Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

The head of the IPCC is not a climate scientist he is a railroad engineer

"Contrast it with wattsupwiththat.com, a site founded in November 2006 by a former Californian television weather forecaster named Anthony Watts. Dedicated at first to getting people to photograph weather stations to discover how poorly sited many of them are, the site has metamorphosed from a gathering place for lonely nutters to a three-million-hits-per-month online newspaper on climate full of fascinating articles by physicists, geologists, economists and statisticians."

http://www.spectator.co.uk/print/politic...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

"During the past few years I recruited a team of more than 650 volunteers to visually inspect and photographically
document more than 860 of these temperature stations. We were shocked by what we found.
We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads,
on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. We found 68 stations located at
wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas.
In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations – nearly 9 of every 10 – fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own
siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/
reflecting heat source."

GIGO

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.c...

V,

His experience concerns me less than his constituents, who routinely use unsound, incomplete or extrapolated data, biased models and lack meteorological soundness and throw it in our faces as if it was Gospel.

I won't dismiss AGW, because I believe it's one of those issues that might be good to believe in whether it's real or not, you know, like true love, or justice. Maintaining a healthy habitat is a good idea. That said, nothing we're doing is addressing the problem, which is, to use Dr. Bartletts analogy "Too many bacteria in the bottle".

That said, the IPCC, from a scientific standpoint, proves that "believing is seeing" with the scientitific method, and enough abstract evidence exists to prove just about whatever you want.
The scientific method has become: Form a hypothesis, test hypothesis, tweak numbers to match hypothesis, claim success.

I got about 4 pages into the report before I just decided it was probably all misleading - you know, like screwing up an equation during the first step or two is going to throw your entire solution into the bleachers.

Cheers,

Aaron

The simple problem with the way global warming is being studied is that it is focused on either supporting or refuting beliefs. As a result, egos are very tightly intertwined with the results and this is no way to go about scientific discovery - from either side of the debate. As long as this remains a politically charged, belief-driven issue, the truth will likely never be uncovered. Scientists are supposed to dispassionately test hypotheses in a lab, ideally with no particular desire for any outcome.

Probably one of the worst scenarios would be a crying wolf situation in which the IPCC loses all credibility if it is discovered that they are broadly and intentionally fabricating data. If this happens, we will be politically unable to deal with other threats we face (peak oil, the debt, etc.). Trust, once lost, is not easily regained.

Mike

You are correct that the whole issue is polluted by beliefs, but the truth is that there is a lot of science, some say overwhelming amount of data, supporting the existence of AGW.  Your construct of the science as being focused on either proving or disproving beliefs is incorrect.  It is being lead by massive amounts of data collected from around the globe.  The changing climate is becoming more pronounced as time goes by, and those changes are being carefully examined with scientific objectivity.  The degree to which legitimate scientists take time to respond to the frequent and frequently irresponsible attacks from the denialosphere, is the degree to which the denialists are winning the "belief" issue.  But, it has nothing to do with the science which proceeds apace.

The important issue that I would like to see examined is how the projections of warming may be influenced by peak fossil fuels.  Assuming less use of carbon based energy sources, there will be less acceleration of atmospheric CO2 concentrations.  However, I don't think there is much chance in the next few decades that warming will be significantly affected, as much of it is already programmed into the system.

Nonetheless, the combination of phenomena adds urgency to the need to transition to a different energy future.

Doug

Greg

Watts has made quite a name for himself as a denialist, but you should be a little more skeptical of his material.  Here's a systematic dismantling of a recent article of his by a real and respected climate scientist, John Nielsen-Gammon:

http://www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/atmosphere.html?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=54e0b21f-aaba-475d-87ab-1df5075ce621&plckPostId=Blog%3a54e0b21f-aaba-475d-87ab-1df5075ce621Post%3a1602a720-b2a5-47de-bf2d-3b62afcf88a6&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

The problem is that as there is less oil available we will move on to the other available energy sources which are even more polluting.  Dr CM points out that we use the highest grade resources first.  So the coal we will be burning will be lower and lower grade which means more polluting.  And shale oil extraction produces more CO2.  And shale gas extraction other toxic chemicals.

r

I agree that lower grades of fossil fuels present greater pollution problems.  Shale oil and tar sands are two that present some big problems, but I'm not sure to what extent the forms of pollution are ghg's.  Lower grade coal contains a lot more sulphur, but as far as I know, atmospheric sulphur compounds are not ghg's.  They cause acid rain.  Tar sands leave behind a god-awful mess on the landscape, but again, I don't know about effects on warming. 

It seems clear, however, that continued reliance on fossil fuels presents ever more serious environmental problems. 

Doug

<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/11/chinese-thinktank-copenhagen-\
document>


China's fears of rich nation 'climate conspiracy' at Copenhagen revealed 'Conspiracy to divide developing world' will make future talks harder,
says leaked government report Mark Lynas: How China wrecked chances of Copenhagen deal
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/22/copenhagen-climate-change-mar\
k-lynas>

* Jonathan Watts <http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/jonathanwatts>,
Damian Carrington
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/damiancarrington> and Suzanne Goldenberg <http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/suzannegoldenberg>
* guardian.co.uk <http://www.guardian.co.uk/>, Thursday 11 February 2010 15.30 GMT


Rich nations furthered their "conspiracy to divide the developing world" at December's UN climate summit in Copenhagen
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/copenhagen>, while Canada "connived" and the EU acted "to please the United States", according to
an internal document from a Chinese government thinktank obtained by the Guardian.

The document, which was written in the immediate aftermath of Copenhagen but has only now come to light, provides the most candid insight yet into Chinese thinking on the fraught summit.

"It was unprecedented for a conference negotiating process to be so complicated, for the arguments to be so intense, for the disputes to be
so wide and for progress to be so slow," notes the special report. "There was criticism and praise from all sides, but future negotiations
will be more difficult."

The authors - all members of a government environmental research institute - were not part of the Chinese negotiating team, but their
paper was commissioned by the environment ministry and circulated internally to the minister, vice-ministers and department chiefs in the
days after the conference. The ministry currently plays only a marginal role in climate policy making but many of the paper's observations were
echoed by China <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/china>'s chief climate negotiator, Xie Zhenhua, in a recent speech given at Beijing University.

The authors were downbeat about the prospects for international talks <http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/global-climate-agreement-rematch-2010> and China's position within them. "China, which was in the conference spotlight, played an active and constructive role, but was also under huge international pressure. It is predictable that our country will face a tougher challenge in future climate talks," it says.

Analysing international reaction to Copenhagen, the paper lists a selection of responses from the UN secretary-general <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/8926781>, the Chinese foreign minister <http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/20/copenhagen-climate-summit-china-reaction>, the European commissioner, prominent NGOs and major media organisations,
including the Guardian. It was written before the publication of the most strident criticisms of China's tactics by Mark Lynas
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/22/copenhagen-climate-change-mark-lynas>,
climate change <http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-change> adviser to the Maldives, and the UK climate and energy secretary, Ed Miliband <http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/20/copenhagen-climate-change-accord>.

Contrary to those views, the paper argues that the primary goal of China's negotiators was not to spoil the summit, but to resist a deal
from rich nations that would put an unacceptable burden on China and other developing countries. In their evaluation of the outcome, the officials' top point is that "the overall interests of developing countries have been defended" by resisting a rich nation "conspiracy" to abandon the Kyoto protocol <http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/17/developing-nations-kyoto>, and with it the legal distinction between rich nations that must cut carbon emissions and developing nations for whom action is not compulsory.

The internal report acknowledges that unity among China's traditional allies in the developing world became harder to maintain in Copenhagen.
"A conspiracy by developed nations to divide the camp of developing nations [was] a success," it said, citing the Small Island States'
demand that the Basic group of nations - Brazil, South Africa, India, China - impose mandatory emission reductions.

The paper is scathing about the US-led "umbrella group", which it says adopted a position of inaction. Canada, it says, "was devoted to
conniving" to convince the world that its pledge of a 3% emissions reduction between 1990 and 2020 is significant, while having no
intention of meeting its Kyoto protocol target of 6%.

There are no comforting words for the European Union, which used to pride itself on playing a leadership role in climate talks. "Copenhagen
was a setback for the EU", the authors say, in part because Europe "suggested the abandonment of the Kyoto protocol in order to please the
US." The ministry has not responded to the Guardian's request for a comment on the leaked paper.

The authors note that the Copenhagen accord <http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/19/copenhagen-closes-weak-deal>
which emerged from the summit was not legally binding and lacked a global target for emissions. But it says that overall the accord was a
"step forward", noting progress on a consensus to limit global warming within 2C, progress on the funding by rich nations of climate change
adaptation measures in poorer nations and a "last minute" compromise by developing nations on the verification of their carbon pledges
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/17/copenhagen-china-carbon-emissions-transparency>.

Lynas, who was present at many of the key negotiating sessions, said: "It's astonishing that this document suggests the Chinese really
believes the absurd conspiracy theory that small island states were being played like puppets by rich countries. The truth is that the small
island states and most vulnerable countries want China and its allies to cut their emissions because without these cuts they will not survive.
Bluntly put, China is the world's No1 emitter, and if China does not reduce its emissions by at least half by mid-century, then countries
like the Maldives will go under."

He added: "I think these claims of conspiracy are just a bullying tactic, to force more progressive developing countries back into line in
case they too start demanding more serious action by China."

Speaking last month, China's chief climate negotiator, Xie - who also serves as vice-minister of the National Development and Reform
commission which controls China's climate policy - also referred to the pressure from small island nations. "The rich nations were completely
trying to make conflict among developing countries," he said.

He also described the "international fight on climate change" as a contest for economic development space and stressed that the way forward
for China was to put more effort into building a low-carbon economy. "Countries with low-carbon industries will have a developmental
advantage," said Xie. "Some people believe this is a global competition as significant as the space race in the cold war. "

The concluding section of the leaked document proposes a series of constructive initiatives. In what appears to be a bid by the environment
ministry to play a greater role in carrying out climate-related policy, the report suggests amending air pollution control laws to include
greenhouse gas emissions.

The official US version about what happened at Copenhagen is also harsh. Todd Stern, the state department climate change envoy, said this week that the summit "a snarling, aggravated, chaotic event." But America attributes the difficulties to a central divide between those countries
- led by China - insisting rich countries bear the entire burden of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and the position held by the US that
rapidly emerging countries must also take action. Stern suggested the divide had not been bridged. China, along with India, South Africa and
Brazil, had been "ambiguous" in its follow-up commitments to the accord.

Tom Burke, the influential environmentalist and a founder of E3G consultants, said: "There was indeed a lot of work done to get developing nations to put pressure on China. [But] it was not a conspiracy of any kind unfortunately as Britain was acting entirely alone on this front. Neither our EU allies nor the US mounted any kind of diplomatic effort. Pretty well everyone in Copenhagen, not just the developed countries, complained about China's blocking tactics.

I ran across this article today.  The resident denialists may want to avert their gaze, as it is about and by a real climate scientist, Andrew Lacis of the Goddard Institute, whose previously published views were mischaracterized by the denialist blogosphere.  Contrary to the spin, he is quite clearly in the AGW camp.  His objection to AR4 was that the executive summary wasn't explicit enough in explaining the science:

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/nasa-scientist-adds-to-views-on-climate-panel/

Human-induced warming of the climate system is widespread. Anthropogenic warming of the climate system can be detected in temperature observations taken at the surface, in the troposphere and in the oceans. Multi-signal detection and attribution analyses, which quantify the contributions
of different natural and anthropogenic forcings to observed changes, show that greenhouse gas forcing alone during the past half century would likely have resulted in greater than the observed warming if there had not been an offsetting cooling effect from aerosol and other forcings. It is extremely unlikely (&lt;5%) that the global pattern of warming during the past half century can be explained without external forcing, and very unlikely that it is due to known natural external causes alone. The warming occurred in both the ocean and the atmosphere and took place at a time when natural external forcing factors would likely have produced cooling.

Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years. This conclusion takes into account observational and forcing uncertainty, and the possibility that the response to solar forcing could be underestimated by climate models. It is also robust to the use of different climate models, different methods for estimating the responses to external forcing and variations in the analysis technique.

Further evidence has accumulated of an anthropogenic influence on the temperature of the free atmosphere as measured by radiosondes and satellite-based instruments. The observed pattern of tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling is very likely due to the influence of anthropogenic forcing, particularly greenhouse gases and stratospheric ozone depletion. The combination of a warming troposphere and a cooling stratosphere has likely led to an increase in the height of the tropopause. It is likely that anthropogenic forcing has contributed to the general warming observed in the upper several hundred meters of the ocean during the latter half of the 20th century. Anthropogenic forcing, resulting in thermal expansion from ocean warming and glacier mass loss, has very likely contributed to sea level rise during the latter half of the 20th century. It is difficult to quantify the contribution of anthropogenic forcing to ocean heat content increase and glacier melting with presently available detection and attribution studies.

Dr. Lacis goes on to recommend to the IPCC that (in my reading) the IPCC write it's executive summaries assuming that the policy makers, for whom they are written, can be treated like grown-ups who can either understand the science or have staffs who can explain it to them.  This would to some extent obviate the need to continually rebutt the irresponsible criticisms written largely in the blogosphere by those who have stakes in misleading those unwillling to investigate the science.

Doug