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.
Keep posting here, Tom. You write well and you bring a different slant to the subject, as well as providing an excellent opportunity for commenters to practise restraint and good manners.
We don’t understand the MWP , the LIA and the other geologically recent periods of warming and cooling well enough to make predictions. Certainly, we don’t have the detailed data at hand for a convincing analysis. The hypothesis that CO2 has driven temperature and climate in the last hundred years appears weak at best.
Rather than worry about things that we can’t predict and probably can’t change anyway, it’s surely more sensible to go about developing useful technologies and crossing bridges when we come to them, and the mania concerning climate in general and CO2 in particular, is a serious diversion of effort. I think it’s a Trojan Horse for political schemes which wouldn’t be acceptable under their true colours.
If you’re worried about climate change with serious consequences, cold periods have been much worse for humanity than warm ones. Although you think a 2.5 C rise is more likely, a 2.5C drop would be far, far more serious. How about The -2.5 League?
I am unconvinced that fossil fuel is the culprit. I think is it our rising human population, which has a near identical rise compared to CO2 (started up at the same time, and has a slope that is nearly identical). While it is a closed system, there is a lag, meaning that we will detect our signal as a rise in CO2 while food production lags behind. So if the nearly identical rise in population is the cause of the increased CO2 (nothing else matches as close as population increase, not even fossil fuel use), what would you suggest we actually do? Should we all walk around with CO2 scrubbers on our faces?
Accepting a rise is one thing, pinning down the cause is quite another and if we don’t get it right, the rise will continue while we suffer under useless mitigation measures.
Natural disasters take an annual toll. The developed nations fare better than the undeveloped.
So I propose we continue to allow efficient global development. That is the optimum means – cheapest and most effective – to protect human beings.
We know enough to discount the sci-fi global catastrophe scenarios. Mankind as whole is not threatened with extinction. So when the weather events come as predicted, evacuations of those people may proceed. Returning to the scene of likely recurring disaster will be at the returners’ risk.
If some cultures must adapt (the Inuit?), they will, or die.
Any policy that claims to protect “mankind” rather than stated at risk populations, is futile and self-defeating – attempting to pre-empt its own false Malthusianism.
I agree with crosspatch, nuclear power is the best long term power source. It takes about 20 years to get a nuclear power plant up and running, however. Good solar hot water systems are available right now
even if you got agreement on global 2oC this century what would that actually mean to peoples lives.
What seem to matter is
Will this mean our cities will be flooded by a rising ocean?
Will bigger hurricanes batter our cities more often?
Will Australia become a dust bowl?
Will the monsoons fail or cause more havoc?
Will crops fail?
and on and on and on.
My guess is the debate (war) will continue on these grounds. Pielke snr argument that what matters is regional assessment not global trends seems valid here.
There will still be a raging debate between the catastrophists and the resiliants (those that believe humanity has the capacity to deal with new challenges). Your analysis seems to suggest that this is just an argument about numbers, it’s more than that, it’s about political outlooks and priorities.
I could go on, and will.
I see the appeal of trying to find the centre ground, “just relax man, we can work this out”. But just because we live in a world were compromise seems to be the perferred option doesn’t mean that this is the best solution to resolve problems. As peaceful a man as I am, I’m not averse to this being a fight to the death. All the arguments laid on the table and the truth outing.
You seem to be afraid of choice and the unknown. If our ancestors had felt that way we’d never have left Africa 50,000 years ago.
First Mr Fuller your question about c02 is wrong because of the reduced impact of larger amounts of c02 going into the atmosphere.In other words the next 100 ppm will have a much lower impact on temperature than the previous 100ppm.so as time passes and people realize this science fact they will stop worrying especially when they see how much extra food 600ppm will grow!
Play nice and don’t yell at your playmate. Great stuff for kids and sociology prof’s. The real world of grown-up ain’t quite so nice and simplistic. Making major, worldwide mistakes in policies designed to offset guesstimates of global warming is an undertaking of catastrophic proportion if guesstimates are later proven incorrect. Wasting time and public money guessing what to do if temperatures go up or down is a fool’s errand, given the current state of provable scientific theories on climate change. In short, prove the science, then consider doable policy options. BTW, the Utopian ‘play nice tune’ was popularized, at least in part, when Rodney King asked, “why can’t we all just get along”. You know the answer, don’t you?
The best guess is that average surface temperatures have increased over the past 150 years by around 0.5C (not 0.8C as the “cooked books” of the Team indicate).
Rising CO2 levels may be responsible for about a tenth of that, 0.05C, or perhaps a fifth, 0.1C. Thus, 80% or more of the warming is due to natural cycles over which we have no control. Temperatures have stabilized over the past decade and we may be in for some global cooling over the coming 20-30 years.
If CO2 doubles over the next 150 years, and if sensitivity is linear (it is less than linear), the maximum effect of human-caused CO2 over a 300 year period will be around 0.2C. This is less than a tenth of what Thomas Fuller projects.
So, that means we don’t have to be concerned about human-caused CO2?
Well, Yes and No!
I am concerned that the current rate of human release of CO2 (coal, oil, gas that has been sequestered over eons) is UNPRECEDENTED. As global standards of living continue to increase, energy demands will go up sharply, releasing more CO2. There is also the cost in American and allied blood to defend the most accessible sources of petroleum that Allah ( as a practical joke I assume) has chosen to locate largely under Muslim lands.
Therefore, though I do not think human-caused CO2 is a big danger from the climate change point of view, I do agree with the Wall Street Journal, Charles Krauthammer, and (pardon the expression) James Hansen and Ralph Nader, that it is a good idea to embrace a revenue-neutral Carbon Tax at the mine, well, and port. This will encourage private producers and users of energy to do what makes economic sense to their own best interests to reduce carbon emissions. Over time, a universal Carbon Tax will responsibly promote whatever carbon-neutral and carbon-free sources of energy are most economical, independent of special interest subsidies and political posturing and enrichment. (NOTE that I do not favor the “Cap&Trade” scam to fleece the public, gain power for politicians, and, in any case, will be ineffective in reducing carbon emissions.)
If Michael Mann, James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt or Phil Jones made a mistake with their climate theory or climate models …
… would they admit it?
Would any other IPCC climate scientist make them admit it?
Do we think their theory is correct?
That is alot of “No’s” which means we cannot conclude temperatures will rise 2.5C.
Would one do anything if the temperature rise by 2100 was only 1.0C to 1.5C.
You can put up another No to that one as well.
Tom, we just don’t have enough good data or perspective to agree to your presumed 2 degree rise in the next 90 years. So no, we can’t concede the point and move on. You’re asking for capitulation, not compromise.
I cope with temperature changes of much greater than 2 degrees C every day. Seasonally, it’s more like 40 degrees C differential. What crisis are we supposed to cope with? Frankly, I’m mystified by the underlying assumption that no good can come from a temperature rise and we must be concerned about it.
The real problem is petroleum. We need a practical solution to replace it for stationery uses as soon as possible in order to prolong the value of petroleum for air transportation, freight transport, and lubrication. There is only one choice at the moment: breeder reactors. It is criminal that the two breeder research programs begun by Republican presidents have both been killed by Democratic presidents. There can be no rational solution to the energy situation until we pull out the stops and join the 21st century in which other, more intelligent countries are working toward good nuclear solutions.
As you say – we know very little about climate sensitivity, and we will not be much wiser for at least several decades.
Businesses and home owners already have all the information they need to make their everyday decisions. They know that some scientists think sea levels will rise and hurricanes will be more frquent. if they were really concerned, and bothered to investigate some more, they would also know that others oppose this view.
Out of this muddied water, they will have to make a decision. Agreeing on a “middle ground” between different proposed futures won’t help one bit.
Afterall – sea level rises only very slowly. There is plenty of time to wait and see, and to make the adequate adjustments. And those who live in a hurricane zone probably already know it.
So I am not concerned about home owners and businesses.
I am more concerned about politics. If skeptics should go quiet now and embrace a “consensus” of 2 degrees climate sensitivity, the political madness of carbon trading, carbon taxes and carbon capture/storage will continue and probably exacerbate, hurting the economy, jobs, home owners and businesses – exactly the groups you were concerned about in the first place.
The debate must go on.
Yawn,
Real Temperatures
Pamela Gray says:
October 20, 2010 at 4:54 pm
I hope that you are being rhetorical, to point out the difference between cause and effect. I think you must be aware that termites, just one insect species, produces 3 times the entire human race in CO2 output. Did I mention they also put out Gtons/annum of methane?
The earth’s magma is full of carbonates and magma which is responsible for 97% of all atmospheric CO2. Our puny little species is dwarfed by numbers of other species putting out CO2. But, higher CO2 means more numbers and more efficient plants which means less CO2.
During Cretaceous/Jurassic eras dinosaurs became huge because plants grew like weeds (humor) and supplied their bulk dietary needs. Plants grew fast because CO2 was 10,000 ppm. When CO2 decreased, to the starvation level of today, animals grew smaller because plants were less prolific.
@ur momisugly Poptech:
Great post on your site. That graph deserves more attention.
thomaswfuller says:
October 20, 2010 at 2:49 pm
You know me, Thomas. I always wrap my words in sugar.
Here’s the thing. After a number of years of tilting at windmills, we’ve finally gotten (from Climategate) the information to the people, and they have noticed how they’ve been fooled.
One of the things that they have been fooled about is the idea of “climate sensitivity”. A quarter century ago, we were told it was 1.5 to 4.5 degrees per doubling of CO2. Now, with much much larger, faster, and more sophisticated computers and much more complex models and hundreds of man-years put into studying the problem, we’re told that it is 2 to 4.5 degrees per doubling.
That lack of any significant progress in twenty-five years indicates one thing to me — the models are not using the right paradigm to describe the climate. If they were, the field would not have stood still. We would have seen progress comparable to that we have seen in every other field of science.
But we have not. The other fields have moved forwards, and climate science has stood still. We still don’t know what the “climate sensitivity” is. In fact, we don’t even know if the concept of “climate sensitivity” is an accurate way to describe the situation we are studying. See my post on The Unbearable Complexity of Climate to understand why forcing may mean absolutely nothing.
Now, when we get to the point where we are, where our previous views and paradigms have proven incorrect, curiously that is a very good time for science. When science is stumped, it is the chance for science to move forwards by moving sideways.
But that is only true if we are willing to hang out with the uncertainty. But instead of living with the uncertainty to keep science moving, you want to sweep the whole thing under the rug, ignore the lack of progress, and say that it looks like 2.5 is the total climate sensitivity, let’s use that since the scientists aren’t getting anywhere, now we have certainty … and science comes to a halt.
How on earth does that help anyone anywhere on the planet? I mean, it helps the AGW doomsayers by agreeing with them that humans are a terrible scourge on the planet, but other than them, it merely gives us a false feeling of certainty … thanks, I’ll pass.
Argh! AAAARGH!!!
Lighting a fire under the alarmists before I have to disappear for a day is what I do.
Tom, I’m stuck at S=0.5 +/- 1.8.
But I have a massive issue with assigning a number to a thing we don’t understand, because implicit in that numeric assignation is the suggestion that we can know something we don’t and we can’t. And we don’t, Tom, and we can’t know, and proclaiming a “belief” in an assigned value of S is proclaiming a faith in S. The particular numerical value of S that one believes in is just theocratic denomination.
I haven’t a clue as to what the temp will do.
But problems – there are lots of those.
Forget about CO2 and what ever else is suspect.
Pick a problem that interests you.
Clean drinking water? More energy? Better nutrition?
Education? Drugs? Terrorism? Other? Get to work.
Perhaps a global unified daily high low average is useful for tracking a wide trend but perhaps a more specific look at temperature trends might be more useful where the feet touch the ground.
First, I’d opine that generally the HIGH is more important than the low. The low happens at night generally speaking…if we had nearly the same high but a higher low would that not greatly shape the homogonized trend but be less relevant to real world effect? doesn’t UHI have more potential for impact on the night time low?
Secondly I’d suggest that WHERE the temeprature is increasing might be rather important as well. If the poles/extreme latitudes were to get well above freezing that would present an issue no? If the mid latitudes have a half degree change does it really make a huge difference to the human life or ecology?
Thirdly I’d suggest a focus on WHAT SEASON the warming is concentrated in…if the hottest days of summer are even hotter well that might present issues eventually. If the coldest days of winter are just a tad milder in the well populated latitudes well frankly who cares.
Fourth, I’d want to know the legitimate effect of increased carbon. Not just one doubling but what happens on the NEXT doubling. Is it linear, exponential, logarithmic? Much of this touches on feedbacks but can be somewhat observed.
Lastly, I’d want to know just how much carbon we can be expected to push into the atmosphere at peak and how that effects point 4.
I don’t know the answers to these questions, have heard many divergent answers, but the first few at least could probably be answered now with data available if we look purely at T and ignore CO2.
Answer those questions with a decent certainty and imho you have some kind of crude actionable intelligence. Until then it’s all mental masterbation and papers ala academia. I’m not moving out of Florida and supporting a multi-trillion dollar poor tax on what we have now. I welcome energy source R&D but do not think subsidies truly promote development in the way they are marketed. I also think “reasonable” conservation in all the connotations is a good thing. But more “drastic” action requires more drastic evidence…at least in my humble opinion.
“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 favourable to the idea I have put forward?
”
Tom,
It would make no difference. I used to be a hot blooded alarmist and still make an effort to this day to try and understand both sides even if I generally align myself with the skepics. You seem reasonable and I would look forward to chatting or even working with some one like you (assuming you were labelling yourself a ‘warmist’ – I think that was part of your question?).
Its the other crowds that I don’t trust, like 10:10, or al gore supporters or the gate keepers of the IPCC. If there was some way to make them understand that they have no right to tell others how to live, then even I could stand shoulder to shoulder with them but I have my doubts they will abandon their dream to spend other people’s money and other people’s freedoms.
So I’m sorry but if my support ends up being used to further that sort of agenda that may still simmer beneath the surface, I cannot be part of that. If by some miracle the autocratic element could be cut away, then by all means, lets make the world a better place by working together on the things we can agree on. And there likely would be many…
At this time, there is no science of climate change that can give us something approaching a peak at future temperatures or climate. Someday there will be such a science. Until there is such a science, there can be no policy decisions about global climate. The people of the world will adjust to local events, as they have always. What people should do is produce wealth because wealth is the best preparation for future dislocations.
Thomas Fuller wrote:
“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.”
==================
And why on earth would we conclude that? Let alone conclude it “quickly”?
In your first paragraph you speak of the sensitivity of the eath’s atmosphere *to a doubling of CO2*. That has some specific meaning (if you mean temperature sensitivity). You then say this sensitivity is unkown at present. I agree.
But what is the meaning of a phrase like: “the sensitivity of the earth’s atmosphere to all human-related activities,” which you use in your conclusion? This phrase is so vague as to be meaningless. I imagine you mean, again, sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 (if a doubling is ever achieved from 1958 levels). If that’s what you really mean, you really not express it with such loose wording as “sensitivity to all human related activities”.
In any case, you are supposing that the putative 0.5 temperature increase from 1958 to the present, if true, should be attributed entirely to human related activities (i.e. CO2).
Why should this be so? Really, you must explain why. I mean, really. Otherwise you are simply begging the question (assuming your conclusion). The only reason I would think such a conclusion somewhat reasonable would be if a 0.5 deg increase had *never* ever been observed before in a span of 50 years. Since this is not the case at all, why attribute it now to one particular cause?
Your reasoning is as follows:
1) Starting in 1958, all changes in temperature must be attributed to changes in CO2.
2) CO2 went up 20% since 1958, and temperatures went up 0.5 C
3) Therefore the sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 (100%) would be 2.5 degrees C.
There is no more reason for me to accept 1) as true than there is to accept that since 1958 all variations in obesity rates must be attributed to changes in ice-cream consumption. Or any other gratuituous assumption of that kind.
As a full blown skeptic, I see no problem with coming together on an agreed upon plan to get away from fossil fuels. As an American I would elect anyone that runs on an energy independence plan for us. Drill baby drill, Nuclear, etc… pay off our debt, and dump tons of money into alt energy developement. Activists need to take a walk. This plan will get us to drop CO2 levels quicker than anything happening at this point.
Pleasing to see that this hasn’t degenerated into a flame throwing exhibition. I’d just have to say that Thomas, in view of his obvious sincerity in what he believes, is still trying to cajole sceptics into going along with a “lowest common denominator” version of AGW.
This will still prove ruinously expensive to the First World economies which will no longer be able to assist the less fortunate to improve. All this based on some of the most dubious “science” since Lysenko.
No thanks, Thomas: If that’s your answer, what the hell was the question (again)?