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.
Dave D Oct 21 9:19am stated:
“3) Most damning of all. O2 has a heat adsorption signature. N2 has a heat adsorption signature. CO2 has a higher heat adsorption signature, hence the “theory” of gas house effect…. Mixtures of gases are strange, it turns out a mixture of 20% O2 and 80% N2 has a strange heat adsorption signature roughly EQUAL to CO2. This has been published quietly, not discredited, but completely changes the game and needs to be addressed!”
Please cite your source for the O2/N2 absorption equal to CO2 absorption comment. I’d really like to read that… MTK
Tom initially aired his motion over at Keith as follows:
“I nominate 2.5C as a working definition of sensitivity until we get better data and start making plans accordingly.”
The big question now is: How are we going to deal with this? I take Tom’s motion as an invitation to move the debate forward to that crucial question.
http//ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/10/21/moving-the-debate-forward-tom-fullers-league-of-2-5/
Sadly but not unexpectedly many here don’t feel much for your motion, Tom. See also the cartoon at the bottom of my post, which exemplifies their response. Could perhaps serve as inspiration for Josh?
Michael Tobis says:
October 21, 2010 at 8:48 am
models can’t even predict the past,
“The forcing of those changes [ice ages] amounts to a rearrangement of solar energy from some latitude bands to some others in some seasons. The forcing we are subjecting the system to now is much larger. The next ice st age is good and cancelled. I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it. And we already know how to prevent ice ages in future
Ya just gotta love such unrestrained hubris. The models can’t even predict the past with any accuracy yet, but we know how to stop ice ages? I haven’t been so impressed since my son informed me at the age of 7 that he was going to be in the NBA.
A sentence fragment got misplaced in my last comment, right after the cite to Michael Tobis’ post. That snippet is not attributable to him.
Talking about ‘peace’ is a red herring, as is the debate about AGW yes/lukewarm/no.
The person who kicked this whole AGW scam off, even before there was a hockey stick, was Maurice Strong. His aim was and is to destroy Western industrialised nations.
He is now based in China.
What have our politicians been doing for the last few years except talk about how to reduce CO2, in the process driving our industries into ruin, losing us jobs, trading Co2 certificates which are used to build up industries in China and India.
I’d say Mr Strong has succeeded beyond his wildest dreams – and we should talk about ‘peace’ with those who want us to follow Mr Strong’s precepts?
We keep losing from our sight that AGW never has been about ‘saving the planet, not even about science – it has always been about politics, taxation, and the destruction of our way of life.
Michael Tobis says on October 21, 2010 at 11:30 am
Thank you muchly for those references … now I can read up on them.
However, doesn’t there seem to be a contradiction. If the tropical regions extend then they get larger, but if regions away from the tropics move poleward they must get smaller in area? They could only get larger if their equatorial boundaries do not move, or move equator-ward …
It is still LIFE that matters, CO2 is still GOOD for plants and probably good for terrestrial vertebrates at double, or even 10X current concentrations, and warming still ENHANCES life more than it harms it at the temperatures under discussion.
These facts MATTER, and we must not be snowballed by people who say the opposite.
I quickly see two main problems with your CO2 situation. First, CO2 chemical bottle data (a la Beck) from the last 200 years, show that CO2 was much higher than now during three periods in the last 200 years. The IPCC discounts virtually all of this data and just cherry-picked a few low values to create the idea that CO2 has been consistently historically low. It is virtually impossible for all of this data from so many different researchers to be wrong. And we also know that so many parameters in nature change constantly, it defies reality to pretend that this one is that steady.
Second, the logic that the temperature increase by 600 ppm CO2 would be 2.5 deg C belies the fact that this is not a linear effect; it is defined by Beers Law. It is an effect which reaches a maximum with diminishing returns. The effect of CO2 is about 90-95% spent – the effect of the first 20 ppm is the greatest and it decreases to nothing eventually.
Recognizing water vapor as increasing with temperature is right, but your result is wrong. This does not warm the planet by trapping more heat. It, rather, creates low density humid air which rises to altitude and condenses releasing heat at altitude where it is lost to space. This is a huge global heat engine that the IPCC refuses to acknowledge. It is what in grade school we call “the water cycle.” A report just last week described that freshwater input into the oceans was up during the last decade, just as it should be as the water/water vapor heat engine revved up in response to warming. This is a huge negative forcing factor which resists the changes everybody assumes are happening, but aren’t.
Furthermore, Miskolczi and Zagoni have shown quite elegantly that CO2 and absolute water vapor interact such that water vapor decreases as CO2 increases, resulting in a relatively constant effect. A decrease in water vapor has indeed been detected in the upper troposphere.
Warming to any detectable degree by CO2 just is not going to happen. Even if it was real, the effect would be more like <0.1 deg C with CO2 doubling. [The IPCC altered a thermodynamic factor 12-fold to augment CO2's abilities.]
Do not forget that you are arbitrarily assigning ALL of the 0.5 deg C warming of recent times to CO2. There are other natural factors and cycles out there that probably caused all or most of this warming.
Many commenters have pointed out that the rise in temperature since 1975 can, and will, have been from more than CO2. Not so many have done a numerical study based on that. I have, using the Sun’s cycle lengths and CO2 combined, which I posted at ClimateAudit in 2008 when they had a web forum. The conclusion was that we had short solar cycles from 1976 to 1996, and they had an effect, enough to reduce CO2’s contribution to 1.5degC.
The more recent longer cycle 1996.5-2009.0 is why we are now flattening off and cooling. It doesn’t meant the CO2 effect has gone away, or doesn’t exist, it just means it is not as big as Fuller and IPCC claim.
SO, let’s talk about the “League of 1.5” instead, and see how the game plan changes.
It’ll be: adapt, because CO2 reduction isn’t valuable enough.
Rich.
Again, Mr. Fuller, you attempt to define a “middle of the path” solution which ultimately is the same in kind – though not degree – as the radicals.
And again, I disagree.
Lack of knowledge of even the rough magnitude of anthropogenic CO2 and its impact on climate does not in any way justify massive spending.
If, on the other hand, the objective is to reduce foreign energy cost and risk, this would be something I could support – if there were in fact a decent plan.
If we’ve learned anything from the experiences in Denmark, in Spain, in Germany, and in other places – it is that hasty and ill-informed spending plans generate neither the jobs nor the energy nor any discernable economic benefit, either short or long term, for anyone outside of ‘get-rich-quick’ alternative energy companies.
A coherent goal and a coherent plan. Not threats nor Pascal-ian wagers.
Well, things are slowing down a bit here, so I hope it’s not too early to try and summarize and give some final thoughts.
First, thanks to all of you for your comments. I’m very pleased that you took this seriously and gave it your ‘A game.’ Thanks also to those who pointed out my calculating 19% of the wrong figure… and obviously for discounting the logarythmic properties involved.
Second, I just want to point out that those of you who assume I favor a top-down, centrally directed solution to whatever environmental problems we face going forward are incorrect. I strongly believe that local or regional responses will be the only effective ones. (I’m a Democrat, not an idiot.)
Third, to those of you like Michael Tobis who wandered over here from the warmist side, first, thanks for playing the game and second, thanks for your contributions.
Fourth, I’ll probably restate my proposition later, taking on board the comments I’ve received here. I still believe that temperatures are rising, that we probably have something to do with it, and that people, businesses and governments would benefit greatly from some kind of signposts on what they may expect over the course of their lifetimes. I’ll try and use better maths and better caveats in my next effort.
Finally, to those of you who fear that making concessions to those you perceive as your enemy when you have them at a disadvantage is bad strategy, I do wonder about that myself. Lord only knows I’m tired of people like Joe Romm and Michael Mann and their bullying tactics–but skeptics, though you may be pure of heart, are not perfect in behaviour, and I imagine even we Lukewarmers may fall short of our own and others’ expectations. This battle for politics, money and control is big and will not be over soon. It will never be perfectly balanced, so someone will always be forced to give something up when a compromise is talked of.
As I believe we will benefit more if some form of grudging agreement is reached early rather than later, I am serious about asking skeptics to forego a few triumphant news cycles in the interests of helping construct–not passively accept–a useful view of the world our children are going to live in.
Also, question the reported warming. The keepers of the temperature data arbitrarily enlarged the Arctic to include more southerly regions and produced a wonderful warming trend.
Gary says:October 21, 2010 at 6:51 am (Edit)
Steven Mosher asks: “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.”
Control should be local, not global.
I agree with that part at least.
Gov’t . . . . .
Given the state of the transition from the old problematic school of climate science to the newly emerging reformation/renaissance climate science, it is inconsistent with reasoned behavior to advocate action immediately; it does not matter in principal whether it is a local gov’t action or a national gov’t action or a global quasi-gov’t action that is being advocated. An advocacy by the ‘any effect’ position of the AGW-by-CO2 supporters does not show prudence. [for a definition of the ‘any effect’ position of AGW-by-CO2 please see my comment above John Whitman @ur momisugly October 21, 2010 at 9:31 am ]
To act now urgently would be illogically premature when it is finally publically known that the climate science conclusions are not even close to being settled. Also, it would be illogically premature when it is finally publically known that climate change is not in any sense catastrophic nor even close to being an imminent concern.
John
thomaswfuller says:
October 21, 2010 at 12:30 pm
Tom, for a very interesting comparison, why don’t you submit this post over at Real Climate and see
a) if it survives, then
b) if you get anywhere near this level of “A game.”
Hi Rocky Road,
Been there, done that, the results are on RC Rejects… they don’t play fair over there…
Slightly off topic….
Its gotten to the stage where we either need more hours in the day to absorb the excellent comments on WUWT.
Or arrive at some cogent way to summarize the rich depth of discussion herewithin.
364 comments at the moment I post this, all worth reading within the context of a discussion about a highly contentious subject.
By way of example, if the MSM was to summarize, it would create a bias – depending on the provider – and spin the trend in replies to support or condemn a particular position.
How do we, is this day and age, avoid that pitfall, create a concise summary, and remain faithful to the spirit of the actual comments?
Kudos to everyone posting, there is more debate on this subject here in one posting, than in a years worth of sundry network reports and AFP/Reuters verbiage.
Tom Fuller says:
I still believe that temperatures are rising, that we probably have something to do with it…
Glad you said “believe”, Tom.
But for those of us who think about what’s happening, and would like to see the evidence, we have some questions about the unusual methodologies that always result in the temperature record being adjusted upward.
Be honest, Tom. How likely do you think it is that adjustments to the temperature record would only go in one direction?
Thomas, while you are searching for ground that most people can stand on without having a fist fight perhaps you should search in the direction of black carbon mitigation. I’m sure many of us that doubt the need for CO2 mitigation would support the mitigation of black carbon. It is much cheaper. There are studies that indicate it is a major contributor to warming. And even if it turned out that the amount of warming it contributed was minor there are known health benefits to reducing it.
Steven, you could make the argument that fighting black carbon and deforestation would accomplish more than 50 years of Kyoto. I’d sign up for that, on the proviso that we don’t say, okay–that’s enough, no need to do anything else…
Rocky T, yeah, the measurements don’t give anyone a lot of confidence, do they? But look at the trends from satellite measurements–pretty similar, aren’t they?
Thomas, until you can come up with empirical evidence that shows a high climate sensitivity there is nothing to suggest we need to anything at all. Reducing black carbon would provide time to study the problem further on the off chance that all the data is wrong and only the models are right.
Steven Mosher,
Interesting polemic strategy . . . . academically interesting. ; )
The knowledge of the effects of CO2 alone on the Total Earth System physical parameters over climatic time scales when all other physical processes are included is actually not currently available to us; based on my understanding.
###########################
That is not the question. Knowing what you do know, limited as it is, do you have any physics that says adding C02 or other GHGS will cool the planet.
of course you can claim ignorance, but the truth is that the best science ( humble as it is, new as it is, flawed as all science is) suggests that adding C02 will warm the planet and not cool it. If you ask me to plan for a future, if you ask ME to buy beach front property that I have to hold until 2100, I will say.. Nope. Based on the best evidence I have that land is more likely than not to be under water.
We dont need certainty to act. In facts all acts are taken under uncertainty. And what Tom is asking us to consider is the actions we should take under a assumption of 2C. An assumption that has more evidence for it than against it. As aLuke warmer, I’m not taking an over/under bet at 2C. I’ll take the under bet at 3C, I’ll take the over bet at 1C. make sense. so I would place for the scenario I find most likely. 1-3C, 2C if you make me pick a number
———–
Steven Mosher,
Thank you for your reply.
What I said is I see no evidence of your claims or more exactly TF’s. Should I try to assist you (& TF) by being critical? Certainly, that is exactly what I am doing. I must observe that this is not the atmosphere of the WUWT blog that achieved the height of the science blogosphere. It is more like the pedantic atmosphere of academia.
John
Tom;
I have read some of your later comments and I simply cannot agree. The reality is you claim 0.5C rise since 1958. There is abundant evidence that the temperature record is being “adjusted” in a way as to accentuate that rise. To suggest all corrections go in one direction and that the historical correction deemed appropriate is increased each time the data is re-analysed is to me the clearest possible example of bias. The only solution is to go back to the raw data and that shows rises and falls but no overall trend over the last 120 years. So where is the basis for concern.
The argument you advance is based on the precautionary principle whether you admit it or not and that principle is terribly terribly flawed because it assumes no down side to taking action. In fact there can be a terrible down side even worse than the thing you are trying to prevent. I hesitiate to mention it again here but have a look at the down side of the ban on DDT and have a look at the emerging down side to bio fuels. Good intentions can lead to genocide!
However there is one solution that I think is imminently sensible. Whether or not burning fossil fuels is causing rising temperature, there is no doubt fossil fuels are a finite resource and one day we will run out. Our energy needs are rising and will continue to rise in my view. The reality is that we are outgrowing dependence on chemical energy sources so why not move the money currently being wasted on things like windmills that are at best exceptionally poor solutions to research into non chemical energy sources that really work. Current fission reactors are incredibly wasteful in that they only use the U235 not the U238 yet the vast majority of the uranium mined is U238. Fast breeder reactors can use U238 and, if what I read is correct, they can also use current nuclear waste as fuel. That would be a huge step forward both in terms of energy security and nuclear waste reduction. Beyond that, it seems to me we need a more creative look at nuclear fusion. Maybe that another drection to look in.
thomaswfuller says:
“…look at the trends from satellite measurements–pretty similar, aren’t they?”
Not really.
No cause to be alarmed. It’s natural variability – except in the fevered imaginations of those who reject the scientific method. So relax. CO2 isn’t gonna getcha.