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.
thomaswfuller quote:
“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%.”
This actually means:
“It is more typically described as 0.03 percent. Currently however, it is closer to 0.04 percent”
The top quote is a typical method of skewing the facts for scary headlines. Is the near-0.01% increase significant ? thomaswfuller never acknowledges this – puffery at it’s finest
The rate of change in temperatures in the Holocene era have been constrained to a change per century of about the figure you are saying (+ or -)2 to 2.5 degrees c but the rate of change during ice ages is as much as (+or-)1.5 degrees per decade.yes it is possible that we will see an increase like you suggest but we could also see a decline in temperatures of the same amount. It depends how you see the effect of adding more co2 to the atmosphere , i don’t think we have seen any clear relationship between adding co2 to the atmosphere and increasing temperatures,it has fallen and risen and then remained the same while co2 has steadily risen.
Tom, I suggest you read Bjørn Lomborg.
Note that Lomborg isn’t a skeptic of Global Warming per se.
Personally, I’m crossing my fingers and hoping that the Polywell and Focus Fusion research pan out, but Molten Salt Reactors are a fallback position where the physics is already proven, by Oak Ridge National Labs back in the 1960s.
I see the specific number you choose for climate sensitivity as a bit off the main thrust and topic of your post, but here’s a few comments about your simplistic estimate:
1. The climate system has some very long time constants (deep oceans, glaciers, ???, ??? ). Simply saying that CO2 is up 20% and temp is up 0.5C, so lets figure 100% increase in CO2 results in 2.5C rise is overly simplistic.
2. Related to this is that the climate system may actually show a response to the RATE of CO2 rise. With very long lagtime systems, this may very well be a better 1st order estimate/sanity check. Using your numbers, 75ppm increase in 50 years results in 1/2 degree rise in 50 years. So the first order guess would be 1.5ppm/yr increase results in 1C rise per century. Today’s rate-of-rise is about 2ppm/yr, so the crude estimate is about 1.3C/century.
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.
It all depends on where you place the thermometers, if they start in a field and end up in a city or airport of cause the temperature is going to increase. The recent scandle in Newzealand is a prime example of temperature data manipulation. CO2 has little to do with this supposed temperature increase which I believe is imposible to measure globally.
The temperature increase seen from 1958 is probable down to urban growth as has been shown in numerous studies.
Let’s conduct an experiment and maximize carbon dioxide emissions in every way possible and then measure the result with unbiased temperature monitoring network.
Climate would be changing if there were no intelligent life on earth. It always has and it always will until such time as some cosmic catastrophe causes a real global environmental crisis.
You suck, dude.
🙂
But ignoring that for a moment, let’s suppose that everything the AGW crowd say about CO2 causing a temperature rise, and it being mainly attributable to burning fossil fuels.
There are lots of wild theories about how we will suffer doom and destruction if the temperature rises even a degree or so. If we look back at the predictions of 20 years ago, when this first started, we should have London and New York under water, worldwide famine and killer storms with 500mph winds by now. Those predictions were based upon the doom merchants wet dreams, not any solid science. I don’t see any evidence that has changed.
But again, lets assume the worst, and bad things will happen in a few years time.
The current answer is to drive the majority of the world back to a medieval standard of living, while a privileged few get hyper rich. Realistically, that is not going to happen.
What they should be concentrating on is seeing that advanced civilization is based upon energy. As some of the less advanced countries advance, and they will, whether we want it to happen or not, their energy requirements will increase rapidly too.
What we should be concentrating on is producing much more energy, much more cheaply, using less carbon fuel than at present.
These developing countries will not have the money to waste or the time to play with dead-end technologies such as wind and solar. They are ok for very small systems which can reasonably use battery backup to fill in the gaps, but realistically that is all.
Trying to artificially price energy out of the range of the average person is not a stable situation. A lot more death and destruction could easily be attributable to that policy than to AGW. A lot sooner, too.
So what could we be looking at?
Well, for a start we have to recognize that concentrating energy and converting it from one form to another increases entropy. Hydro power will change things, as will tidal flow power, as will enough windmills sucking energy out of the atmosphere, to say nothing ov the environmental impact of these monstrosities and the raw materials required to construct them.
The only real difference with fossil fuels is that the changes take place in places that people can’t see, and that they release CO2, which just might be a big factor in the increased food production the world has seen over the past half century.
50% of electrical energy is wasted as heat simply in transmission. This could be averted by local generation – much smaller generating plants sited close to their customers. Spending some energy on designing small power plants that are more efficient, so that there is a net gain when subtracting transmission loss from the lower efficiency of small power plants could be well worthwhile, and lead to a net reduction in CO2 emission.
Make those local power plants atomic, and your CO2 emission goes to zero. The technology exists, but the same people that want to dive the world back to a medieval lifestyle are the ones that scream when anything like this is proposed.
For transport, invest in much better public transport. The US is miles behind much of Europe, and a big chunk of Asia in this. Again, the same greenies are the ones that tie up any plans to develop any real public transportation systems.
I am certain that people here can think of many more ways to generate more power without significantly increasing CO2 emissions, or even reducing it. Unfortunately, the word “renewable” has stuck in people’s minds. They have to understand that there really is no such thing. Suck up sunlight in solar stations, and you take it away from plant life that is producing the O2 that you breath, who knows what effect taking wind energy out of the earth’s atmosphere may have (anyone have any models for that?), using the energy of tide will have effects — as I said above any concentraing and conversion of energy increases entropy, all of the “renewable” sources really are not, they just seem like it given our fleeting lifetimes, all of them bring the inevitable day when life is no longer sustainable on Earth just that bit closer.
Tom I simply cannot agree with your thesis on several grounds. Firstly we know the relation between CO2 concentration and energy retention is logarithmic. The change from 315 to 390 represents about 0.31 doublings. I believe the claim is that without radiacal action the CO2 concentration will rise to about 560ppm by 2070 which is a further 0.69 doublings. Using a linear model, if the first 0.31 doublings gave 0.5C the following 0.69 doubling should give a further 1.1C not 2C as you suggest.
Secondly, the 0.5C rise you claim is only based on a 1958 starting point. If I look at the raw data and say pick a 1935 starting point the rise is zero! Is that cherry picking? No more than picking 1958. The reality is that the temperature according to the raw data has been going up and down over the 2oth century. 1958 was a temperature minimum. To pick the minimum value of a series as a starting point when trying to gauge the average trend is cherry picking and represents gross bias.
But now consider the more substantitve concerns. The temperature rose strongly between 1910 and 1940. What caused this rise? It then fell strongly till about 1960, what caused this fall? The magnitude of both these changes is equal to the rise since 1960. If we don’t know what caused these changes how on earth can we know whether the same factors were responsible for the change post 1960. Indeed these changes seem to track the PDO and if that is indeed a cause then one would have expected the rise post 1960 without any contribution from CO2. If that is even part of the reason then the change due to CO2 is diminished further.
Then again, there has been no warming for the last 10 years which would be in line with the PDO hypothesis but contrary to the CO2 hypothesis. The warmists now claim that CO2 is not the only factor acting on the climate and that the CO2 rise is being cancelled out by other factors for the moment. At the very least, that is an admission that other (unknown) factors are at least as powerful as CO2. We don’t know what these other factors are. If they can cause a rate of cooling equal to the claimed rate of CO2 induced warming then they could also be causing the warming seen since 1960 all by themselves without any CO2 contribution.
Indeed Tom, if I simply substitute 3c for your 2C the argument you put forward is exactly the warmists argument and relies entirely on the precautionary principle. I cannot agree with that position. The reality is that the argument for anthropogenic CO2 causing dangerous (or even inconvenient) climate change is incredibly weak and getting weaker by the day. If one contemplates radical society changing actions there must be a better basis than simply “well it could be true so we should do this just in case”. The concept that such action cannot have a down side is untenable. Indeed we cna already see highly negative impacts in the result of the push to biofuels. Terrible as these impacts are, the societal changes which Vaclav Claus hints at could be even worse.
There is much more I could say but that will do for one post.
Tom,
There is no consensus re: CO2 feedbacks, we don’t even know if the sign is positive or negative. Nonetheless, a political consensus is emerging: invest in research for non CO2 emitting power sources but no CO2 tax. When the non CO2 emitting power sources are competitive with oil, coal, and gas, then we can switch over. To switch over to alternative energy before they are economically competitive is economic and political suicide.
The safest alternative to coal that I see that generates sufficient power cheap enough are liquid fluoride thorium reactors (LFTR). Thorium is super abundant in the USA and is cheap, LFTRs operate at close to atmospheric pressure so they are much cheaper to build, they can actually use existing nuclear waste as fuel, they produce orders of magnitude less waste which has a much shorter half life than uranium based reactors, they are extremely difficult sources of fissile material for terrorists (IIRC, thorium has to bombarded with neutrons to be fissile). Unfortunately, there is plenty of R&D required to make LFTRs commercially viable and that is not happening.
Regarding energy sources for cars and trucks, more research is needed on batteries and power cells. IIRC, we are not close to solving that problem (but maybe progress has been made since I last checked this out). A migration to natural gas for big vehicles and trucks might be a good first step to reduce dependency on oil imports. I’m also OK with mandating energy efficiency standards for new cars to reduce demand. I prefer this approach to a gas tax because it is easier on the poor.
Hi Willis–don’t be so gentle with me–tell me how you really feel 😉
I am not concerned really with the active participants in the debate. The reason I put this forward is to try and satisfy the needs of people who do not have time or wherewithal to look at the evidence and form their own opinion, but do have a need to chart a course for their family, business, city planning department, etc.
I do not at all consider it unscientific to take the best two measurements we have–CO2 concentrations and satellite measurements of temperature–and say with appropriate caveats that if trends continue we might see 2 degrees C of warming over the next century.
Such a course would also free us from ‘having’ to attribute x percentage of warming to y cause. It can include CO2, land use/land cover, deforestation, oxygen depletion, rebound from LIA for reasons we don’t know, and more.
What I’m arguing for is the removal of distracting observations using poor data or no data at all.
Please don’t post as often as you are now Tom.
I see your name at the top of an article and immediately scan down for the pointless argument. I searched for the 2.5 as it must be important. I then read the ten lines at the top of every page. Now I have given up and am off to see if Delingpole has anything interesting to say at the Telegraph.
Hurry back Anthony.
Hmmm.
I think that this is the very first proper debate about climate that I have read. Tom, you put forward some very good points which have (obviously) stimulated some spirited replies. The denizens of WUWT appear generally to have shown the appropriate degree of rectitude expected here on this site. This is most welcome.
From my own point of view the only aspect of all arguments aired here with which I agree is that the climate is changing. It always has and will always do so. I do not consider that the actions of mankind have much, if any effect on the way that climate is changing. Nature has shown over and over that species which can adapt to changing conditions will survive, those that can’t, don’t. Mankind, the naked ape, has shown a remarkable degree of adaptability, having survived despite whatever has been put in their way. I am sure that this indisputable aptitude will continue to be expressed.
My principal concern with all of the climate change chatter is who has decided what the optimum, unchanging and unchangeable climate, gas concentrations and temperatures should really be when those conditions have never existed? That which suits vegetation the best might not suit mammalian life; reptilian life might demand a differing set of parameters. Which life-form has the right to that climate which is best suited to itself?
The climatic conditions of this planet and the changes inherent in those conditions cannot be represented in a computer model, the variations and permutations thereof extend to the infinite. Let us cease all of the futility of our affecting climate in an advantageous (to mankind) way; such an endeavour is completely beyond our means, now and forever. Change in climate, as with everything else, is happening; learn to live with it as that is all we can possibly do.
Mike,
In defense of Thomas Fuller from your drive-by attack, what exactly were the redacted words in your ‘sourcewatch’ link? And who redacted them?
Without the words – which could entirely change the meaning and/or context, your link is nothing but an ad hominem attack. For shame.
Hi Philip,
Yes, you have certainly made your concerns known to us all. However, I can only repeat that they are unwarranted.
I started the Examiner page with the title ‘Liberal Skeptic’ as I had previously run a blog with that title. I announced myself as a Lukewarmer shortly after starting with the Examiner, but didn’t want to change the title as I thought I’d lose readers who would not find me (subscribers to my linked page). As I never asked Anthony to link to me (although I’m very grateful he did), I felt it would be presumptuous to be moved from one place to another, especially as I didn’t know what his criteria were for placement.
Smokey, did you notice who provided those details to Sourcewatch? None other than everybody’s favorite office visitor.
Tom,
I asked first. 🙂
But in the Kunmbaya spirit of the moment, I will give it a shot. At this point in time, this conservative would not agree to any new government program. I would urge better communication of the current actually known risks (ie. like my earlier only half joking reference to New Orleans.) I would suggest that government make explicit (and keep its word) that it will not provide defacto, cost free flood, hurricane or earthquake insurance in areas with known substantial risk. Give people the best information available, and let them decide individually how to cope.
I would declare an amnesty for prior climate war “atrocities” (like Brazil in the 70s), but only for those parties who agreed to an open data and code policy for all future publications. Oh, and I would also propose a constitutional amendment to prohibit the government from using the tax code to modify behavior (not just related to climate/energy), just to be safe. (No cap and trade, no ethanol subsidies, etc.)
OK, one new government program. I would scrap the UN, not just the IPCC, but particularly the IPCC, and use part of the massive savings to create a grant program for research on climate change/remediation/adaptation. (We can’t really shut it down, but we could stop funding it.)
I would start with funding a new company that employed Gavin Smith as lead scientist, with Steve McIntyre as CEO/auditor. They would be charged with first getting the surface temperature record right. As my final act, I would open a Denny’s and give Michael Mann and James Hansen both jobs behind the counter to keep them out of trouble. (OK, this paragraph is tongue in cheek.)
Seriously, to the extent government is going to be involved in funding science in the area of remediation, it should be in the form of grants for successful solving of identifiable technological problems, such as a large award for the company that first produces a commercially viable means of converting solar energy into electricity. Identify the problem, set an award amount for its solution, and otherwise get out of the way.
Your turn.
LarryD, I’ve interviewed Bjorn Lomborg twice, and corresponded with him frequently. I don’t think anything I’ve written here would surprise or upset him, although I have no idea if he would agree with me.
Andy says:
October 20, 2010 at 12:27 pm
“Not much to say from me, apart from thankyou for your ideas, presented in an ‘approachable’ style. I’d like to think that (unlike the censorious Joe Romm and his cronies), WUWT has always welcomed rational and reasoned debate….”
Nothing to add – you said it well, Andy.
Tom;
There are a number of elements of this post which I would disagree with, many of which have already been addressed by other commenters. But to me the fatal flaw which makes the others trivial is the implicit assumption that we are actually able to do anything that will predictably affect what will occur in the future climate.
I would never attempt to deny that humans affect the climate by the things they do and by their very existence, but the same is true for a great many organisms in the earthly biosphere, from viruses and bacteria, to plankton, termites, livestock, on up to the largest organisms in the oceans with their excrement. At least it would seem so from a perusal of the avalanche of PR “science” we have been blessed by over the last couple of years.
Changing human patterns of behavior in terms of land use, procreation and energy production and usage would undoubtedly change the conditions that occur and develop in the planet’s environment. However, nothing I have seen indicates that we have the slightest ability to predict what those changes will be and, if history is any indication, in all likelihood they will be almost exactly opposite of whatever is projected.
thomaswfuller says:
October 20, 2010 at 2:49 pm
“What I’m arguing for is the removal of distracting observations using poor data or no data at all.”
==========
Exactly, Global Warming Climate Change Disruption Distraction is nonsense and should be banned from further dialogue so people can get on with their lives without Cap and Carbon Tax Fraud.
I wrote a 330 p report on ways solar energy could mitigate global warming. Having read numerous recent climate studies, I now say global warming is “not proven”. See numerous comments above.
The critical issue now is NOT “global warming” but the “impending decline of light oil.”
Lloyds, the US Department of Defense, the German Dept. of Defense and other groups are warning that a global shortage could begin in 2012-2014 time frame – and take decades to mitigate with massive reductions in GDP in oil importing countries.
See: Robert L. Hirsch et al. The Impending World Energy Mess Oct 2010, Apogee Prime, ISBN 978-1926837116. Hirsch gives a clear discussion and very credible warnings.
Global crude oil production has plateaued since 2004. The issue is NOT TOTAL hydrocarbons in place, but the RATE at which we can now convert to natural gas, heavy oil, bitumen, coal and solar thermal energy to liquid transport fuels.
This decline of light oil and transition to alternative transport fuels will likely be the most critical issue for the coming generation.
See also
Patzek, Tad W., Exponential growth, energetic Hubbert cycles, and the advancement of technology, Archives of Mining Sciences, Polish Academy of Sciences, May 3, 2008
Froggatt, Anthony & Lahn, Glada, Sustainable Energy Security, Lloyds/Chatham House, 2010
US Joint Forces Command, Joint Operating Environment 2010, JOE Feb. 18, 2010, http://www.jfcom.mil
Thomas:
We love you man…
While most of us don’t completely agree with you, I admire your willingness to invite debate. We definitely need more of it. It takes a thick skin, a relatively open mind, and a large pair to argue with the WUWT crowd. Keep the posts coming.
Whilst CO2 and temperatures seem to be marching in unison, so too is the capacity to sink CO2, so much so that the nett global effect is that only about half of the anthropogenic CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere.
When the seasonal variations measured at individual stations can show annual cycles that peak in excess of 420ppm before sinks take it to 370ppm, such as shown in the study “Mechanisms for synoptic variations of atmospheric CO2 in North America, South America and Europe” found at http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/8/7239/2008/acp-8-7239-2008.pdf it appears that there is huge capacity to sink CO2 when the conditions allow.
What needs to be considered is whether the natural balance of sources and sinks operate so that there is alway a small differential between both that allows excess CO2 to remain in the atmosphere to fuel extra plant growth, and that that mechanism is driven by temperature.
Smokey, I gotta also say that what Mike provided is accurate and that the redacted portions do not contain anything relevant. I’m not a scientist and I left uni without taking a degree.
I agree that attempts need to be made to bring the debate from a boil to a simmer. I do disagree (very respectfully so because I think this is a great post) with the notion that we can know what drives climate, can quantify those drivers, and thus predict climate. The fact that many climate drives may have nonlinear or even chaotic relations to variables such as temperature, means that we may not be able to ever predict climate parameters.
Also, I do see these as conflicting statements:
“I don’t see undisputed data that will allow us to do better than the 40 years of good data we have now.”
“Temperatures are rising, and more quickly than they have often in the past.”
If we only have 40 years of reliable data, can we actually conclude that temperatures are rising more quickly than they have? I find it hard to draw the same conclusion. Climate typically deals with the statistics of temperature, precipitation, etc. over long time scale (~30 years). If we only have 40 years of accurate data then we cannot with any confidence say how it compares to other climate scale periods.
So where do we start? The same place scientists always start…data. That is the best part about Anthony’s work is that he is looking at the quality and availability of the data. Models have to follow data collection and an understanding of the system