What it would take to persuade me that current climate policy makes sense
Guest post by Matt Ridley
I have written about climate change and energy policy for more than 25 years. I have come to the conclusion that current energy and climate policy is probably more dangerous, both economically and ecologically, than climate change itself. This is not the same as arguing that climate has not changed or that mankind is not partly responsible. That the climate has changed because of man-made carbon dioxide I fully accept. What I do not accept is that the change is or will be damaging, or that current policy would prevent it.
For the benefit of supporters of climate change policy who feel frustrated by the reluctance of people like me to accept their assurances, here is what they would need to do to change my mind.
1. I need persuading that the urban heat island effect has been fully purged from the surface temperature record. Satellites are showing less warming than the surface thermometers, and there is evidence that local warming of growing cities, and poor siting of thermometers, is still contaminating the global record. I also need to be convinced that the adjustments made by those who compile the global temperature records are justified. Since 2008 alone, NASA has added about 0.1C of warming to the trend by unexplained “adjustments” to old records. It is not reassuring that one of the main surface temperature records is produced by an extremist prepared to get himself arrested (James Hansen).
2. Despite these two contaminating factors, the temperature trend remains modest: not much more than 0.1 C per decade since 1979. So I would need persuading that water vapour will amplify CO2’s effect threefold in the future but has not done so yet. This is what the models assume despite evidence that clouds formed from water vapour are more likely to moderate than amplify any warming.
3. Nor am I convinced that sulphate aerosols and ocean heat uptake can explain the gap between model predictions and actual observations over the last 34 years. Both are now well understood and provide insufficient excuse for such an underperformance. Negative cloud feedback, leading to total feedbacks being modest, is the more plausible explanation.
4. The one trend that has been worse than expected – Arctic sea ice – is plausibly explained by black carbon (soot), not carbon dioxide. Soot from dirty diesel engines and coal-fired power stations is now reckoned to be a far greater factor in climate change than before; it is a short-lived pollutant, easily dealt with by local rather than global action. So you would need to persuade me that this finding, by explaining some recent climate change, does not further reduce the likely sensitivity of the atmosphere to carbon dioxide. Certainly, it “buys time”.
5. Even the Met Office admits that the failure of the models to predict the temperature standstill of the last 16 years is evidence that natural factors can match man-made ones. We now know there is nothing unprecedented about the level and rate of change of temperature today compared with Medieval, Roman, Holocene Optimum and other post-glacial periods, when carbon dioxide levels did not change significantly, but temperatures did. I would need persuading that natural factors cannot continue to match man-made ones.
6. Given that we know that the warming so far has increased global vegetation cover, increased precipitation, lengthened growing seasons, cause minimal ecological change and had no impact on extreme weather events, I need persuading that future warming will be fast enough and large enough to do net harm rather than net good. Unless water-vapour-supercharged, the models suggest a high probability of temperatures changing less than 2C, which almost everybody agrees will do net good.
7. Nor is it clear that ecosystems and people will fail to adapt, for there is clear evidence that adaptation has already vastly reduced damage from the existing climate – there has been a 98% reduction in the probability of death from drought, flood or storm since the 1920s, for example, and malaria retreated rapidly even as the temperature rose during the twentieth century.
8. So I cannot see why this relatively poor generation should bear the cost of damage that will not become apparent until the time of a far richer future generation, any more than people in 1900 should have borne sacrifices to make people today slightly richer. Or why today’s poor should subsidise, through their electricity bills, today’s rich who receive
subsidies for wind farms, which produce less than 0.5% of the country’s energy.
9. Indeed I will need persuading that dashing to renewables can cut emissions rather than make them worse; this is by no means certain given that the increased use of bioenergy, such as wood or corn ethanol, driven by climate policies, is indeed making them worse.11 Meanwhile shale gas use in the USA has led to a far greater cut in emissions than
any other technology, yet it is opposed every step of the way by climate alarmists.
10. Finally, you might make the argument that even a very small probability of a very large and dangerous change in the climate justifies drastic action. But I would reply that a very small probability of a very large and dangerous effect from the adoption of large-scale
renewable energy, reduced economic growth through carbon taxes or geo-engineering also justifies extreme caution. Pascal’s wager cuts both ways.
At the moment, it seems highly likely that the cure is worse than disease.
We are taking chemotherapy for a cold.
Full paper with graphs and references here
Related articles
- A climate of scepticism (wattsupwiththat.com)
- Matt Ridley responds with a “sleight of hand” (scienceblogs.com)
- Matt Ridley’s actual response (wattsupwiththat.com)
- The Lukewarmer’s Way
richard verney says:
January 29, 2013 at 1:10 am
He sat on a beach and said that during the day, the sand receive high quality ordered energy from the sun. The sand then radiates (especially at night) the energy that it has received. However, whilst it gives up the energy that it receives, the energy that it radiates is ‘a lower quality disordered energy’. That energy is ‘less useful and can do less work’. He actually said it can do less work.
I had a number of issues with some of the comments made throughout the programne and he talked quite a bit about the 2nd law of thermodynamics indicating that was perhaps one of the very few universal laws of physics. He did not really explain it, nor did he mention the law of entropy. However, I suspect that that was what he really was getting at, the inevitable and unremitting procession towards disorder…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I am not a physicist so take this with a grain of salt.
First ‘ordered’ and ‘disordered’ light/energy probably refers to coherent light such as the light from a laser. This has a decent simple explanation of coherence and other properties of light. Polarization, Coherence and Interference
The blog thread Optics basics: Coherence has another good discussion of the coherence of sunlight.
I think when he speaks of a lower quality energy he might be referring to the actual energy (ability to do work) of an individual wavelength.
This graph show the relationship between high energy sunlight and low energy earthshine quite well. (Think of it as a billion dollars vs pennies) Since the incoming energy is roughly equal to the outgoing energy that means there are a heck of a lot more ‘wavelengths’ in earthshine than in the sunlight. Here is another graph of the same information. link (this is why this graph is so deceptive. The effect of GHG on sunlight will be much greater than the effect on earthshine interms of energy.)
This chart gives the energy value for different wavelength categories. This gives an explanation of the chart link
Hope that helps. (I certainly think he mucked up the explanation by not using the correct terms. A good way to keep people from doing any independent research on the concepts presented isn’t it.)
The link in this sentence didn’t work: “This has a decent simple explanation of coherence and other properties of light. Polarization, Coherence and Interference.” I double checked my copy and it should have.
the link was: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&ved=0CF4QFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iet.ntnu.no%2FCourses%2Ftfe4160%2FNotater%2FPolarization%2C%2520coherence%2C%2520interference%2520and%2520lasers.pdf&ei=4LgHUdyyKJSe9QTlmYEo&usg=AFQjCNF7Kpe6n9r_Ub0i34xflj_O5_uuHg
Julian Flood says: @ur momisugly January 29, 2013 at 1:40 am
…You realise that one could carry out experiments to see which of us is correct? What next, putting some science into the discussion? Demanding that biological responses to warming, cooling and pollution be incorporated into the settled science? We’d better be careful, might get drummed off the internets….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Oh wouldn’t it be great to include biology and geology in the discussion!
DirkH says:
January 29, 2013 at 4:10 am
” That the climate has changed because of man-made carbon dioxide I fully accept. ”
It has still not been demonstrated. The “attribution” and “fingerprinting” studies are junk….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
EM Smith has a good thread explaining why “The “attribution” and “fingerprinting” studies are junk,” that Matt Ridley should read. link
davidmhoffer says:
January 28, 2013 at 11:15 pm
Ask yourself why Dr. Ball is being hit with TWO lawsuits by “prominent” climate scientists. If you respond with “it was what he wrote”, I will laugh for two reasons. One, they have written far worse about him. Two, others have said far worse things about them. Give that big brain of yours a shake.
John Brookes says:
“Only actual warming and consequent disasters will convince you, and even then I suspect you’ll still have doubts.”
Since there is zero evidence or indication of global “disasters” as a result of [natural, beneficial] global warming, why should we take your alarmism seriously?
I’m not sure exactly what “lukewarmer” means. I believe it means
* The greenhouse effect is real (no matter how misnamed).
* CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
* Human activities have increased the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
* Human activities are therefore responsible for some of the recent warming.
* However, there is no evidence that CAGW, impending climate disasters, etc., are real problems to be addressed.
* There is no proof the effects of more warming will be more harmful than beneficial.
Is that about right?
>Since 2008 alone, NASA has added about 0.1C of warming to the trend by unexplained “adjustments” to old records.
Actually, since Dec 2012, NASA has added over .05C of warming to the trend. The last GISTEMP update has systematically raised temperatures for the past few decades while lowering them for the 1920s and 1930s.
Only actual cooling and consequent disasters will convince you, and even then I suspect you’ll still have doubts.
“That the climate has changed because of man-made carbon dioxide I fully accept.”
Well personally I don’t think that’s a particularly controversial statement and well qualified by the points that followed it. Anthropogenic CO2 is of course the result of burning fossil fuels or running the earth’s storage battery if you like. The obvious release of heat energy involved is the primary stuff of thermometers rising near aircond outlets for starters and then there’s the secondary effects of all that bitumen, concrete, steel and tile roofing, not to mention changing albedo through land clearing and plain old soot. Extracting that lot from some perceived ‘primary’ CO2 greenhouse effect seems extremely problematic, even before turning my gaze outward to the heavens for more answers.
Taking that into consideration I am quite lukewarm about CO2, even before all the cherry-picking, thermometer reading manipulations, tricks and hiding of declines with tree rings. What comes first from the burning of fossil fuels seems completey indivisible and rather anachronistic to me now.
As interesting as this might be I would personally like to see you, Steve Mosher address his other point …
… and finally explain what that number should be coming out of that well-known multi-decadal global cooling period of the 1960’s to 1970’s. I also want to know what the number should be coming out of that other well-known multi-century global cooling period of the Little Ice Age.
When I ask what it should be I am looking for a simple explanation of whether we should still be in the cooler 1960’s to 1970’s climate or the cooler Little Ice Age. Has human activity accidentally saved us from the cold or are we warming right on schedule like we are supposed to be?
The climate hoaxsters all sound to me like advocates for a deep freeze and appear genuinely upset that man has adapted to the current ice age so well by putting tiny little pinpricks into the surface of the planet and recycling long buried and liquefied fossils into useful heat. The ugly “alternative” to this recycling was already used for thousands of years prior to the oil age when humans burned everything in sight on Earth’s surface, alive or dead, plant or animal, to keep warm. I think are modern way is better, both for us and for the plant and animal slaughter that has been so greatly reduced.
No economic stress, therefore, could be caused on the economies of Spain, Germany, Denmark, the UK, etc. from such measures then, as statistics there are beginning to indicate, and as bigshots (and those suffering fuel poverty) are beginning to complain? It’s all just hypochondria or shortsighted greed they’re suffering from?
richard verney says:
January 29, 2013 at 1:10 am
He sat on a beach and said that during the day, the sand receive high quality ordered energy from the sun. The sand then radiates (especially at night) the energy that it has received. However, whilst it gives up the energy that it receives, the energy that it radiates is ‘a lower quality disordered energy’. That energy is ‘less useful and can do less work’. He actually said it can do less work.
====================
What Professor Cox meant by lower quality, is just that it is at a lower temperature. Work can be done by heat when there is a heat gradient, so the sun, being very hot, can cause a lot of work to be done. When you get to the warm sand, what happens, is that the same amount of energy is there, in joules, but because the temperature is quite low, it would be very difficult to get any work out of it. Indeed, you would only be talking about a few degrees temperature gradient between the sand and the air.
The other point you raised, about lower quality energy being returned in back radiation being of less importance than the original energy, is, I think, not relevant. We are primarily interested in the relationship between temperature and radiation density, as described by the Stefan-Boltzman equation. It is the quantity of energy falling per second on the surface that results in that surface having a specific temperature. The low quality energy from the back radiation, is measured in joules, just the same as high quality energy, so it’s effects on the surface temperature would not be affected. The ability to do work does not come into it.
David Ball says:
January 29, 2013 at 6:21 am
davidmhoffer says:
January 28, 2013 at 11:15 pm
Ask yourself why Dr. Ball is being hit with TWO lawsuits by “prominent” climate scientists. If you respond with “it was what he wrote”, I will laugh for two reasons. One, they have written far worse about him. Two, others have said far worse things about them. Give that big brain of yours a shake.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Oh for gawd’s sake! I’ve read plenty of what Dr Ball has written and he is no sl@yer. The law suits against him I am also familiar with and have nothing, zero, nada, to do with the sl@yer argument. His criticisms of cagw meme are rooted in actual science not sl@yer crap. Give YOUR head a shake.
– – – – – – –
More Soylent Green!,
You did a good job in attempting to synthesize what the ‘lukewarmer’ position might be. It is often presented in many forms by many individuals, many of whom eschew the validity of the idea of a ‘lukewarmer’ position. So, it is a confusing situation.
I suggest one of several possible ideas about ‘lukewarmism’ is that it is a position held by certain individuals with non-expert / non-professional concerns about AGW in order to avoid the sharp pointed extremes of the scientifically contentious arguments.
The Earth-Atmospheric System’s response to man’s activities provides, to the non-professional, an infinite opportunity for picking out slick PR labels. I think the professional scientists mock names like ‘lukewarmer’. N’est ce pas?
John
More Soylent Green! says:
January 29, 2013 at 6:47 am
I’m not sure exactly what “lukewarmer” means. I believe it means
* The greenhouse effect is real (no matter how misnamed).
* CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
* Human activities have increased the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
* Human activities are therefore responsible for some of the recent warming.
* However, there is no evidence that CAGW, impending climate disasters, etc., are real problems to be addressed.
* There is no proof the effects of more warming will be more harmful than beneficial.
Is that about right?
I believe it is. In a nutshell, they accept the idea that there is a human fingerprint on the recent warming. They just can’t show it to you.
davidmhoffer:
You keep repeating the phrase: “Even a child understands…” Sir, that type of logical fallacy (appeal to authority) has no place in scientific discussions. Why don’t you offer some type of EVIDENCE to support your position? I already did, and you did not refute it in any logical way. You just claimed that “Even a child understands..” That is no argument, just hot gas.
Here’s another thing to ponder: the dry lapse rate depends upon only on the heat capacity of the molecules and the gravitational effect (lapse rate = g/Cp). If backradiation somehow helps “keep the heat in the air,” or “slows down the rate of cooling,” then we should have a different lapse rate equation for those gases that interact with IR, no? But we do not. Please explain.
I return to my original point which you avoided probably because it is an uncomfortable analogy for you. Censoring non-abusive and on topic comments because you do not agree with them is what sites like SkepticalScience does, not what WUWT does.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Well by all means let’s welcome back the slayers then. Contrails too. The earth is flat by the way, just look our your window and see with your own eyes. you must be stupid if you can’t see that it is flat. The sun circles the earth by the way, that should be obvious too, happens every day, just keep track yourself.
I’ve noticed that richardscourtney, joel shore, rgbatduke, ira glickstein, leif svalgaard and many others have given up trying to address this drivel, and I am next. Which leaves the drivel spouters to spout their drivel unopposed. The inmates are taking over the asylum.
@Patrick Guinness Frank
No. Water molecules that are moving faster can break free of surface tension more easily. That is all it is. Not a climate model in sight.
And to all that are congratulating Matt on writing great books like Genome and The Red Queen, please note that these great books (and they are) were written by Mark Ridley. Matt Ridley wrote his own pretty good book, The Rational Optimist, which I have read and recommend.
@climatebeagle
A) is pretty easy to show. Rain. Molecules of water prefer to associate with each other than remain mixed with atmospheric gases. This preference creates surface tension. Overcoming surface tension requires a certain energy. As the temperature of the collected water rises, more molecules have that energy and can escape. Higher temperature = more water escaping. Basic physics.
Yes B) is also basic physics.
Dr. Ball is currently a big part of the fake slayer journal “principia” though has taken a step back from the ridiculous “Slaying the Sky Dragon”. IMHO he’s fence sitting on the outhouse fence. He’d do well to just step away from all of it.
jae;
Why don’t you offer some type of EVIDENCE to support your position?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I did. Just read the rest of the sentence.
@RogerKnights
No, that is not what I said. I was pointing out that Ridley’s ‘chemotherapy’ analogy was of the wrong scale. I’m no fan of biofuels that raise food prices. I would much rather see a well regulated nuclear power industry around the world beating down the problem of AGW and spreading electricity to poverty stricken areas. These are policy choices and deserve debate.
Anthony Watts says:
January 29, 2013 at 9:44 am
Dr. Ball is currently a big part of the fake slayer journal “principia” though has taken a step back from the ridiculous “Slaying the Sky Dragon”. IMHO he’s fence sitting on the outhouse fence. He’d do well to just step away from all of it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I’ve read a considerable number of Dr Ball’s papers which are excellent science. I was unaware that anything he had written had shown up at principia. If he’s taken a step back, then good, I would join you in urging him to step away completely.
The first physics problem I ever had to verify via experimentation involved beer. The problem was to put a bottle of warm beer in a cold river, take the temperature at one minutes and five minutes and from those two data points extrapolate the temperature of the beer at any point in time in the future. Five pages of calculus and I solved it. Professor said prove it. So, I took a completely different approach to the math and physics that produced the same answer. That’s not proof said the professor. He produced two cases of warm beer, a pack of thermometers, and marched the class down to the river bank and told us to prove out work.
So we did.
I got an A. If I’d used what passes for physics at principia and the whole sl@yer bs load of garbage I would have flunked.
@ur momisugly David M Hoffer from the slayer fake journal website: http://principia-scientific.org/about/principles-of-association.html
Bold mine.
=================
FOUNDING MEMBERS
IBritish legal analyst and science writer, John O’Sullivan pursued a vision to form a large body of experts united in opposing the worst excesses of government-funded science. PSI would succeed where lone voices had failed.From the outset PSI was driven by retired Dutch Analytical Chemist, Hans Schreuder, Texan engineer and science writer, Joseph A. Olson and Canada’s most popular climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball. Dr. Ball is the appointed Chair of PSI.
In July 2011 PSI published the first of a series of science papers under the optimistic banner of Principia Scientific International. All PSI’s published papers are thoroughly peer-reviewed among a team of highly qualified experts. PSI is particularly proud of all it’s papers not least our first by Biologist, Professor Nasif Nahle and Astrophysicist, Joe Postma. These and all our subsequent free-to-view papers are located in the ‘Publications’ section of this website.
Konrad, your original comment, to which I was responding, i.e., here, concerned the radiation effects of CO2, only.
My replies concerned the radiation effects of CO2, only. The term, “Effective Radiating Level” occurred nowhere in any of my posts. Nor was I playing “math games.”
CO2 does not re-radiate IR in the troposphere. It can’t do, because the collisional deactivation time is too short; much, much shorter than the re-radiation deactivation time. That’s not a math game, that’s an experimental fact.
I understand that you have a point you want to establish. But you should leave CO2 out of it. It’s not a radiative gas in the troposphere in the sense you mean; at least not in the 15 micron band.
DvunK, constant relative humidity has been an assumption in climate models at least since the time of Manabe and Wetherall in 1967. But it has not been demonstrated to occur in the climate. David Stockwell has an accessible and critical summary discussion here.