Guest post by Thomas Fuller
Before I start, I’d like to remind readers that as a guest poster, the opinions I voice here are not those of Anthony Watts, and should not be taken as having been endorsed by Watts Up With That.
I am going to propose an idea based on my position as a Lukewarmer regarding climate change. I fully expect to get a lot of criticism from commenters here, and I welcome it. My idea is new (at least to me), and if it is a good idea it will be sharpened by your criticism–and of course, if it is rubbish, best to know quickly, right?
I think the debate on climate change needs some new ideas and criticism too. So blast away–but please bring your A game. I neither need nor want to see the equivalent of ‘you suck, dude.’
Families, businesses and yes, even governments, need to make plans for the future. Those plans used to include assumptions about the physical environment, although most of those assumptions were passive acceptance of the status quo. However, it is now difficult to make assumptions because various theories of climate change and its effects have people wondering if their homes will be threatened by sea level rise, drought, hurricanes or floods.
Because of the competing number of possible futures (the IPCC has many scenarios and many more have been pulled from the science fiction rack and offered up to us), people are somewhat paralyzed by too many choices. I think it is time to recognize that all of use engaged in the debate about climate change are not doing the rest of the world any favors. We are making their life more difficult because they cannot make plans with any confidence.
If there is one dataset that I trust regarding the Earth’s climate, it is the measurement of atmospheric concentrations of CO2. It has been freely available for examination, it is replicated by measurements in more than one site, and in my mind survived criticism from people such as the late Ernst Beck. I trust the numbers.
The numbers show that concentrations of CO2 were 315 ppm in 1958, when Mauna Loa started measuring. Concentrations now are 390 ppm. That is a rise of 19%. The central question in climate change is, ‘What is the sensitivity of the earth’s atmosphere to a doubling of the concentrations of CO2?’ Is the atmosphere easily influenced by CO2, producing more water vapor and adding to temperature rise, or is the atmosphere largely indifferent? Despite protestations from both sides, the honest answer is we don’t know now, and we are not likely to know for another 30 years.
Temperatures appear to have risen globally, although the accuracy of the data is not yet fully determined. The rise since 1958 appears to be about 0.5 degrees Celsius.
If these were the only statistics available to us, we would quickly conclude that the sensitivity of the earth’s atmosphere to all human-related activities might well be 2.5 degrees Celsius. This would lead to the supposition that, if concentrations of CO2 rise to about 600 ppm, which certainly seems possible, that the Earth’s temperature will rise about another 2 degrees C. Since it’s based on measurement of temperatures, it can be presumed to include all the effects we are having on temperatures, not just CO2.
And I am arguing, no–proposing, that we do exactly that. Attempts to refine models and measurements have been unsuccessful and have served to heighten suspicion and muddy the debate. I have seen very credible arguments for sensitivities that are both higher and lower, but these arguments are based on data or models that have much higher levels of uncertainty associated with them, ranging from differing ways of measuring tropospheric temperatures to analysis of varves from Finnish lakes.
I don’t see undisputed data that will allow us to do better than the 40 years of good data we have now. So I think we should provide a ‘rough and ready’ estimate of 2 degrees C climate change this century to the public, business and politicians, so they can start making plans for the future.
It should obviously come with an asterisk and error bars, and should be presented as ‘crude, but the best we can really do at this time.’ Much like earlier and simpler climate models have often done better in handling projections of future climate, our rougher and cruder metrics may serve us better for now.
We need to stop throwing sci-fi fantasies out as plausible outcomes. We need to provide a range of outcomes based on measurements that we trust.
We also need not to be distracted by elements of the debate that have only served a political purpose. Current temperatures are not unprecedented. There was a MWP and a LIA. Sea level is rising at 3 mm per year. The ice caps are not going to disappear this millenium.
None of that really matters. Temperatures are rising, and more quickly than they have often in the past. (Yes, they have risen this quickly on occasion.) It is the speed of change and the numbers of people those changes will affect that are actually of more concern than the total temperature rise. The people in developing countries are actually more vulnerable than the last time there was a big quick rise–hunter gatherers didn’t have homes and could just move out of harm’s way, and they were few enough in number that they would not have been labeled ‘climate refugees.’
So, I call for all those involved in the climate debate to throw down their weapons, embrace this practical solution as being of use to the rest of the world, climb aboard the Peace Train and sing Kumbaya. Right.
No, have a look at this–tell me if it’s remotely possible that the skeptic community could sacrifice its current temporary, but very real advantage in the debate and agree that a rough metric that acknowledges warming but puts sane boundaries on it would be of use to the rest of the world.
Again, I’d like to thank readers who have made it this far for listening to a different side of the debate in a forum where you are more comfortable seeing the failings of your opponents exposed. If you find the gaping flaw in my logic, my idea can die quickly, if not quietly. If you see merit in my proposal, any indication of such would be warmly welcomed.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Not worry then. If the temperature only goes up another 2°C we’re all saved anyway — isn’t that what they want to keep the temperature rise to? Solved, no need to worry, besides if Peak Oil is hear now, how much oil do we still have to burn?
I haven’t read all the comments and this may have already been raised, but there seems to be one great misconception that few people are addressing which is that, on direct measurements, CO2 levels have been significantly higher within the past two centures than they are now. The is an extract from Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski’s 2007 paper entitled CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal Of Our Time –
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/20_1-2_CO2_Scandal.pdf
I would have bolded the reference to direct measurement but I wasn’t quite sure how to do that here. This is something that seems to be studiously ignored. Everyone seems to be quite happy to accept the falsehood that we are currently experiencing CO2 levels not seen for thousands of years and, based on this paper and its references, that is simply not the case. Why should proxies be more highly regarded than direct physical measurements?
Apart from the ice core analysis, this paper provides a good background to the whole scare, something which is more widely known and acknowledged now than at at the time of publication.
Interesting comments & posts. As a retired Instrumentation/Chemical engineer w/40+ years in process measurement, control & modeling I’m amazed at how much we really don’t know. Collectively, we are in the infant stages of collecting accurate, repeatable climate data that will ultimately allow us to model physical behavior via some type of equations with somewhat better defined boundaries. What really miffs me is that no one in the AGW community is admitting to the fact that we don’t have sufficient data to do accurate modeling. Any trained professional engineer/scientist with an ounce of integrity would admit to that immediately.
Lets collect 100+ yrs of accurate data before we rush to jump to conclusions – and 100 yrs is probably just a small start in terms of climatology which looks at changes over 1000 yr. periods. Historical proxy data gives us a clue as to what to expect… lots of variability for sure.
It seems to me that our current scientific community is in a rush to find the temp rise derivative to be able to predict the future. SORRY, BUT ITS NOT THAT EASY FOLKS… gotta collect & then analyze the data first. But I am absolutely certain that it is not dependent upon just one variable (CO2). Nature and the real world just don’t operate that way.
It also amazes me that over the past 40 yrs we have decidedly turned from a scientific, engineering oriented culture to one that tries to force a consensus, social/eco-friendly gospel upon society… as though we are mindless and don’t have a clue as to what’s really going on. Really makes one think twice about where our society and nation are headed and the type of “education” our current crop of scientists are receiving. You can tell how impressed I am.
WOW! Lotsa comments! Did a search on “population” and had 20 hits.
I believe population is the problem, not climate.
It seems populations reduce as economics improve.
Go figure.
They should have done that 10 years ago and saved us all a bucket load of money – stop being so logical, you sound like an engineer for god sakes!
Lets build pointless models for huge cost that increase the uncertainty, think of all the scientists you would put out of work – plus they have to justify those huge expensive computers!!!
Using smoothed UAH LT data (as in the widget here) you get 0.5 degrees since 1979 (not 1959). The CO2 increase is about 15%. Using the more correct log relation this also gives 2.5 degrees per doubling, so in a round-about way I agree with the posting. This points to a positive feedback, and seems to be somewhat bad for negative feedback ideas that wouldn’t even have permitted half this increase. Yes, it is a simplistically direct connection, but it is interesting. Continuing the calculation this way also gives 1.5 C above what we have now for 600 ppm (2 C above 1979).
thomaswfuller says:
October 20, 2010 at 12:44 pm
Hi all,
Thanks for comments so far. I just want to point out that I am proposing a 2 degree temperature rise this century from all causes, not just CO2.
Does that make a difference to how you perceive this?
—-
Thomas,
I have a great respect for your intellect and for baring it here. I would suggest that before you try to substantiate a difficult hypothesis on a few years of recent earth data, that you look deeper into the paleoclimatic history.
Forget the last 50, 100, 1000 years, look deeper into our climatic experience. We are at the end of an interglacial warm period. This has occurred about 20 times over the last 2.5 million years. These warm interglacials last about 15 – 20,000 years. They presage glaciation periods that last for about 100,000 years. The cold periods are more stable. But both taken together are pretty stable over the time frame referenced. These events are irrefutable. They have occurred. I and many others think they will occur again.
No one knows what tips (the tipping point? to cold?) the balance from warm to cold. But it happens regularly as above. I’m sorry I don’t have links for you, but this is material I have tracked for years. It is available online.
You might consider starting with a book by the National Academy of Science titled, I believe: ABRUPT CLIMATE CHANGE. Its available at their site and costs about $15.00. Believe it or not, it will answer many of your questions with documented fact.
It’s worth the investment. It is heavily footnoted and issued like I said from the NAS. It will tell you about the Younger Dryas and why it it is called that, among other things that you will find of great interest in your quest for knowledge.
I’d like to meet with you some time.
So, I call for all those involved in the climate debate to throw down their weapons, embrace this practical solution
I can’t find the solution mentioned in the post. Agreeing on a number doesn’t solve anything. We still won’t agree on a “solution”.
My proposal (just as naive) is that all the politicians and journalists and eco-evangelists go find something else to worry about (no shortage there) and come back after the true scientists have figured this out, in peace, in time.
History: species which adapt survive. Humans are good at adaption. Things change; deal with it.
I have no issue accepting a 2C estimate. The best science we have, flawed as is all science suggests a 2C rise from all contributing factors.
I think most people are missing Tom’s point. Tom’s point is not to argue the science. Frankly, I’ve never seen an argument here that comes close to denting the science. I’ve seen arguments that make me less certain of 2C, but no competing theory that says 1C or 0c or -1C. So I’m willing to accept 2C.
My uncertainty about 2C however makes me cautious about the actions I would take.
Moving to nuclear seems like a win win.
So Toms question is really this. If you accepted, for the sake of argument that 2C was a reality, what would you suggest we do. what would you be willing to do.
Michael Tobis says:
October 20, 2010 at 9:57 pm (Edit)
I think Tom’s estimate of 2.5 C per doubling is rather crude but at least is somewhat objective. He seems to be aware that the sensitivity is logarithmic in CO2 (for some reason this one result from climate science is widely accepted) but chooses to go with a linear approximation instead, probably because he can’t remember how to work a logarithm and doesn’t know anybody who can.
$$$$$$$
actually MT Tom Sent me the post and I mentioned that there was only one thing that really stupid people would latch onto and that was the failure to account for the log effect. Thanks for confirming my prediction.
If I understood correctly, Tom suggests that adopting a joint “Climate science consensus estimate of warming” would give countries an adaptation goal and spur them into action.
The first problem is that it is still pretty hard to predict what global warming would result. 5 years ago superstorms and hurricanes were the mantra, now we’re told that storm activity will not be affected much. Predictions fo changes in precipitation also seem to change all the time.
The second problem is continuation of the first: Politicians need a high degree of certainty to commit public funds to mitigate a specific change or threat.
The third problem is that the countries hit hardest by changes in climate are developing countries in Africa. Many of them are de facto dictatorships with rampant corruption, civil strife and poor goverment. Some (like Somalia or Kongo) really don’t have government at all. Government action to mitigate anything is unlikely.
Instead of using temperatures and elevations which depend on accuracy of measurement, I think unequivocal, physical standards are a better indication.
The Northwest Passage has opened in recent years. This sea route was open 104 years ago when it was first traversed by Roald Amundsen.
Sea level is rising. There are Roman docks in Marseille that fell out of use when the sea retreated. They are currently 2 blocks inland.
This too, shall pass.
Tom
Nice article and this far down this busy thread I’m not really expecting a reply from you.
I can’t agree with most of the propositions you cited for the reasons that others have enumerated, which includes that temperatures have risen and fallen further and faster in the past without Co2 apparently being the main climate driver.
I think there is some joint ground in suggesting that some measures would be useful to both sides. In this respect I am thinking particularly of an energy policy.
I don’t like the idea that unfriendly states might cut off our power for reasons of politics or religious ideology. For that reason, having ‘our’ own power sources must be good and I’m all for the idea of renewables, although regrettably we have gone down a lot of blind alleys, especially with wind power. We need cheap power-as that is what our economy is bult on and we (ideally) need it to be non polluting and sustainable. Whether there is such a thing (apart from fusion possibly) is another matter.
Personally I would like to see the western nations collaborating in an ‘Apollo’ type programme whereby the aim is that by say 2020 we have used our resources to create a cheap, sustainable, source of power that is not susceptible to being cut off at the whim of overseas states that don’t like us very much.
This would cost billions but on the other hand it would mean that we are not transferring our wealth to countries who are unfriendly. We have the crazy situation whereby we are making ourselves poor to make them rich when they will then use ‘our’ wealth’ to kick us in the teeth some time in the future.
So I can’t agree with much of what you say but there are undoubtedly mutual areas of interest betwen sceptics and warmists-of whatever temperature.
All good wishes and thanks for another stimulating article.
tonyb
“Families, businesses and yes, even governments, need to make plans for the future. Those plans used to include assumptions about the physical environment, although most of those assumptions were passive acceptance of the status quo. ”
This is why I found the IPCC response to their erroneous claim that the Himalayan glaciers being gone by 2035 so shocking. It must have caused a great deal of stress to, and adversely affected the plans of, many people in the region.
Personally I would like to see us climb down from the grand posture of talking about the entire planet and the distant future, and look at practical ways of dealing with real issues now. The floods in Pakistan being a case in point, what can be done to prevent such an event being so devastating in the future ? Can rivers and drainage be improved, can refuge and shelters be constructed, can the volume of water be predicted in time to implement measures to protect people, property and livestock.
Sorry Thomas. You seem genuine in your thoughts, but you start with a sweeping assumption on which everything you subsequently propose is balanced. That assumption is that a 50 year correlation of two non-stationary variables of interest is not only real, but resulting from a causality from CO2 to temperature.
In laymen’s speak – the constantly heard argument that temperatures have gone up as CO2 concentration has gone up is completely spurious on statistical grounds. I have done this myself and found that temperatures over the last 50 years are better correlated in a non-spurious way (i.e. continegrated) with a completely randomly generated series of data (i.e. temperature looks like a random walk ). Hence your naive assertion that the past (50 years) is a guide to the future has no foundation – temperatures could just as easily fall 0.5 degrees over the next 50 years as rise over the next 50 years.
That means plan for susceptibility to climate/weather events within our known experience (of which we have a lot)
That means keep doing what we have done in the past – let people get on with it themselves. There is limited role for government.
Tom wrote: “I think we owe it to the people of the world to give them an idea of how much warming they can expect”
How much warming we can expect depends on two things:
– climate sensitivity (i.e. how much warming to expect from a given climate forcing)
– net forcing (i.e. the net effect of our greenhouse gas and aerosol (precursor) emissions combined with natural forcings. The former is fundamentally a CHOICE. As to which emissions scenario we decide to follow.)
The link in my previous comment didn’t work because of the bracket at the end; it should be
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2006/03/climate-sensitivity-is-3c.html
which gives a good overview how the combined constraints from several measurements mean that climate sensitivity is close to 3 (+/-1) deg C.
2.5 is right in the ballpark and a very reasonable number.
Coincidentally Fuller’s calculation benefits from a cancellation of errors: The net forcing since preindustrial is close to the CO2 forcing because other positive forcings (mostly other greenhouse gases) are counterbalanced by negative aerosol forcing. However, due to the large uncertainty in the latter the net forcing isn’t well constrained.
The question of “how would we respond if climate sensitivity is 2.5 deg C” is extremely relevant and important to ponder. I hope that also people who think it’s lower than that (or higher, for that matter) would ponder this question.
Thanks.
Thomas Fuller,
Strictly considered, I’m a lukewarmer myself, since I do think that anthropogenic CO2 may warm the planet. However, as a mathematician, I think it’s pure hubris to think that we are anywhere near being able to model climate in a way that makes it possible to make forecasts of how the immensely complex and chaotic climate system will behave beyond a couple of weeks. And given the little data and understanding we do have, I think there’s not much more cause for alarm over future warming than there is over future cooling (and I think there are good reason to beleive that a -2C cooling is immensely more damaging to humanity than a +2C cooling).
But I’ll still play, but then we need to get the numbers right:
You write: If these were the only statistics available to us, we would quickly conclude that the sensitivity of the earth’s atmosphere to all human-related activities might well be 2.5 degrees Celsius.
– but this is not correct. The correct calculation (if we assume a simple model without feedbacks either way) is that if 20% CO2 concentration increase yields 0.5 degrees Celcius, then 100% increase yields:
0.5 C * log(2)/log(1.2) = 1.9 C
Following your argument further, if concentrations rise from to 390 to 600ppm, we don’t get +2C, we get:
0.5 C * log(600/390)/log(1.2) ~= 1.2 C
You then write: So I think we should provide a ‘rough and ready’ estimate of 2 degrees C climate change this century to the public, business and politicians, so they can start making plans for the future.
Well, make that 1.2 C, and I’m with you, although I consider that an absolute upper bound, since it’s based on the temperature rise during what is likely to have been an upward slope of other, “natural” factors. My hunch is that Roy Spencer may be closer to the real value for climate sensitivity when he estimated it to 0.6 (although this was done only for a short timeframe). Suppose the sensitivity really is 0.6 C. Then the estimate for climate change this century suddenly is:
0.6 C * log(600/390)/log(2) ~= 0.4 C
and that’s not very scary, is it?
But let’s tell our politicians: “You must plan for both cooling and warming, and we think the warming may be as much as 1.2 C this century. Let’s do some forecasting and see if that warming is mainly beneficial or not, and where the problems will arise”.
(and we have to tell them not to use the IPCC to do that forecasting, but a new group of scientists, we don’t want another Himalayagate)
Lets for arguments sake say that you have a bowl of water, and into it you are dripping red dye. We then measure the temperature and the concentration of dye in the water, and since the temperature is rising, and the concentration of dye is increasing, we conclude that adding dye increases temperature. Never mind the watts going into the water heater, sitting on the bottom of the bowl.
This is basically what you are saying, we measure Co2 and temperature, and conclude. The two might not be related, not even remotely. The argument actually becomes more trustworthy if you leave out Co2 altogether, and just say that temperature has been rising, and might continue to do so for some time.
tonyb writes: Personally I would like to see the western nations collaborating in an ‘Apollo’ type programme whereby the aim is that by say 2020 we have used our resources to create a cheap, sustainable, source of power that is not susceptible to being cut off at the whim of overseas states that don’t like us very much.
Just think what we could have done with the Iraq war money… but I digress, I wholeheartedly agree with you. May I suggest Thorium power as one of the research tasks of this programme? We also need to plan for the fact that photovoltaic solar energy one day may be much more efficient both in terms of ROI and EROI than it is today, and continue research on efficient storage of the electricity it generates.
(And of course we need to continue fusion research, despite the difficulties)
We’d be a bloody site worse off, if temperatures fell by 2C over the course of the next 100 years!
Pespective on CO2 increase….
“The numbers show that concentrations of CO2 were 315 ppm in 1958, when Mauna Loa started measuring. Concentrations now are 390 ppm. That is a rise of 19%.”
True, but if you look at it the other way….
In 1958 out of a million air particles, 999685 of them were NOT CO2.
Now, out of a million air particles, 999610 of them are NOT CO2.
The decrease in percentage terms of “not CO2” over that time…. 0.0075%
Funny that the figure that makes the change look the most scary always gets used….
Steven Mosher @ur momisugly October 20, 2010 at 11:30 pm
Moving to nuclear seems like a win win.
Well yes and no. Probably the biggest barrier to nuclear power stations are the same people who are the loudest voices in the AGW world. But putting that asside, are we all comfortable with everyone having nuclear? Even inept, corrupt, hostile countries?
There are as many reasons to debate the solutions as the science but nobody except Mr Fuller are offering. He is not in a position to offer a cease fire.
Personally I would support safe home insulation schemes but not home generation.
Nuclear but not wind, wave, solar or clean coal. I don’t want the UN or the EU in charge of anything and carbon offsets need to be scrapped ASAP. By all means protect the rainforest but don’t chop it down to grow biofuels. I’d like to see AGW believers put their carbon where their mouths are and unilaterally cut their CO2 footprints to a level that if we all achieved would make a difference to global temperatures.
The current attitude is : all efforts to cut CO2 – good : and all efforts to inject common sense – bad. That’s a mandate for wasting unlimited money but see minimal effect on climate. Get your hand out of my pocket!
Until the leadership of the AGW empire change, I’m more than happy to delay, irritate, confuse and refuse to accept any figure for AGW.
Look at the ice core data. these data sets show that temperature rises before CO2 concentrations rise with 600 -1000 year time separation. So CO2 cannot cause temperature changes and therefore climate change. It never did in the past so why now??
Absolutely Brilliant! Do you mind if I steal that?
Notice how well it fits here in a temperature trend discussion AND in ‘vanishing’ arctic summer ice extent debates.
No scientist has presented a credible real-world demonstration that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere warms that atmosphere per se, so your idea has no merit whatsoever. Spending scarce resources ‘just in case of anything bad happening’ smacks of traditional pre-scientific thinking, an example of which comes from some parts of rural England, where dolls fashioned from corn straw were fixed over a door lintel to prevent any unmarried females inside the dwelling being rendered infertile.
On the other hand, however, examples of alarmist scientists who state that the economy of the developed world must be ruinously ‘decarbonised’ while refusing to reveal their data and methodology abound.