to electronic thermocouples on a short leash, the adjustments required caused another break in the data series. (I guess readers here might know something about that already.) Scientists have worked hard to make adjustments to correct for the new sources of data, but the breaks are still pretty noticeable.
The sensible thing would be to give the new technologies time to develop an audited series of measurements long enough to determine trends, rather than grafting new data on top of older, less reliable series. But there are two objections to this: First, who’s to say another new measurement technology won’t come along and replace our brand new toys and resetting the clock to zero? Second, and of more concern, there is a whole scientific establishment out there saying we don’t have time to wait for a pristine data set. Some say we’ve already waited too long, others say that if we start today (and they really mean today), we just might avoid climate disaster.
And if you start to muse on the remarkable coincidence that warming apparently started at the same time as we got all this new-fangled technology, why that makes you a flat-earth denialist. Or something.
As it happens, while serving in the U.S. Navy I took sea surface temperatures with a thermometer in a bucket. There were not many detailed instructions involved. Should I have done it on the sunny side or the shady side? Nearer the pointy end of the ship (that’s technical talk) or the flat back end? How long was I supposed to leave the thermometer in the water?
I wouldn’t want to make momentous decisions based on the quality of data I retrieved from that thermometer, which wasn’t calibrated–I think the U.S.N. stock number was like 22, or some other low number indicating great antiquity. I much prefer what comes out of Argos.
But there are times I wish all those fancy instruments on the satellites were pointing at another planet.
Thomas Fuller href=”http://www.redbubble.com/people/hfuller
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
mikael pihlström:
“Well, looking at the global picture, ‘greenies’ were instrumental
in the developments leading to cleaner water, air and soils in past
decades. You seem to condone these developments now, but
contemporary greenies are always “sand in the gears”, and later
ob you can always be ahistorical and forget their contributions.”
Being “instrumental” is just a small part of the orchestra. The non-green public at large saw the problems themselves and wanted solutions. Many moved out of the CBD for fresh air and, business noted that and changed their ways.
When it came to lead pollution from car exhausts, unleaded fuel was devised. The stink of sulphur dioxide (SO2) was enough to drive the greenies into a frenzy. From WIKI:
“Since 1981, three-way catalytic converters have been used in vehicle emission control systems in North America and many other countries on roadgoing vehicles. A three-way catalytic converter has three simultaneous tasks:
1. Reduction of nitrogen oxides to nitrogen and oxygen: 2NOx → xO2 + N2
2. Oxidation of carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide: 2CO + O2 → 2CO2
3. Oxidation of unburnt hydrocarbons (HC) to carbon dioxide and water: CxH2x+2 + [(3x+1)/2]O2 → xCO2 + (x+1)H2O
Now, the problem is that it converts CO AND unburnt hydrocarbons into CO2 (not a problem as us climate realists are aware since CO2 is plant food). Greenies have unknowingly (stupidly) caused their own “problem” – again. Or was it stupid, as now they have yet another “cause” to fight for?
Mike Jonas,
There has been an increase in car sales in China. Roads have not been upgraded to accommodate the new traffic. Your photos confirm that’s what the traffic jam was. I also didn’t see a single coal truck.
mikael pihlström:
For a better look at what greenies and politics can do to families and business, I suggest you read this and all accompanying articles. Thanks for your input.
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/09/4-days-notice-the-thompsons-are-served-notice-of-eviction/#more-10310
Gee, Tom, that doesn’t even make sense. I love WUWT. Where else can I find denialist lunacy on this extreme scale? The entertainment value is virtually infinite!
Mr. Fuller,
I am not going to argue atmospheric physics with you, because you are not an atmospheric physicist and neither am I. You and I can only guess at who is right and who is wrong on those questions.
But we both have experienced climate and know for certain what Alaska’s is like versus say, California’s. And we can both agree that agricultural productivity is much greater in the latter than the former. We can agree that most of humanity lives in warm climates, not cold ones. It’s not puzzling why this is: warmer climate is more conducive to survival of our species than colder climate.
Way back when, the Alarmists coined “global warming” and held it up as a threat. Then folks began to realize that warmer is better, certainly much better than the alternative, a return to Ice Age conditions. The Hansen line that the seas are going to boil was laughable. So the Alarmists substituted “climate change” and more recently “climate disruption”. Warmer is no longer the threat, it’s the alleged “change” projected. And you resurrect the old canard, “rapid change”, as the “real” boogie man under the bed.
It isn’t happening. Good Old Mother Earth is gradually cooling. It’s back to Ice Ages, something that has happened like clockwork for 2 million years or so. There is no rapid change, and there is no warming. Despite what the models say should be happening. Look out the window. Yes, there are floods and droughts. There always have been. There is no detectable increase in their severity or frequency.
Furthermore, so what? If warmer means a few more storms, they would be offset by the astounding increase in productivity. A detectable (significant) warming would bring both. I vote for warmer. Warmer Is Better.
Your dire report fails to move me toward fear and trepidation. Sorry, but I don’t share your concerns. Try a different tack. Try impending cooling. That might stir my emotions.
Apparently some people don’t know there is peer reviewed work that shows strong negative feedback from H2O. So, I’ll post a 2 part video series from YouTube about it:
Roy Spencer on negative feedback
Part 1
Roy Spencer on negative feedback
Part 2
People believe that by changing human perception, you can change the world. They believe they can change human nature just by believing they can. Human nature doesn’t work like that. Human nature has not changed for 10, 00 years. Human nature always reverts back to it’s primeval core no matter how hard they try to change it. That is why we use something called the US Constitution to keep us from destroying each other. It’s the best plan we have come up with in the history of the planet. I suggest we utilize it till we come up with something better.
rbateman says:
September 17, 2010 at 8:36 pm
I don’t believe a trace gas is going to turn out to be Earth’s #1 looming problem. In face, I don’t believe it is a problem nor is it really a driver of climate. The Earth is fully capable of wolfing down any extra C02 we put out, and more, if and when it decides to.
The real problem is pollution. Chemicals, plastics and soot. The S02 and soot we had either licked or on the way to getting under wraps in the US. We really did clean up our air. We could have continued on, and cleaned up a lot more than just the S02 problem, but profits got in the way, and government agencies/regulators were bought/lobbied. We sent our core industries and tooling overseas, along with our productivity.
There isn’t much we can now do about China. That situation is at least 10 years or more removed from any meaningful influence we might have had. Now, they are ready to leapfrog us, and they appear not to care one bit how much pollution they have to spit out in the process of becoming #1. Our troubled consumer-driven market is not in the drivers seat, China’s is.
We do not control our monetary system, they do (Bernanke did it … 2005) via the long-term interest rate and thier investments.
So, what exactly can the US do? What we used to do: Make products that last.
Throwaway products that are cheap cost jobs, our jobs, and as they don’t last long, they are a huge waste of resources & energy.
Great for Asia, very bad for the US. Even worse for pollution on 2 continents.
Green energy? We use to call some of these schemes perpetual motion.
Nuclear? We had better get some serious reform into our oversight & regulatory agencies before we start messing with that genie again.
Renewables? Localised and subsidized so far. Tranmission lines blocked. Outsourced.
It’s going to be a while before the US has the wherewithal to make meaningful changes, the present economic malaise has seen to that.
==========================
Again…repeated for effect.
Robert’s the type of person you want to be closely connected to in the event of an apocalypse.
I would much rather listen to survivors who know what to do…than to ideologues and theoreticians who are just glued to models.
Well said, Robert…as usual.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Tom, I enjoy reading your articles and respect your stance on climate issues. Your Examiner articles are often used by myself to help others understand the politics of climate studies.
There is one part of this article that I must comment on though. You wrote “The calculations that show a temperature rise of between 1 and 2 degrees Celsius if concentrations double is also widely accepted, including by all skeptic scientists without (AFAIK) exception”.
Unfortunately, this is not the case. Here is an example of one scientist that does not conform to that sentence.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/
“It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause less than 1 deg C of surface warming (about 1 deg. F).”
By making a claim that something is accepted by all of a group, you may run the risk of being compared to Al Gore et. al. with their claims of “consensus”. I believe that you are too good a writer not to be pigeon holed in a similar fashion.
Keep up the good work. I always look forward to your articles.
I hope your knowledge of climate science is greater than your knowledge of mental health. Schizopohrenia is a severe mental illness and the word mean ‘split from reality’ not ‘split personality’ as so many wrongly think. Using the term in this way trivialises a serious mental condition which affect 1 in a 100 people.
As for the climate science? Time will givc the true answer
Another great post, Tom, you will be making luke warmers of us all. I am sure there is a better name tho’, it has a biblically ineffectual ring to it.
How about something stronger, like RAMs
Right And Misunderstood
There ya go! [SNIP]
[The D-word does not refer to Deltoid. Stop using it here. Any questions, read the Policy. ~dbs, mod]]
Oh look, Tom (and everyone here in the WUWT choir), yet another Hockey Stick! This one is from Thibodeau et al. (2010, GSL), “Twentieth century warming in deep waters of the Gulf of St. Lawrence: A unique feature of the last millennium.”
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL044771.shtml
Their bottom line:
“We conclude that the 20th century warming of the incoming intermediate North Atlantic water has had no equivalent during the last thousand years.”
Don’t you just love how these Hockey Sticks keep coming? I sure do!
Hat tip to: MapleLeaf @ur momisugly Deltoid
Bart Verheggen@September 17, 2010 at 2:13 pm
“I never proclaimed certainty, so you’re arguing a strawman there.”
My objection was to “the probable reason that that hasn’t been done is that it’s not possible to do so with a physics based model”. If you do after all acknowledge the possibility of producing a physics based model with a sensitivity of 1°C or less, then I happily withdraw my criticism.
I must protest, Mr. Mod: when someone proclaims, contrary to simple, verifiable fact, that “Good Old Mother Earth is gradually cooling.”, what other word fits?
Reply: If your vocabulary is that limited, [mod self snip (consider alternatives) ~ ctm] ~ ctm
Ok, so I’ve read the post, and found several incorrect assumptions.
“So I’m not a ‘denialist.’ I’m not a ‘skeptic.’ I’m a lukewarmer–and I’m right.”
Tom, I do like you but you don’t know what amount of warming we’ll see. Spencer has just demonstrated a negative feedback to CO2. This means it can be lower than 1-2 C you claim everyone agrees to. It’s flatly untrue — we don’t know.
Then you make this claim.
“The calculations that show a temperature rise of between 1 and 2 degrees Celsius if concentrations double is also widely accepted, including by all skeptic scientists without (AFAIK) exception.”
This is based on a very very crude estimate. You have to understand that no convection,moisture, or any other responses are not included in this calculation. It is simply put out there for people to understand that it is a real and positive number. I’ve posted the calcs at tAV myself. When I see people cite it as a minimum, I always cringe because you have to understand the equations to understand what they are saying. You simply cannot claim this as a minimum, although I know some have.
Spencers latest publication has refuted this number by demonstrably negative feedback using actual data rather than the simple model equations that generated it.
“If you believe that about 2 degrees of warming is headed our way this century, it will be a problem –probably not for those reading this, because of our fortunate geography, but for those in the developing world, who will have to add droughts, floods and heatwaves to their current long list of miseries. “
Why will 2C be a problem? I doubt very much that anyone would even know about it. We’ll still be cold or warm, we’ll still have the same weather. Any proof of this claim? Certainly the Antarctic won’t melt and again most of the ‘developing’ world is caused by dictatorial government.
A science blogger should have some kind of data to back up extreme claims like this — and this is very much an extreme claim.
“No matter what you or I believe about climate change, we face an energy issue that we need to address today. ”
We have exactly zero energy supply problems which are not the direct consequence of the kind of thinking in this post. Belief vs science and belief wins the argument due to fear.
I can keep going on this post, the solar claim is false, but I do like Tom. What I can’t abide is the claim of human knowledge of our situation where none exists.
We don’t know how damaging a bit of warming will be. We don’t know the minimum amount of warming by doubling of CO2.
So when you write —
“So I’m not a ‘denialist.’ I’m not a ‘skeptic.’ I’m a lukewarmer–and I’m right.”
I say I’m an engineer and a skeptic, people who call themselves lukewarmers don’t know any more about the future than I do, they don’t know how much warming there will be, and they don’t know if it will cause any problems at all.
– and I am right.
Until proven wrong.
From: Adam R. on September 18, 2010 at 4:21 am
Dr. Phil Jones said in February 2010 that since January 2002 there has been a negative trend to the global temperatures, -0.12C per decade, although not statistically significant. As noted here and elsewhere, the global sea surface temperatures are decreasing, and that’s 70% of the global surface right there, as well as the total upper ocean heat content dropping as well.
Thus it would be foolish to deny that global cooling is possibly occurring. Indeed, it seems likely it is happening.
Jeff, you make good points and your post over at The Air Vent is truly brilliant.
I’ve seen Spencer’s recent work, and they are promising–but let’s wait and see.
Again, as I’ve said before, 2 degrees is not a problem because of the size of the rise, but because it will happen unevenly and over a short period of time. And I freely acknowledge there will be winners in this game as well as losers.
As for not having energy problems, China is experiencing rolling brownouts and blackouts due to simple lack of energy. They cannot even burn enough coal to keep the lights on. The same is true in India. We don’t have an energy problem in the developed world–our population and economies are stable and we built the infrastructure over a century. Half the population of this does have an energy problem, and it’s going to get worse unless it is solved.
But if solving it means they burn 3 times as much coal as the world uses today without any of the technology we use here to keep it as clean as possible, they will export their pollution.
And I’m still an optimist about solar 😉
Readers who are not familiar with Jeff Id and his weblog The Air Vent should take time to visit him. His blog is linked on the blogroll at the right. He’s one of the good guys in this business.
Adam R,
“Their bottom line:
“We conclude that the 20th century warming of the incoming intermediate North Atlantic water has had no equivalent during the last thousand years.”
Don’t you just love how these Hockey Sticks keep coming? I sure do!”
===========================
That’s great – I’m really happy for you. Now here’s a paper that concludes the exact opposite.
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_pigmybasin.php
Their bottom line: ” This work revealed that “two multi-decadal intervals of sustained high Mg/Ca indicate that Gulf of Mexico sea surface temperatures were as warm or warmer than near-modern conditions between 1000 and 1400 yr B.P.”
Next please.
“2 degrees is not a problem because of the size of the rise, but because it will happen unevenly and over a short period of time.”
Whoa, where did that come from . So… Global warming -> Climate Change -> Climate Disruption -> now what… Rapid Global Warming. I can’t keep up.
Do you mean unevenly in time or unevenly in space, and by what mechanism will it happen unevenly? Tipping points?
According to NCDC and GISS, the temperature has risen about 0.5 C over the last 30 years – that’s about 1.7 C per century. I haven’t noticed the catastrophe. At what rate of warming do you anticipate danger?
Thinking about technology in the year 1900 compared to technology in the year 2000; and thinking about how *difficult* it has been for humanity to adjust to the recent rapid warming. What’s the problem?
Hi kdk33
It is my understanding (imperfect though it may be) that temperature rises are expected to continue roughly at this trend until approximately 2030, at which point the rate is expected to rise.
As ‘global’ warming is a convenient fiction used for statistical comparison, all real climate change is experienced at a regional or even local level. Again, remembering that I am not a scientist, it is my understanding that some tropical regions will experience greater change after 2030–that the Arctic rises were prelude and the tropics will catch up.
So the warming that I perceive as problematic will be uneven in both time and space.
I don’t want to paint this as catastrophic–I do not believe it will be. We will adapt and overcome, because that’s pretty much what we do. But it will just be tougher on a very large number of people that already have things tough enough.
Given the state of the sun and the developing likely minimum (as in a later article here on WUWT), all this talk about warming seems rather futile. I’m certainly planning on some dreadful winters and cool summers.
Tom,
You claim continually claim that you are a “lukewarmer” yet on your blog you have indicated that you will vote for Pelosi, and Boxer that you support Obama’s radical energy policy that is based on extreme belief in global warming. These folks hardly practice a moderate position in their belief of CAGW and proposed actions.
Have you changed your mind on your vote or are you being less than forthright on how you portraying yourself on WUWT?
Tom Fuller says:
September 17, 2010 at 4:34 pm
Z, cooling for me would be a matter of length of time, not number of degrees. If it cools for the next 20 years, we all win, and I’ll be happy to eat crow in any venue you name. Really. But that might be because I would win a thousand dollar bet with Joe Romm… 😉
Well personally I wouldn’t consider cooling for 20 years a win – I like the warmth. But a thousand dollar payoff would certainly help your heating bill.
Actually, I predict that 1934 will cool continuously for the next 20 years – does that count? 😉
Steven Mosher says:
September 17, 2010 at 8:23 pm
Z:
“As a general question: What level of cooling would be incompatible with physics as you know it? I.E. How much would the Earth have to cool before you’d say “That’s against the laws of physics”?”
wrong question and a total misunderstanding of how physics is developed, refined and modified. it would take more than a cool spell to overturn the physics involved, way more.
So an event such as a repeat of the Little Ice Age would not falsify CAGW?
That’s an interesting answer.
Anyone else like to venture an opinion?