Deal with climate reality as it unfolds
Special to Financial Post May 23, 2012
By Dr. Bob Carter
Over the last 18 months, policymakers in Canada, the U.S. and Japan have quietly abandoned the illusory goal of preventing global warming by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Instead, an alternative view has emerged regarding the most cost-effective way in which to deal with the undoubted hazards of climate change.
This view points toward setting a policy of preparation for, and adaptation to, climatic events and change as they occur, which is distinctly different from the former emphasis given by most Western parliaments to the mitigation of global warming by curbing carbon dioxide emissions.
Ultimately, the rationale for choosing between policies of mitigation or adaptation must lie with an analysis of the underlying scientific evidence about climate change. Yet the vigorous public debate over possibly dangerous human-caused global warming is bedeviled by two things.
First, an inadequacy of the historical temperature measurements that are used to reconstruct the average global temperature statistic.
And, second, fueled by lobbyists and media interests, an unfortunate tribal emotionalism that has arisen between groups of persons who are depicted as either climate “alarmists” or climate “deniers.”
In reality, the great majority of working scientists fit into neither category. All competent scientists accept, first, that global climate has always changed, and always will; second, that human activities (not just carbon dioxide emissions) definitely affect local climate, and have the potential, summed, to measurably affect global climate; and, third, that carbon dioxide is a mild greenhouse gas.
The true scientific debate, then, is about none of these issues, but rather about the sign and magnitude of any global human effect and its likely significance when considered in the context of natural climate change.
For many different reasons, which include various types of bias, error and unaccounted-for artifacts, the thermometer record provides only an indicative history of average global temperature over the last 150 years.
The 1979-2011 satellite MSU (Microwave Sounding Units) record is our only acceptably accurate estimate of average global temperature, yet being but 32 years in length it represents just one climate data point. The second most reliable estimate of global temperature, collected by radiosondes on weather balloons, extends back to 1958, and the portion that overlaps with the MSU record matches it well.
Taken together, these two temperature records indicate that no significant warming trend has occurred since 1958, though both exhibit a 0.2C step increase in average global temperature across the strong 1998 El Niño.
In addition, the recently quiet Sun, and the lack of warming over at least the last 15 years — and that despite a 10% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide level, which represents 34% of all post-industrial emissions — indicates that the alarmist global warming hypothesis is wrong and that cooling may be the greatest climate hazard over coming decades.
Climate change takes place over geological time scales of thousands through millions of years, but unfortunately the relevant geological data sets do not provide direct measurements, least of all of average global temperature.
Instead, they comprise local or regional proxy records of climate change of varying quality. Nonetheless, numerous high-quality paleoclimate records, and especially those from ice cores and deep-sea mud cores, demonstrate that no unusual or untoward changes in climate occurred in the 20th and early 21st century.
Despite an estimated spend of well over $100-billion since 1990 looking for a human global temperature signal, assessed against geological reality no compelling empirical evidence yet exists for a measurable, let alone worrisome, human impact on global temperature.
Nonetheless, a key issue on which all scientists agree is that natural climate-related events and change are real, and exact very real human and environmental costs. These hazards include storms, floods, blizzards, droughts and bushfires, as well as both local and global temperature steps and longer term cooling or warming trends.
It is certain that these natural climate-related events and change will continue, and that from time to time human and environmental damage will be wrought.
Extreme weather events (and their consequences) are natural disasters of similar character to earthquakes, tsunami and volcanic eruptions, in that in our present state of knowledge they can neither be predicted far ahead nor prevented once underway. The matter of dealing with future climate change, therefore, is primarily one of risk appraisal and minimization, and that for natural risks that vary from place to place around the globe.
Dealing with climate reality as it unfolds clearly represents the most prudent, practical and cost-effective solution to the climate change issue. Importantly, a policy of adaptation is also strongly precautionary against any (possibly dangerous) human-caused climate trends that might emerge in the future.
From the Financial Post via Dr. Carter in email correspondence
Bob Carter, a paleoclimatologist at James Cook University, Australia, and a chief science advisor for the International Climate Science Coalition, is in Canada on a 10-day tour. He speaks at Carleton University in Ottawa on Friday.
Scott Chris says:
May 24, 2012 at 3:53 pm
Please show us the links Hansen used in his WSJ “opinion” piece.
But if Carter had linked to a figure, it probably would have been this.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadat/images/update_images/global_upper_air.png
Real scary, huh?
Very clever by Bob Carter. Casting sceptics as having the middle ground, between 2 sets of extremist views.
I’d quibble with some of the details. In particular, slow climate change over geological timescales is irrelevant to the debate. We know from the paleo records around the Younger Dryas that the climate can change rapidly (one or a few decades) and then stay in a stable state for a very long time. We have no idea why this happened.
Lazy Know-it-all says:
Well, I suppose you’re entitled to your own definitons, but there are more rational analyses…
http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/
Surely, you can’t be that simple-minded.
Pure sanity from a geologist.
This morning a contributor on “The Conversation“, a web site for Australia’s academics, posted this comment:
https://theconversation.edu.au/droughts-and-flooding-rains-what-is-due-to-climate-change-6524
To which I couldn’t resist a reply:
Vewy vewy quiet, so quiet that nobody is noticing.
Yet.
Tucker asks @ur momisugly May 24, 2012 at 12:24 pm
How long until he is labelled a quack
Bob Carter is a prominent Australian geologist (?) and has been fighting for sanity for years. Unfortunately, the Australian government has all the big money in this game.
Over the medium to long term when CO_2 has a chance to reach equilibrium I agree. But over the short term I think it is clear that we are currently having an effect on CO_2 levels. Current CO_2 levels are the highest they’ve been for a very long time indeed. It is hard to explain this as a purely natural phenomenon. For example temperature alone cannot explain it since current temperatures are not all that unusual.
Just one bone to pick Bob.
“Climate change takes place over geological time scales of thousands through millions of years…”
Exactly 20 years ago Abrupt Climate Change was discovered in the GISP2 ice core. Since that time, evidence has been found of ACC in many proxy’s in all sorts of media, including other ice cores. Whereas climate change does indeed occur over thousands and millions of years, it can also change in as little as one year.
“Briefly, the data indicate that cooling into the Younger Dryas occurred in a few prominent decade(s)-long steps, whereas warming at the end of it occurred primarily in one especially large step (Figure 1.2) of about 8°C in about 10 years and was accompanied by a doubling of snow accumulation in 3 years; most of the accumulation-rate change occurred in 1 year. (This matches well the change in wind-driven upwelling in the Cariaco Basin, offshore Venezuela, which occurred in 10 years or less [Hughen et al., 1996].)”
“Abrupt Climate Change – Inevitable Surprises”, Committee on Abrupt Climate Change, National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, 2002, ISBN: 0-309-51284-0, 244 pages, Richard B. Alley, chair.
Ian H says:
May 24, 2012 at 5:31 pm
“But over the short term I think it is clear that we are currently having an effect on CO_2 levels.”
The plot I have linked to says you are wrong. There is no room for a significant human influence to fit in here.
“It is hard to explain this as a purely natural phenomenon.”
I don’t have to explain it. The data are unequivocal. The net result is overwhelmingly natural.
“For example temperature alone cannot explain it since current temperatures are not all that unusual.”
Again, this plot shows the relationship.
Ian H,
As we see here, CO2 levels have been up to twenty times higher in the geologic past than now. After declining for hundreds of millions of years, CO2 levels again shot up to more than 2,000 ppmv [about 250 million years ago], when the biosphere teemed with life as a result of more airborne fertilizer.
I agree with Bart that the rise in CO2 is largely the effect of warming, not the cause [although a fraction of a degree warming from the ≈40% rise in CO2 may be the result of radiative physics].
But the real question is: what does it matter? On balance, the rise in CO2 has been entirely beneficial. There is no downside to more CO2; it’s all good. The entire global warming scare is predicated on the mistaken belief that an increase in CO2 is bad. But there exists zero real world evidence supporting that belief.
Once you accept that the rise in CO2 is beneficial, the “carbon” problem disappears entirely.
Sorry. I thought it was “denier” that you objected to. But if you don’t like “denialist” either I will keep that in mind.
This plot shows unequivocally that temperature drives the rate of change of CO2 to very high significance. The human input to CO2, the rate of which is an upward trend, simply cannot fit in anywhere to any significant level once you remove a linear regression against temperature anomaly from the rate of change of CO2.
against time and GISS global mean temperature against time, on the same graph, with ranges adjusted to match. There is a strong correspondence between the temperature and the derivative of the CO_2 concentration, agreed.
I’m not sure I believe you (although I’m trying to understand your conclusion). You plot:
However, the derivative of a function is not the function The derivative is positive throughout the entire range. This means that CO_2 has increased over time like the integral of (some scaling constant times) the temperature anomaly. I can think of several ways human activity can fit in — for one thing, since there is a scaling constant, it could be contributing on an increasing linear scale (linear given the shortness of the graphed period). Indeed, the bulk of the CO_2 could be added by humans, with just a small temperature driven fluctuation causing the observed correlation, or nearly all of the CO_2 could be coming from some process that integrates the temperature (so that even if the temperature levels off, CO_2 continues to increase at the same rate). Or anything in between. The problem is that a nearly linear upward trend is strongly covariant with a straight line with the same upward trend, and you cannot therefore convincingly rule out alternative fits (sources) to the linear trend on the basis of correlation of fluctuation alone.
I find the latter (CO_2 increasing indefinitely (positive derivative) as the temperature levels with no additional contribution from humans) implausible. Why would it do this? Where is the CO_2 coming from?
And perhaps more importantly — while I would LOVE to believe that humans haven’t measurably affected global atmospheric CO_2 levels, the arithmetic doesn’t particularly stronly support that contention. Estimates of CO_2 production (many of which predate the IPCC and controversy) are pretty unanimous in adding up a nontrivial and ongoing human contribution. The real issue isn’t whether or not we are kicking in enough CO_2 to alter the atmosphere (I think the evidence and numbers are strongly supportive of the conclusion that we are), it is what the entire global carbon cycle looks like. Willis recent top post on the Bern model for CO_2 illustrated (in discussion) that this is not a no-brainer issue — rather it is a moderately difficult problem in open systems chemistry. It’s difficult to even positively identify the half-life of human-contributed CO_2 in the atmosphere or whether or not the system has the buffering capacity to effectively equilibrate.
Some aspects of the correlation you observe might admit confounding chemical or physical explanation, as well. Mauna Loa already exhibits a fairly regular seasonal variation around the general upward trend in smoothed CO_2, and seasonal means temperature dependent. But the actual CO_2 curve doesn’t really look much like the GISS temp curve.
So sadly, I’m not convinced that your graph is quite the smoking gun that you believe it to be. But perhaps I just don’t understand it.
rgb
Smokey says:
May 24, 2012 at 6:03 pm
“although a fraction of a degree warming …may be the result of radiative physics”
No doubt, the increase in CO2 is causing some warming, which is apparently being counteracted by negative feedback to the point where it is negligible. Otherwise, we would have continued warming for the last decade while CO2 levels increased.
But, it’s a moot question, because we are clearly not responsible for the rise in CO2, and there is therefore nothing we can do about it in any case.
rgbatduke says:
May 24, 2012 at 6:20 pm
“… for one thing, since there is a scaling constant, it could be contributing on an increasing linear scale (linear given the shortness of the graphed period)”
Which would mean that human input (as a rate) would have to be roughly constant. It isn’t.
Plot it. It’s a ramp. no room for that.
rgbatduke says:
May 24, 2012 at 6:20 pm
Bart says:
May 24, 2012 at 6:40 pm
Perhaps you would contend that you might be able to add a ramp in by scaling the temperature dependent input down. Then, you won’t match the fine detail as in the plot.
Occam’s razor – it’s almost all natural.
temp says:
May 24, 2012 at 12:28 pm
> Must say I don’t like this guy. He runs a retarded propaganda line…
Well, say what you must, but try to avoid ad hominem attacks, e.g. “This moron is basically trying to caste [sic] himself….”
Joe D’Aleo, Bob Carter, and Anthony Watts were the three people who influenced me the most when I became active in this sorry field. Bob and I exchanged some Emails over my first climate writings, and I was pleased he remembered me when I met him at the first Chicago ICCC. If you deem Bob to be a moron, how do you consider me?
And use your real name when you tell me where I rank.
rgbatduke says:
May 24, 2012 at 6:20 pm
And, keep in mind what these plots are showing. This is the derivative of CO2 with respect to time. And, it is proportional to temperature anomaly (with respect to the appropriate baseline). That means, when you integrate it, the result lags the temperature, That means, in this causal universe, temperature is driving CO2, and not the other way around.
It is not possible, e.g., to have humans driving CO2, and that driving temperature anomaly , because the temperature anomaly is not proportional to CO2, but to its rate of change.
The human attribution argument claims that the entire rise is attributable to half of the anthropogenic inputs. That leaves no room for this obvious correlation. To believe it, you have to believe this incredibly good agreement between the time series is just a coincidence.
That is simply untenable.
rgbatduke says:
May 24, 2012 at 6:20 pm
“But the actual CO_2 curve doesn’t really look much like the GISS temp curve.”
It looks very much like the integrated GISS temp curve.
“LazyTeenager says:
May 24, 2012 at 3:38 pm
So given a choice between a doing a little yourselves to avoid change, you are insisting do nothing and then have change rammed down your throats by mother nature. That might not be pleasant.
There is also avoidance of considering what adaption will mean and how effective it will be. Are you going to jack up Venice on stilts or are you going to say SUV yes, Venice too bad?”
The Reality of the the situation is:
The vast majority of Climate/weather related issues ‘blamed’ on CO2. Aren’t caused by CO2.
That includes Venice. Venice is sinking. And yes it does need ‘repiling’. The old piles are going further into the mud or disintegrating!
rgbatduke says:
May 24, 2012 at 6:20 pm
“Indeed, the bulk of the CO_2 could be added by humans, with just a small temperature driven fluctuation causing the observed correlation, or nearly all of the CO_2 could be coming from some process that integrates the temperature (so that even if the temperature levels off, CO_2 continues to increase at the same rate). Or anything in between.”
The temperature anomaly matches the CO2 derivative in every detail, long term, short term, and in-between. To say “I believe the match in the short term variation is OK, but not the long term match, both of which are excellent” is nonsensical.
Perhaps you would contend that you might be able to add a ramp in by scaling the temperature dependent input down. Then, you won’t match the fine detail as in the plot.
OK, suppose we try “Nitrate supply affects plant growth”. Nitrates come in two forms — lightning fixed “natural” nitrogen that is delivered to plants proportional to the frequency of thunderstorms, and by Farmer Joe. The growth rate of the plants varies (we will imagine) with total nitrate supply.
Farmer Joe delivers half of what the plants get in any given year (on average). It is delivered at a very steady rate (he uses time-release nitrogen that maintains a constant rate of delivery). Thunderstorms, on the other hand, are both seasonal and local in time — you might have one and then not have another for several weeks, or you might have one a day for a week. On average they deliver half of the total nitrogen used to make the plant grow, but of course they modulate the hell out of the growth rate because it is feast or famine. The resulting growth curve, detrended and rescaled (steps that make it absolutely impossible to assign fractional contributions to total nitrogen after the fact, BTW) will wiggle quite nicely with the thunderstorm rate and it will be really easy to forget the contribution of the tireless Farmer Joe.
The problem is that curve fitting, especially multivariate nonlinear curve fitting when you look only at rescaled anomalies, can be a deceptive process. It’s not Ockham’s Razor, it is that your assertion remains unproven because the evidence presented does not suffice to rule out human CO_2. Remember, by detrending you don’t know the constant that determines the fractional contribution.
So I remain unconvinced.
You also fail to address my observation that the real problem is way harder than that. CO_2 is contributed to and absorbed from the atmosphere by multiple channels. Some comes literally out of the ground from e.g. soil chemistry, breakdown of methane, and so on. Some comes from human or natural burning. The biosphere both absorbs and/or contributes. Some comes out of “general vulcanism” — outgassing of CO_2 either from the crust directly or from active volcanoes. But of course the elephant in the room CO_2-wise is the ocean — the ocean is an enormous CO_2 source and sink, holding order of 100x as much CO_2 as the atmosphere, and with a large number of dynamical mechanisms with different timescales that buffer the CO_2 content of the atmosphere, adding some or taking some away via first surface chemistry, then transporting it and doing any of a number of things with it in the middle and deep ocean. And best of all, a lot of the control parameters (e.g. time constants) describing all of this dynamic balance and feedback are either unknown or poorly known, measured or estimated from inadequate data and studies or filled with assumptions.
In this mix, the known, tallied, counted, measurable, utterly predictable and understandable human contribution stands out as one of the largest. You burn a certain amount of fossil fuels in a year, you get a certain amount of CO_2, it’s that simple, and that amount is not small, not in aggregate.
The question is then, how long does the human contributed CO_2 hang out? Which of the systems above absorb how much at what rate? How long do those systems hold onto it (it doesn’t do much good to absorb during the winter only to get it back when the water warms in the spring, but that’s exactly the kind of thing responsible for so<me of the observed thermal/seasonal correlation in the Mauna Loa data, the annual "ripple" on the smoothed curve)?
Note that answering any of these questions isn't as simple as saying "it's Nature, humans have nothing to do with it" because the rescaled fluctuations in the derivative of one curve happen to line up with the rescaled fluctuations in another. Nor is "Nature" a simpler explanation (and hence arguable for using Mr. Ockham, who actually can be and often is wrong, incidentally) if you can add up a human contribution that is definitely there and should be quite comparable to Nature. Why doesn’t the human contribution contribute? What happens to it? CO_2 doesn’t come with a label — once produced Nature doesn’t care who or what produced it.
Give me coherent answers to some of these questions and I might believe you. As I said, I’d love to think you are right — but that simply acknowledges a personal bias and has nothing to do with whether or not you probably ARE right. And every time I’ve looked into it in detail, I’ve ended up being convinced that you are not, that in fact one probably cannot explain the CO_2 concentration increase only from e.g. a warming ocean. But it even the negative conclusion is premature, because we really don’t know whether or how much or how fast or how permanently the ocean pulls CO_2 out of the atmosphere (driven by which parameters). A whole lot of unfinished work here…
rgb
We are not capable of predicting events beyond 10 or 20 years.
How do we propose to prepare our infrastructure for climate change when we do not know the direction of the change? If we build levees and raise buildings and the sea level drops, we will have wasted resources.
IMHO we have no right to bind our children to our fears.
Our highest priority should be clearing the public debt we are burdening them with. Otherwise our legacy will be as the generation who mortgaged our children.
Ric Werme says:
May 24, 2012 at 6:55 pm
I don’t know who you are and frankly unless you got something USEFUL to say i could care.
Letting them off the hook for whats been done is clearly moronic… at the least. This giving them life boats crap has to stop.
Someone please convince me otherwise, because I do not believe this has been adequately studied in the micro or macro, but I propose that the majority of the surface warming is due to land use changes. Funny enough, one of the most potent UHI changes – the removal of natural groundcover and forest with impermeable paving made of concrete and/or asphalt is a corollary to CO2.
Might also explain why CO2 and temperature have a step change relationship.
@temp
The key word in that quote would be “depicted”. We’re all “depicted” as deniers in certain circles, including himself.
@John Whitman
What profession would you suggest serve as scientific advisors to policy makers if not scientists?