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.
You suck, dude.
I kid, I kid! I would be happy to sign on to this, as I said at CaS.
I would further stipulate (like the Padishah Emperor, I charge you to take possession of this debate and end all dispute) hunter’s condition above: a thoroughgoing investigation of all questions of malfeasance or misrepresentation, carried out by an impartial board (if such a thing could somehow be agreed upon).
Give everyone a win, and let’s move forward.
Even if the models were correct (when we know that they are not) and we KNEW that very bad things might happen as a result of increasing concentrations of CO2 as a result of human emissions, what would you propose to do about it?
You note that the less developed world would be more affected… yet, the developing world faces far greater challenges because they haven’t yet developed! There is no question that the biggest impact the developing world faces is from lack of development.
The only way, THE ONLY WAY to improve the lot of underdeveloped humans is to provide them with the ability to develop. That means they need access to inexpensive energy. At this point in time, there is no other way to provide inexpensive access to energy other than by using carbon based fuel.
The reality: the developing world will continue to develop. They will continue to use carbon based fuels to do so because that’s the technology that provides the best cost per megawatt delivered. We can do nothing to prevent further increases in CO2 release from development.
That many in the “environmental” community wish to stifle energy production and use in the developing world tells you that they really don’t care about the developing world… they are not interested in improving the plight of others.
And, if the developing world is going to continue to use carbon based energy, CO2 concentrations will increase.
The good news is that even if those terrible plagues forecast by the doomsayers of global climate disruption(tm) are true, what do we do about it? Not a thing. Developing a population… ensuring that the people of those countries have infrastructure, have access to food and clean water and medicine and highways and building codes and civil defense, etc, etc. means that they will be much better prepared to deal with whatever problems happen to arise, no matter what the cause.
Bruce
ThomasWFuller Said:
“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?”
No, because again that is simply extrapolating trends from the modern era. These trends have numerous problems and I have little faith in them – i.e. the past keeps getting cooler as the gatekeepers of the data have the power to “adjust” the data. Why should we assume that some artificial trend will continue for the next 90 years? Maybe anything is possible as long as those with the control over the databases keep on doing their “adjustments”.
Anyway dude, everyone sucks, but you suck less.
David Davidovics,
Maybe someone from that side of the street will pop by and make a comment. But let me ask you this–would support from a ‘warmist’ make you more or less favorable to the idea I have put forward?
Dear Thomas, you say
“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.”
I would say that since combined GHG emitted until today represent a bit more than 60% of the effect we expect from a doubling your central estimate is too high by at least a factor two. Even if we only consider CO2 you still have a logaritmic dependence.
So by your logic we should prepare for less than a degree temperature rise, and I am pretty certain we agree that the appropriate response is to do nothing.
Let us then focus on the other reason for leaving dependence on fossile fuel (particle emissions, depletion, oil spill etc) and other reasons for having access to clean cheap energy (billions in poor countries suffering). To me, it is all reasons to develop clean energy. Global warming is not.
Tom, I think we should “assume” that every house does not have a robot maid, Astro can not talk, and I’m not going to work in my rocket car………
These scientists that “assume” future scenarios should put their time to better use and predict lotto numbers.
It’s no more than a mental massage for people that have the free time to do so.
Temperatures will go up, temperatures will go down, just like they always have.
And just like they always have, it will happen so slowly we will not even notice.
Would anyone be paying this much attention if they didn’t have this to blame?
If there was no money in it?
If it was completely natural?
Of course not, because in spite of all the hand wringing about fractions of degrees,
it is still within normal variability.
I like your general approach, Tom — the notion of being empirical.
I also agree with the idea that we need to include all anthropogenic forcings: e.g., when you say that your 2 degree temperature rise would be from all forcings, not just CO2.
An article noted just a few weeks ago on WUWT, “Short Lived Uncertainty,” by Penner et al in Nature, thusly addressed the multiple emissions which can cause temperatures to change:
“…Warming over the past 100 years is consistent with high climate sensitivity to atmospheric carbon dioxide combined with a large cooling effect from short-lived aerosol pollutants, but it could equally be attributed to a low climate sensitivity coupled with a small effect from aerosols. These two possibilities lead to very different projections for future climate change….
…Of the short-lived species, methane, tropospheric ozone and black carbon are key contributors to global warming, augmenting the radiative forcing of carbon dioxide by 65%. Others — such as sulphate, nitrate and organic aerosols — cause a negative radiative forcing, offsetting a fraction of the warming owing to carbon dioxide….
So we need very much to keep in mind these other forcers of temperature change, in both directions. Penner et al. suggest implicitly that if we reduce the methane, black carbon and ozone, which are much cheaper and easier to reduce politically than CO2, then we should be able to get a sense of climate sensitivity from the resulting temperature trends.
This seems much more sensible that trying to somehow sharply reduce CO2 emissions when all the growth is coming from developing economies, in countries which are not going to stifle the creation of a better life for their citizens by failing to use the fossil energy necessary for economic development.
So I like your empirical approach, but I’d add the caveats above, and I would like to endorse the caveats of others that we need to include recognition of the PDO trends.
Finally, the average annual 3 mm of sea level rise we have been during the entirety of the satellite record for sea level changes equates to about one foot per century at present trends. Not too scary. Not an argument for taking economy wrecking measures in the near term, vs. the Roger Pielke Jr. approach of developing and reducing costs of cheaper no-carbon technologies before we deploy them widely.
I have yet to see any factor supported by science that will drive up global temperatures by 2 degrees by the end of the century. The sole source of this 2 degree number is assumptions made in computer models with positive feedback, these assumptions have no backing with any solid science. Dr Roy Spencer’s work indicates the feedback should be negative, so why are you proceeding along as though his work has no merit ?
P.S. I write software for a living.
It’s not just about who’s right or wrong on the CO2 effects, it’s what they’re proposing to do about them. If the solutions are abysmal then it doesn’t matter if CO2 has an effect or not. What will be, will be, we’ll just be poorer when catastrophe happens and poor people really do suffer badly from climate.
There are (at least) two ugly lies underlying the precautionary principle.
First, that every little action helps. Lie. If CO2 is a serious problem then small changes won’t improve things. It leaves people with a feel good confidence they don’t deserve. If we have to act then we have to completely rethink consumerism, we need to change how, or even if, we support people in climate vulnerable locations. There are many unpleasant choices to be made. People aren’t going to sign up for all that without good cause. Pretending you can mosey them into it is a delusion.
Second, the myth that CO2 reduction actions don’t have negative consequences. Lie. Problems abound, from small annoyances like increased rats due to recycling schemes, up to economic growth suppression in poorer, low CO2 emitting countries. The panicky ‘we must act NOW’ message is driving badly thought through solutions.
When you look at all the key players you know we’re in trouble no matter what happens.
First, thanks for putting your thoughts on ‘paper’. It is a courageous thing to do and deserves our respect.
I think the underlying ‘flaws’ in your argument are that you are (1) considering the effects to be linear, (2) assuming that the increase in CO2 accounts for the entire increase in corresponding temperature, (3) assuming that the rate of increase in CO2 is constant over the period. I don’t believe any of these assumptions are valid, making your proposal moot.
Physical systems tend to be logarithmic, not linear and we know from physics that a 75ppm increase in CO2 when the base level is 50ppm has far more effect than a 75ppm increase in CO2 when the base level is 300ppm.
Earth’s climate is possibly the most complex feedback system we have ever tried to unravel and it is also (agreed to by the IPCCs) properly described as a complex, non-linear, chaotic system. One of the features of such a chaotic system is that it is impossible to predict a future state from the present state unless you know the value of every process and every variable affecting the system to a precision unattainable by modern science. We don’t even know all the variables and processes, much less their current state. The best we can do is what climate scientists are currently trying to do. Create a model that contains all the known processes and variables and making ‘predictions’ from there. All they are really doing is testing the model’s sensitivity to various input variable values and processes.
You ought to distinguish between measured trends in the daily high temperatures and the daily low temperatures. I remember reading that the daily highs over the last 80 years or so in the US showed little or no trend, but that the daily lows were getting warmer in a statistically significant way. Climate activists have averaged these two — the high and low temperatures — correctly claiming that this estimate of the average temperature was rising, and so alarmed people with the implicit suggestion that we would experience ever higher temperatures as time went on. I don’t think anyone gets alarmed at the thought that just the daily low temperatures were getting warmer — I don’t think you can even make the case that wild plants and animals would be significantly harmed.
The last 8,000 years has been great….Check out this graph.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/greenland.18kyr.gif
All sea rise CO-2 warmers, never ever mention the SUN…Why is that?
Well.
It was indeed a ‘breath of fresh air’ to read words that attempted to discuss and further the issue of the supposed Climate Change debate, so for that ~ I thank you. Interest in honest debating is refreshing to listen to.
Yet, Thomas… I’d like to remind you about…oh, let’s say just ‘three tiny little items’ that preclude this sincere discussion to gain ground with those on the Green Side ~ other than yourself, of course.
Firstly ~ they do NOT want to discuss. Instead, they want/desire to ‘mandate’. And, most definitely cling to the foolish idea that ‘they themselves can be god’ ~ little ‘g’, of course. (Need we delve in to quotes from Mr. Soros, et “Al” for my supports? I daresay ‘NOT’, dude.)
Secondly ~ while I do applaud your seemingly sane effort, Thomas… You are ~ simply preaching to the Choir, here. We WANT debate, and thus far ~ it has been shut down by those (in item one) who erroneously believe they should have their little green hands on the ‘climate thermostat’ and thus, by necessity, it seems ~ will be the ones who ‘control’ that ‘global switch’ for the rest of us… And, sadly ~ it doesn’t end there, my Dear. (Example? “They” now have prevented me from walking along the pristine beach here in SA to glean a few cockles, as of late.) Therefore, I suggest to you that all this ‘climate trash’ is simply a Trojan horse for their other lusts which they’d like us to indulge themselves with.
Lastly ~ insofar as MY ‘world view’ goes… I’d definitely re-think that ‘lukewarm’ idea of yours. My Savior, who redeemed me from the menace of a 70’s rock an’ roll lifestyle and eventually Hell (Yes. He did that, and the Truth of that little ‘factoid’ would send chills up your spine, I assure you, were I to recount that event.), says that He dislikes ANYTHING which claims to be ‘lukewarm’; and I take His Words to heart about the depravity of the human condition sans His Will.
Therefore, before congenially submitting to others when they want to take my Freedom(s), I always defer to Him, because he says He likes it/us either HOT or COLD on any issue.
Therefore, with His efforts in my life, I can easily see that the CO2 debate sets us up as a society as mere pawns for the spirit of Margaret Sanger and her ‘friends’. (ie: When will they gain the supposed authority to tell you to ‘stop breathing’, Dear?)
But, thanks nonetheless, for your cordiality blended with true naitivity, Thomas. A sincere debate on this issue will never be accomplished, because they continually seek to change the rules. Once their little green hands are on the thermostat, then they reach for the light switches (bulbs and globes alike) and then… well… I guess then, you’ll just ‘agree amicably’ to HOLD YOUR BREATH?
Sincerely,
Cynthia Lauren Thorpe
Kingston SE, South Australia
“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.”
That’s as far as I got before I wrote off Mr Fullers article. The utter idiocy of simply assuming that all the 0.5C rise (if the temperature record is to be believed…) is due to co2 just beggars belief.
So let me see if I have this straight:
The temperature proxies of Mann et-al have been debunked by M&M. The surface temperature data has been credibly challenged by A. Watt et-al. The IPCC process has been outed as being a collection of Green Group propaganda articles cobbled-together into a public policy statement. And now you stand before us asking us to “accept that there will be a 2.5 degree C rise in temp and asking us to capitulate to discussing how to modify man-kind’s daily routine to deal with this “agreed” number.
I agree to your discussion provided that a warmist or a luke-warmist isn’t picking the “agreed parameters”.
We all agree that the atmospheric C02 numbers are credible? Fine. Can we also then agree that the preponderance of evidence shows that C02 follows temperature? Could we further agree that the warming stopped 10 years ago?
If so then the discussion is over.
The only adverse consequences of the current — or future — climate change that I’m concerned about are actions that are foisted upon us based on an unproven hypothesis. I’m all for limiting or eliminating pollution, reduction or dependence on foreign oil, use of alternative energy sources that make sense (nuclear). However, taking actions for future climate conditions that likely won’t occur is sure to result in many unintended and possibly adverse consequences that may be far worse that the climate change that does occur. Long term forecasts are almost always going to be wrong.
I think allowing people the ability to adapt to whatever Nature wants to throw at us is the best solution. Freedom, prosperity, wealth, access to new technology (medical, construction, education, etc.), access to reliable and affordable energy, and protection from tyranny.
Let’s just take $70 Billion out of the CAGW annual spend and give everyone on the Planet safe drinking water. Save the rest until we KNOW what the hell is going on. There we go, 5 million Childrens’ lives saved per year, or so say the UN. But why would we start believing them now?
Right now we haven’t got a clue. Not a damn sausage. No matter how much glitter you want to put on a ****, it’s still a ****. Sorry, but I think this debate deserves no better.
Tim
Hi again, all,
Keep ’em coming–I greatly appreciate the feedback. Tallbloke, what on earth makes you think I believe all the recent rise is due to CO2? (I don’t–but it’s possible I expressed myself poorly.) Even the IPCC doesn’t think that.
Every Thomas Fuller post is more or less identical (unless it is filler/tactical break), asking us to accept the IPCC science, then debate what should be done.
Those that fall prey to not challenging IPCC science as a premise end up in a nightmare discussion not unlike St. Thomas Aquinas trying to work out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Please, TF, end it all by putting your cards on the table without obfuscating hands.
If you have anything new to say, please continue posting, otherwise please join us as commenters.
This reminds me of an article in Der Speigel ( the English online version). It was an interview with Germany’s top climate science guy ( sorry I cannot remember his name). But he said he “invented” the 2C figure that started to be quoted around the place because the German politicians at the time ( prior to Copenhagen ) told him that to sell the story using scientific data was to complicated . They needed at PR type “catch phrase” so the he suggested the 2C rise will lead to major problems.
Sorry Tom but this idea has a similar ring to it.
Uh, is it just me, or are you proposing we accept what the Pro-AGW set is frightening everyone with as an established fact?
How do you get to 2C? How about a 50/50 chance we’ll see 0.5C?
What does any of that have to do with science? I think we should concede 2C when it’s proven. Until then any proposed action is just working from the precautionary principle. Given the nature of the proposed solutions to our AGW problem so far, I do not see any point in conceding anything. They (Hansen’s, Mann’s, UN, Pachuri, etc.) want to shut down the global economy and return to the stone age. I don’t see how that helps anybody and will certainly cost more lives than it will save. If you don’t agree with that point, figure out how much CO2 a person can safely emit each year without causing additional AGW, then realize populations are growing and the current answer to the question seems to be zero. There’s no way we can get back to where we once were without shutting industry down completely. Maybe that’s a bit of an overstatement but not by much.
Also; If the skeptical crowd went along with this, wouldn’t the Pro-AGW crew have a heyday claiming the skeptics had finally been proven wrong?
I don’t see where your proposed solution has a useful place in either science or the relevant policy debates.
Sorry.
Your 2.5 C extrapolation is like using a ruler to estimate where the roller coater is going. Roger Pielke made a case a couple of years ago on planning for rainfall variation in the southwestern US. If you used the extrapolations based on region forecasting from computer models you got a set of scenarios to plan for. However if you looked at the historical record of the last thousand years, there was evidence of much worse draughts hundreds of years earlier. In other words, the natural cycles that can be derived from the region historic/paleo record should help define the range of possibilities. Plan on dealing with that range first and then deal with projections of hotter, colder, wetter or dryer if it indeed were 2C warmer.
Tom,
I think we may already be at the point where Kumbaya Train might derail, before it even leaves the station. The truce between liberal lukewarmers/skeptics and conservatives of the same persuasion was based on the mutually perceived threat of the CAGW machine. As it begins to rust and fall apart, why is there any need to compromise on science?
I am not a scientist, and so would not debate the compromise you propose regarding climate projection on the merits. My issue is not with the projection, but with what should be done about it, even if accepted. You write: “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.”
That’s a lot of “we needs.”
From my conservative perspective, we have survived to this point with mankind using its natural intelligence and adaptability, without the benefit of any central guiding force. Insurance against hurricanes and floods, proper zoning, (like not rebuilding New Orleans as hurricane bait?) are all doable now, if you can get the politics right. When, and if, the science develops to the stage where the risks are sufficiently severe, and sufficiently certain, to justify collective action beyond what we already have, then no compromise will be necessary.
Before we reach that point, what is the point of any “compromise?” You can ask conservatives to compromise with you on the degree of forcings, expected temperature rise etc., but where do you see that leading? In other words, suppose your proposed compromise climate projections were written in stone, absolutely certain (the new “consensus”). What policies do you think conservatives would agree to then, that they oppose now?
Thomas,
As always, a well thought out post.
Since there is no way of knowing for sure whether the temperature of the planet is effected by man or not or what effect a warmer (or cooler) atmosphere will have on the planet, it doesn’t matter if we’re in a “League of 2.5” or 10.5. We need to do what we have always done…adapt to whatever mother nature throws at us.