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.
As has been said it has been shown that CO2 rises AFTER temperature. Why on earth is this being revisited? – exccpt to satisfy an AGW proponent.
You make the assumption that the relationship between CO2 and temperature (if there is one) is linear. I believe there are theories out there that there is a point that increase in CO2 will have no affect on temp.
One of the factors in evaluating the impact of the the proposed AGW sea level rise is the fact that Al Gore has recently bought a mansion on the California coast. I don’t think that this represents a feeling on his part that the coasts will be innundated any time soon. Look the behavior of those who are promoting AGW and you’ll see that they really don’t believe it either.
Roger Pielke Sr. was kind enough to send this comment via email:
Hi Tom
Thank you for forwarding to me. In terms of the global average surface temperature trend, it is almost irrelevant for impacts on society except as an indirect metric on the heating (in Joules) of the oceans and resultant contribution to sea level change.
What is much more important include i) how atmospheric and ocean circulation patterns are changing, ii) how regional and local climate is altered by land use/land cover change, and iii) how is the biogeochemistry changing from added CO2 but also other gases and aerosols (e.g. nitrogen deposition).
What I have proposed is an inversion of how we address risk for the future. I posted on this in
A Way Forward In Climate Science Based On A Bottom-Up Resource-Based Perspective
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/08/03/a-way-forward-in-climate-science-based-on-a-bottom-up-resourse-based-perspective/
In terms of the multi-decadal global model predictions, this is a poor use of research funds since they have really given us all the information these types of sensitivity studies can do and cannot be verified in terms of their prediction skill until the future.
I hope this helps! Please my comment on Watts Up With That as well as your weblog if you feel that is useful.
I enjoy reading and learning from your posts!
Best Regards
Roger
P.S. I would like to see more interviews of other climate scientists. 🙂
————-
Tom Fuller,
That is not right.
Do you only read your own posts here?
I sincerely think you should try very active participation in the discussion of all temp record posts by some of the independent thinkers (a.k.a. skeptics) on this blog and other blogs. I am sure that will help you a lot.
Thank you for your post.
John
This all goes back to the same problems of nuclear arms … trust but verify.
When the “powers that be” tell you to trust them but offer no method to verify, there is no reason to trust.
Given that the fluctuations in temperatures that are the basis for many of the current judgements that lead to the supposed “scientific consensus” are so tiny, even minor “adjustments” take on huge potential impacts. The “ClimateGate” emails that shown that there is little reason to trust these “climate scientists” who seem to be more interested in “feeding at the trough” than performing real science.
Meanwhile, a huge boatload of politicians on virtually every level, from local, national to the UN, are queuing up for a piece of the “carbon trading” action (a quick look at CCX tells this story). The potential of “ripoffs” on a global scale are too big to ignore.
With this as a backdrop, it takes a huge measure of fortitude to think this will ever go anywhere good with a huge level of “trust but verify.”
Now, there is a positive way of knowing how much total energy is released by the earth. Now you can play calculating the actual energy emitted by the whole emission system of the Earth, by using the Unified Field equation:
E= (Sin y + Cos y)(V/D)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38598073/Unified-Field
Where Gravity/10= Sin Y= 0.981
Rest of the Field=Cos Y =-0.019, where it is added 1 (total field)- 0.981 = 0.019 x 10= 0.19 Nm (a positive emission field- 19% of the total field= 10 Nm)
V=Earth velocity around its axis in m/s
D=Earth Diameter in meters.
And, of course, the result is in Joules/second.
Now, you can have, also in consideration the Moon which “sucks” at perigee and emits at apogee:
Moon (a) at eccentricity=0,026
-2,24915291288904 Nm
Moon (b) at eccentricity=0,077
+9,40962149507112 Nm
http://www.scribd.com/doc/39678117/Planets-Moon-Field
Fred N. says:
October 20, 2010 at 12:31 pm
What if temps go down to 1970′s level in 10 years or so as some believe, doing so without the decrease of carbon emissions that the current theory of AGW would have us believe? What then? Will the pro-AGW climate scientists give their mea culpa and say they were wrong, or will they try to come up with excuses and theories as to why their pronouncements were waaaaay off? Funny feeling it will be the later.
They refuse to take natural variations into account when modeling the future, so as such that is why their models are so bad. But the evidence that is there does point to us warming (including the 60 year cycle). Its just over a much longer time period then they like to admit. We will cool over the next 30 years, and then we will warm again. But averaged over 60 years, we have been warming since the LIA, and I see no proof that shows this is not natural. (I also assume this will continue unless given evidence that shows it will not.)
On the other hand, I am sure land use changes and CO2 changes do effect the climate, but to what degree is the question of the day obviously…at the end of the day we simply do not know right now, and I will gladly admit it just for the sake of science that until we do know, we shouldn’t make any predictions about the future. Just my two cents.
Perhaps you should take a good look at this graph, and than look into CO2 hypothesis again.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CO2-Arc.htm or
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
But of course you are not going to do that. You expect sceptics to reconsider their position, but are you willing to do the same?
Hi Tom
I cannot agree for one second that we will likely see a 2 degree rise this century – but – for arguments sake, I am willing (pro tem) to accept your proposition.
What then would be the impacts of such a 2 degree rise be on populations – especially the vulnerable – unable to adequately fend for themselves?
There are so many arguments about sea-level – ie Venice, Maldives, NY, Florida etc etc. Many are pure fallacy (eg if Venice stopped extracting fossilised water from below the city then it would stop sinking – they could even pump it back)
But sea-level change would not happen overnight, and the ability of places such as Florida and London to adapt slowly and methodically would far outpace any rise in perceived levels – after all 3mm per annum is not exactly gonna inundate anywhere anytime soon.
Embarrassment that the Maldives are actually rising not sinking – relatively speaking – the list goes on
But for the vulnerable, can we expect a uniform distribution of the 2 degree warmth, or are we likely to see higher temps at lower lattitudes, and little variation above say 80N?
If we expect more warmth in the tropics, then drought will almost certainly become far more prevelanet – with huge effects on those already living on the margins. Offset against this however would be warmer climes in Europe and N America with many less deaths from cold winters, although some more from heat in hotter summers.
Accepting your postulation then, if we took all the money being injected into false profits (sic) such as wind, wave and solar and applied it to famine and drought, we could fix the worlds abysmal humanitarian needs overnight.
So – I don’t necessarily agree with your proposition, but I do like where the outcome could take us – Regret I can’t see the power moguls accepting it though
Good Luck nonetheless
Andy
Condensed version –
“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.”
IPCC CO2 AGW science is fundamentaly correct and the public, business and politicians should invest in Green technology to plan for warming. Congratulations on being a non-scientist who can estimate the future warming.
This all goes back to the same problems of nuclear arms … trust but verify.
When the “powers that be” tell you to trust them but offer no method to verify, there is no reason to trust.
Given that the fluctuations in temperatures that are the basis for many of the current judgements that lead to the supposed “scientific consensus” are so tiny, even minor “adjustments” take on huge potential impacts. The “ClimateGate” emails have shown that there is little reason to trust these “climate scientists” who seem to be more interested in “feeding at the trough” than performing real science.
Meanwhile, a huge boatload of politicians on virtually every level, from local, national to the UN, are queuing up for a piece of the “carbon trading” action (a quick look at CCX tells this story). The potential of “ripoffs” on a global scale are too big to ignore.
With this as a backdrop, it takes a huge measure of fortitude to think this will ever go anywhere good without a huge level of “trust but verify.” Verification will require an unprecedented level if transparency, which frankly governments are not capable of ever achieving (the current US administration talks a good game but is at least as secretive as the last, even on little things).
“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.’”
The last time there was rise of this magnitude was during the Middle Ages. Medieval people could be considered poor and backwards, but hunter-gatherers they certainly were not. If we were to consider the poorest among mankind today as being in a “Medieval” state of development, then it is more than likely that a warming of 2C would have on them the same effect as it did then: increased crops and development. Why is it that almost everyone fails to consider that the answer to AGW (even if you believe in it) could perfectly well be “Please sir, can I have some more?”?
This wouldn’t work because from the viewpoint of many prominent alarmists, there is nothing flawed about the intent of their science. Coming up with the best science available at the time is what they claim to have always done. Skeptics disagree about that.
I don’t see how common ground can be found when alarmists are still defending the hockey stick graph and marching to the tune of the all mighty tipping point god.
Again, Thomas… a rise in TEMPERATURE is SO MEANINGLESS!
I’m embarrased that that MYTH keeps being perpetuated.
Please, PLEASE, PLEEEEEAAASSEEE! Look up the ENTHALPY of a cubic foot of air at 105 F and 10% RH. (Arizona).
Then look up the enthalpy (total energy) of 1 cubic foot of air at 85 F and 60% RH.
Which enviroment is “hotter”? (Total energy wise..) Of course, the MN cubic foot.
Unless we know something about the HUMIDITY DISTRIBUTIONS these “average temperatures” are so VALUELESS.
It slays me that anyone with alledged “intelligence” keeps falling for the “average temperature” motif.
Satellite temps have more meaning, but again…why are they not given with a humidity distribution component? And worked out as ENERGIES?
Why is this concept AVOIDED?
To quote the marvelous Amory Lovins, “It makes no sense to have a reactor, located miles away from a user, generating MILLIONS OF DEGREES OF HEAT, just to keep a house at 72 F…”
Heh, heh.. Did you laugh at that? GOOD, please apply that sort of critical thinking to the atmosphere. Give me ENERGY, ENERGY, and ENERGY balance.
Oh yes, and when you do. Go to the NASA NEO website, and note that the IR balance, by the satellites, has been PRONOUNCEDLY INWARD for about 30 months. So much so, that on a generalized “sensible heat” basis, we should be up about 5 to 10 degree C on all troposheric temps by now. NOT HAPPENING.
SO, how accurate ARE the satellites? (This addresses the problem of fereting out .5 degree C since 1958 with instrumentation errors, see: www. surfacestation.org)
Let’s just say I’m all for giving the whole thing the COLD SHOULDER until the data noise is far less.
I’ve never thought the response to global warming and its potential effects should await the outcome of a politically charged debate about its causes. We dont have to KNOW what’s causing the warming to measure it, model it, predict it’s potential effects on human civilization, and figure out how best to cope with those effects. Did we have to KNOW what causes earthquakes or hurricanes or tornadoes before we learned (and continue to learn) how to minimize their effects on our lives?
If, in fact, we wake up tomorrow to BREAKIN NEWS that science has indisputably proven that human activity has absolutely nothing to do with global warming, does the warming and its effects go away as a public policy issue?
Consider …
We have in place a scientifically & technologically robust methodology for measuring global temperature. It is the output of this very methodology upon which MMGW adherents rely for their periodic pronouncements that global warming is real and ongoing.
We can KNOW what the global temperature is doing without knowing why.
And yet, international political schemes crafted (ostensibly) for the purpose of altering the trajectory of global temperature propose using tons of GHG emissions — not temperature — as their official measure of progress.
Why?
Who will ‘peer-review’ the GHG emissions data compiled and officially reported by the designated ministries in places like Beijing, New Delhi, Moscow, and Brasilia?
Poor Anthony. He goes away for a week and comes back to his own blog endorsing cap & trade.
Good post, Good points….But
“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 ”
I think most sceptics agree on warming,its the cause of the warming and and how much is Co2 and what is natural.The bigggest spanner in the works of AGW protaganists is that there is no other cause to the warming other than Co2.They will not (uptil recently) even consider anything like natural cycles were/might be involved and then we have to endure every natural event be it strong hurricanes,
terrible floods,heatwaves are all down to AGW.Until climate scientists tone down the message sceptics will keep on winning the argument,simply because sceptics and the public at large are sick and tired of the doom and gloom,and sceptics have pick holes in the AGW argument, be it with bad temp reading/site locations,dodgy proxy data, stastistical jiggery pokery and the main ones closed peer review process,and unwillingness to debate with the likes of Anthony Watts,Steve McIntyre etc.
PS
Sea level rise is very hard to measure,over time it rises in places and falls in others.
Like clockwork, 100,000 to 250,000 year ice ages occur after 2000 to 10000 year warm periods. We’re already well past 6000 years in this warm period. Sumerian civilization gave dawn to all of our current civilizations about 4500 years ago who were around at least 8000 ago. This would not have been possible without warmer climate.
What is your belief concerning the coming ice age with respect to global warming? Or do you believe that we will no longer have any more ice ages?
The reason I ask is that I’m a skeptic because scientists often say their theories have to be correct because they can’t think of any other explanation. As others have mentioned, what caused warming in the past? Wasn’t man made CO2. What causes ice ages? What caused the MWP and the LIA?
You mention Mauna Loa. It’s too bad it did not come online 10 or 20 years earlier. I’m willing to bet that nice curve wouldn’t be so nice. Mauna Loa is a red herring. Nice curve, but is leading to wrong conclusions.
And finally, we know that CO2 is released from the oceans as the temperature rises. So how are you certain of what is the cause and what is the effect? Does CO2 rise precede or follow temperature rise? We know for a fact that it will follow it. Is this one of the sources of feedback? You tell me. But if you believe CO2 rise precedes temperature rise as well, then what is the catalyst aside from human involvement that caused previous rises in CO2?
You can discuss what you want, but ultimately it comes down to scientists not being able to predict past behaviour while proclaiming to know what will happen in the future. I just can’t get over that stumbling block because it doesn’t pass the BS detector.
The closest understanding we can have to what really exists is only through honest debate on the issues. To have everyone on only one side leads to to bad decisions. Thank you for your contributions.
You admit the skeptics are winning the argument. So now we should be nice to warmists like you who say “Temperatures are rising, and more quickly than they have often in the past.” No way.
We will argue with you and each other until only the best data and logic survive.
Temperatures have not been rising for 15 years and the recent rise since 1650 is not unusual.
The warming effect of the atmosphere is affected by its mass but not its composition.
Your basic assumption is that global average temperature means something significant. I would disagree for the reasons stated above by Roger Pielke Sr : “In terms of the global average surface temperature trend, it is almost irrelevant for impacts on society except as an indirect metric on the heating (in Joules) of the oceans and resultant contribution to sea level change.”
Humans live in a variety of climates, all more extreme in temperature range than the so called global average temperature rise. I submit that overpopulation along with the elimination of natural selection for our species are far greater problems and carry far greater consequences.
As a follow-on to my previous post:
To all those talking about paying for adaptation, the refugees, etc: do you also propose that if AGW improves the lives of people in developing countries, they should pay us for the improvement? Unless you do, then no amount of argumentation will convince me that anyone should pay for anything related to AGW.
Well, 2 degrees is what the EU has determined in it’s wisdom is the magic number for acceptable temperature rise – 2,5 degrees is not far of that mark, so in essence we can all sit back and relax.
I my view the climate is changing and it has done so for a few billion years and the planet has not turned into a roasted peanut in the mean time, which I take as a proof of that the climate is more resilient than many believe.
Since we’re unable to explain past or current climate with any accuracy nor predict the future climate and nothing points to a runaway effect, we might as well just do that: Sit back and watch.
Lomborg proposed that combating co2 emissions and adaptation to a warmer climate will be cheaper in the future due to the fact that we will be richer (as we today are richer than people 100 years ago) and technologically more advanced.
I think that we should acknowledge that we simply do not know and that the climate won’t change tomorrow, so there is no hurry to do anything.
My 5c.
I’m puzzled, in that we have seen repeated flaws in the temperature record indicating, at least in many cases, what amounts to fraudulent manipulation of data that results in what appears to be warming. We’ve seen that UHI is a major influence in the data.
We’ve seen cooling while CO2 rises, and we know that temperature can rise, and fall, quickly, and from natural forcing.
How is it that you can say with such a high degree of confidence now that the temperature will rise 2 deg this century, when prediction after prediction after “scientific” prediction fails? How do you know that the temperature won’t suddenly FALL 2 deg by the end of the century?
I believe it far more prudent to presume that the temperature could go up……or it could go down…by your 2 degrees, and we should plan accordingly.
If it warms up, I’ll buy an airconditioner. If it cools down, I’ll buy some wool socks. Meanwhile, I see no practical reason to pay more taxes so some politicians and associated businessment can feel warm and fuzzy with their profits.
Sorry, but this League of 2.5 sounds like nothing more than caving in to the alarmism. Your statement “….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.” is, at least to me, still insulting, because it places scientists who disagree with a predetermined output into a derogatory category.
The scientists I work with consider themselves scientiests, nothing more, and certainly nothing less.