Eli Rabett has posted the text of a statement made by Ben Santer at the recent AGU meeting (reproduced with Santer’s permission). I’ll assume that Santer wants his message made more public and that he won’t object to my also reproducing it here.
But first my opinion: we’ve wasted enough time listening to the objections of those who raise doubts rooted in ignorance. For a time, it was valid — even necessary — to consider all dissenting views. But the “doubters” have had far more than their fair share of attention. They’ve been trying to tear down climate science for a decade or more, and have failed utterly.
Further argument from those who have nothing new to add or insightful to contribute is wasted time in the face of impending trouble. They no longer add to understanding, just obfuscation. They have had their “day in court” — and then some — now the jury is in.
As spoken at the AGU 2009 Fall Meeting.
These remarks reflect the personal opinions of B.D. Santer. They do not represent the official views of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory or the U.S. Department of Energy.
We live in extraordinary scientific and political times.
Over the course of less than a dozen generations, humanity has transitioned from a passive bystander to an active agent of change in the climate system. We are now aware of this fundamental change in our role in the world. We can no longer plead ignorance.
As climate scientists, this is what we know with great confidence:
* We know that human activities have changed the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
* We know that these changes in the composition of the atmosphere have had profound effects on Earth’s climate.
* We know that the human “fingerprint” on climate will become ever more visible over the next few decades, and will impact many aspects of our lives.
* We know that we are at a crossroads in human history. The decisions our political leaders reach in Copenhagen – or fail to reach – will shape the world inherited by future generations.
Our political leadership must have access to the best-available scientific information. Without this information, they will be unable to reach wise decisions on how to respond to the problem of human-caused climate change.
The clearest, most complete assessment of the science is contained in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in the Synthesis and Assessment Products of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, and in the scientific assessments of the U.S. National Academy and the Science Academies of other nations. These assessments all underscore the reality of a “discernible human influence” on global climate.
As scientists, we must be free to contribute to such assessments. We must be free to follow the science wherever it leads us, without fear of interference when we “speak truth to power”.
Sadly, climate scientists now see and feel interference from political and economic interests. This interference is pervasive. Powerful forces are using a criminal act – the theft of over a thousand emails from the U.K.’s Climatic Research Unit – to advance their own agendas.
These “forces of unreason” seek to constrain our ability to speak truth to power. They seek to skew and distort what we know about the nature and causes of climate change. Having failed to undermine climate science itself, they seek to destroy the reputations of individual climate scientists. They seek to destroy men like Phil Jones and Mike Mann, who have devoted their entire careers to the pursuit of scientific knowledge and understanding.
We must not let this stand.
We no longer have the luxury of remaining silent on these issues. We all have voices. We need to use them.
Benjamin D. Santer
John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur FellowSan Ramon, California
December 14, 2009*
124 responses so far ↓
Nick Barnes // December 17, 2009 at 2:11 pm |
Yes. So what do we do about skeptics? The noise machine is very powerful and does continually generate doubt and misunderstanding in honest people. A long-standing policy suggestion, which some people seem to use effectively is this:
1. Choose a single debunking site. There are several. Choose one which has a clear and separate response to every denialist talking point, comment threads, and good index and cross-linking.
2. Every time a skeptic, real or faking, troll or not, shows up saying “I heard it was the sun”, or “what about the trick to hide the decline”, or “CO2 lags temperature”, or any one of the 30 or 40 other common mistakes, the only response should be this:
“This is a frequently-asked question. See *here*. For more information, see *list of rebuttals*. If you have related questions, please take them up there.”
Just boiler-plate. No conversation, no dialog.
Eli Rabett // December 17, 2009 at 3:08 pm |
This should be spread. Eli had a bit of follow up, an important part of which is that the entire climate science community is increasingly impatient with the denialists, that patience has worn thin and it is time to move on to consideration and an improved understanding of the consequences of global climate change especially on the regional and local level.
Part of this is to cut no slack for the denialists, and this will involve important changes in the peer review process so that corrections to trash can appear immediately.
Donald Oats // December 18, 2009 at 8:15 am |
There is a rousing discussion about one such attack parrot, namely Plimer, running over at John Quiggin’s blog (Prof Q is an economist, but the good kind).
For those not in the know, make sure to follow Prof Q’s link to the ABC Lateline interview b/n Plimer and himself, sorry I mean George Monbiot. Plimer had his clock dialled, metaphorically speaking.
But, Plimer pops up now at Nigel Lawson’s new think tank in the UK, attacking AGW. The wack’a'mole game is a game no longer. We need to use bigger mallets.
While I’m at it, David Karoly has had a formal complaint of academic misconduct against him, for, well read this article, last couple of paragraphs. The rest of the article is a bit of a worry too!
Gavin's Pussycat // December 18, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Perhaps I should get new glasses… for a fleeting moment I read ‘Plimer had his c*ck nailed, metaphorically speaking’ ;-)
Berbalang // December 17, 2009 at 3:49 pm |
What I think should be done is to show loudly how the denial machine works.
The denialists privately realize that the science of global warming is very good, but the evidence for it forms a chain of reasoning. In order to manufacture doubt they have adopted a strategy like an onion in that there are layers of doubt questioning each link in the chain. The probability that questioning any one link is low, but by questioning each link they hope to snag people at some level. The End Game is the “It’s too late to do anything about it so we will need fossil fuel in order to survive what’s happening to the climate. Besides there’s nothing left of the environment so there is no reason we can’t drill where we want.”
Their evil should be exposed.
joe // December 17, 2009 at 4:50 pm |
I’m no scientist and this may be a very dumb question, but how do we know, with absolute certainty, that CO2 is the primary climate forcing causing climate change? Please be kind.
[Response: If you don't want to be treated unkindly, don't ask misleading questions. Santer doesn't say we know anything with "absolute certainty," he says "great confidence." We don't even know that cigarette smoking contributes to lung cancer with "absolute certainty" -- but the degree of certainty is more than sufficient to justify quitting smoking.
There's a heckuva lot of science behind the great confidence in man-made global warming, and the degree of certainty is more than sufficient to justify preventing the impending changes.
If you want absolute certainty stick to mathematics alone.]
san quintin // December 17, 2009 at 6:19 pm |
Hi Joe
Basic risk management would suggest that we take climate change seriously. Even without absolute certainty (which you are never going to get in predictions of a complex system) the potential outcomes if we do nothing are so serious that we should do almost anything to reduce their probability. Even spending trillions of dollars to decarbonise our economies (which we have to do anyway because of peak oil and ocean acidification). It’s a bit of a no-brainer.
caerbannog // December 17, 2009 at 6:48 pm |
I’m no scientist and this may be a very dumb question, but how do we know, with absolute certainty, that CO2 is the primary climate forcing causing climate change?
Joe, you and I agree about two things.
1) You are no scientist.
2) That was a really dumb question.
Please be kind.
Scientists have been far too kind to you and your ilk for far too long. In the future, don’t expect polite responses to your smarmy questions.
So HAND. And STFU.
joe // December 17, 2009 at 7:09 pm |
Fine, but isn’t putting all are eggs (and cash) in one basket to address CO2 only a problem if 10 years from now we find out that while CO2 is an important forcing in AGW, it is not the primary or only important one? Isn’t this a reasonable concern?
[Response: Suppose we find out 10 years from now that cigarette smoking has nothing to do with lung cancer. Nothing at all. Isn't that a reasonable concern?
Answer: no, because the probability of that is too low to constitute a "reasonable doubt." It's the same with global warming.]
guthrie // December 17, 2009 at 7:41 pm |
Joe – CO2 is the probably the easiest problem to sort right now, apart from emissions of various fluorocarbons, which I think have been decreasing anyway. Stuff like methane is a bit harder to deal with given the various sources, whereas as noted already, we’ll have to kick the CO2 habit because of decrease in oil and gas and ocean acidification.
dhogaza // December 17, 2009 at 7:46 pm |
Along with what Tamino says, there are positive benefits to controlling CO2 anyway.
Imagine our having an economy freed of its huge dependency on oil and coal. Imagine, when Saudi Arabia tries to make us dance her tune, that we can drop our pants and shoot ‘em the moon …
joe // December 17, 2009 at 7:47 pm |
Tamino,
I do appreciate you polite responses…thank you.
caerbannog,
I represent Joe six pack… two 1/2 kids, two cars and a labrador retriever in the yard. I have an Open Mind, but your side still needs to convince people just like me the the sacrifice is worth it if you ever expect to prevail politically on this issue. Anyone following your juvenile lead must be a fool.
David B. Benson // December 17, 2009 at 8:11 pm |
joe // December 17, 2009 at 4:50 pm — Here is BPL’s succient espostion.
Barton Paul Levenson:
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas (Tyndall 1859).
2. CO2 is rising (Keeling et al. 1958).
3. The new CO2 is mainly from burning fossil fuels (Suess 1955).
4. Temperature is rising (NASA GISS, Hadley CRU, UAH, RSS, etc.).
5. The increase in temperature correlates with the increase in CO2 (60–76% for temp. anomaly and ln CO2 for 1880-2007). See
http://bartonpaullevenson.com/Correlation.html
And completely worked out already in 1979 CE:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12181&page=R1
WHile fully explained for the intelligent layman in “The Discovery of Global Warming” by Spencer Weart:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html
joe // December 17, 2009 at 9:32 pm |
Thanks David
Nick Barnes // December 17, 2009 at 8:52 pm |
How do we know that CO2 is the primary climate forcing causing climate change?
Among other reasons:
- Because we know how much forcing there is from CO2; and
- because there are no other forcing changes of similar size; and
- because we know how much global warming there is.
[I]sn’t putting all [our] eggs (and cash) in one basket to address CO2 only a problem if 10 years from now we find out that while CO2 is an important forcing in AGW, it is not the primary or only important one?
No, that wouldn’t be particularly a problem. Firstly, it isn’t going to happen, for the reasons I give above. Secondly, the proposals to reduce CO2 are not going to damage anything very much, and in fact are going to drive some useful and important innovations and industries, and are going to reduce several other important problems (e.g. ocean acidification and oil dependence). So if we discover that in fact global warming is due to the Invisible Giant Space Goat, we haven’t lost anything.
Isn’t this a reasonable concern?
It is reasonable to be concerned. The sensible reaction to concern is to find out more about the risks. The facts are out there: ask a scientist. The foolish reaction to concern is to hide your head in the sand and pretend that there is no danger.
KenM // December 17, 2009 at 8:59 pm |
I think Joe brings up a very important point. Folks have been talking about Global Warming for quite a while now, but I sense it has only very recently begun to show up on the radar of Joe and Jane six-pack. And he’s right – you will not get anywhere without their understanding and support. Most people I know only have a very limited understanding of the theories and science behind them. I can very easily persuade almost all of them one way or the other. It’s not hard to do if you’re moderately informed.
On the other hand, I believe people with strong political views cannot be swayed one way or the other. Their politics informs their “skepticism” or “belief.”
The people in the middle can be persuaded one way or the other, and I think it is just human nature to reject arguments from nasty people – no matter how knowledgeable they appear.
guthrie // December 17, 2009 at 10:30 pm |
I don’t know about the USA, but here in the UK we’ve had global warming in the papers and popular science magazines especially since the early 90’s. I suspect most people have heard about it by now, and an appreciable percentage have actually thought about or done something.
Myself, I have an insulated loft, cavity wall insulation and energy saving lightbulbs, and my last new car was 10mpg more efficient than the old one.
There isn’t much more I can do as an individual, my gas bill is already at about £180 per year for a 2 bedroom flat. Thats less than a third of the UK average.
So what I’ve seen for the last 2 or 3 years has been increased vehemence by denialists and extremists who hate environmentalists.
Yet there are millions more houses which would benefit from cavity wall insulation like I have, but people don’t seem to be interested enough to take the reasonably simple steps which would save them hundreds of pounds a year, never mind helping save the planet.
KenM // December 17, 2009 at 11:01 pm
I hear ya Guthrie. I looked in to radiant heat + solar for my home. It would have set me back in the 30K (dollar) range, assuming I did the bulk of the work myself. At the time I wasn’t sure I would be staying there long enough to justify the cost. There’s a lot of more meaningful stuff I’d like to do beyond fluorescent lights bulbs but money money money is always a problem.
To me it makes absolutely no sense, regardless of what you think of AGW, to *not* do these things, so yeah, I hear ya.
yenna // December 17, 2009 at 9:08 pm |
I´m just a lurking semi scientifically educated reader, but I want to record that I completely agree with Santer in that the recent level and methods of attacks constitute a threat to the freedom of science, and against that I fully support him, Jones, and Mann, who I regard as inspiring examples of scientists, whatever the outcome of East Anglia´s internal investigation.
Deep Climate // December 17, 2009 at 9:20 pm |
I feel this may be a relevant contribution (and I do quote Santer at the end):
http://deepclimate.org/2009/12/17/wegman-report-ghostwriter-revealed/
Wegman ghostwriter revealed
Berbalang // December 17, 2009 at 9:30 pm |
Joe, there are ways of reducing emissions without sacrifices and there are ways of reducing emissions that make your life miserable. It depends on how you go about it.
For instance, we made the conversion to fluorescent light bulbs throughout the house many years ago by simply occasionally replacing a burnt out bulb with a fluorescent one. Sure there were some brands of fluorescents that weren’t very good and failed, but those eventually got weeded out. Now I very seldom have to replace a bulb. All the transition took was a slight change in behavior to be rewarded by a reduced electric bill, more free time and not having to risk my neck every couple of weeks, climbing on chairs to replace bulbs.
There are people who would say that my giving up incandescent bulbs was a sacrifice. I’m not exactly sure what they think I sacrificed, I still flip a switch and get light. And I did pick fluorecents that matched the color temperature of incandescents, so the light looks the same. It didn’t cost me financially, since I save money on the electric bill. But somehow in their minds it was a sacrifice.
Tim // December 17, 2009 at 9:45 pm |
Talking to my Christian grandfather last night.
He admits warming.
Doesn’t think it’s humans.
I said, well, chemistry shows increased CO2 in a closed system forces warming (may not be 100% accurate but for the purposes of the discussion with him it was).
So, pop, if we are emitting vast amounts of CO2, in excess of warming from volcanoes and the sun, and if you are right and our CO2 is not forcing, then
a) where’s the CO2 from us going, such that it doesn’t cause warming, and
b) what is causing the warming
I contended that on the balance of science, probability and risk, we had to say we are causing it.
He said (and he’ll admit I read way more than him on this, no logic there) that 80% of science agrees we’re causing it, but 80% wasn’t enough to justify a carbon tax and so on.
I said in the absence of another planet we could go to and leave the skeptics here to sh$t in their own bed, whilst we watch on, we had to, from a risk management perspective, so something.
He contended that he was all for a clean atmosphere…
This is what we’re up against. Illogical arguments. Argumentative conversation with no cogent and cohesive discussion.
I mean, none of it makes sense.
Until science can CUT THROUGH to the public psyche saying: on the balance of probability, we’re doing this. We only have one planet, we’ve sh$t in our own bed too long, outsourced our environmental obligations to China, who’ve made it worse (along with Western consumerism) and now it’s time to pay up. It’s not going to be easy, or cheap, but we don’t have a choice.
If we don’t act, X hundred million people will die from famine anyway, which is probably what the Earth needs – a great whack of humans wiped off the face of the Earth (we truly are a parasite).
t
Michael Hauber // December 17, 2009 at 11:31 pm |
‘but how do we know, with absolute certainty, that CO2 is the primary climate forcing causing climate change? ‘
I don’t like this question. This questions plays into what I believe is a common misconception about climate science – that we observed warming, looked for an explanation and decided Co2 was the best option. Using such a process of elimination requires a complete enough understanding of everything that can impact climate that we can prove with certainty ‘nothing else could have done it, it must be Co2′
However this is not how we arrived at the conclusion of Co2 causes warming. In the 70s we had been observing a cooling trend and many climate scientists started to predict a significant warming trend based on the known properties of Co2. This warming trend happened, and confirms these predictions.
We don’t know everything that can affect climate, but we have a reasonable idea of what CO2 does.
I think the better question is ‘how do we know Co2 will produce as much warming as scientists say it will’.
For me the most significant factors are that I trust the climate scientists to do their job, and what they predicted 30 years ago on Co2 warming has come to pass.
Ray Ladbury // December 18, 2009 at 12:48 am |
Joe, Science does not deal in certainty. If this is your goal, there are plenty of religious and ideological cults serving Kool-Aid.
If instead you want to base your beliefs, actions and policy on evidence, then might I commend science to you. There comes a point in science where the evidence becomes so strong, with so little counter evidence, that it becomes impossible not to believe some things and still be true to the evidence. We are there with anthropogenic causation of the current warming epoch.
First, Warming is not something climate science tried to explain. It was a predicted over a century ago by the Svante Arrhenius based on our understanding of Earth’s climate.
Second, the warming looks just like we would expect given a greenhouse mechanism:
A) The stratosphere is cooling even as the troposphere is cooling. Hmm, it’s warming down below and cooling above. What does that tell you about where the energy is coming from?
B)We see more warming in winter, late fall and early spring–when the influence of the Sun is least.
C)We see more effect near the poles.
D)And so on.
3)We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that it is responsible for ~7 of the 33 degrees of greenhouse warming without which Earth would be a snowball.
4)We have at least 10 separate lines of evidence that all agree that if we double CO2 content, we are most likely to get about 3 degrees of warming, and that we almost certainly will get at least 2 degrees of warming.
5)Nearly 90% of climate scientists–and nearly all the ones that publish important work that gets cited often–agree we are warming the planet.
6)Every national academy and professional organization of scientists that has taken a position has come down on the consensus side.
Joe, when you have this level of agreement between the evidence and the experts, you can take it to the bank. Maybe you ought to start thinking about what kind of world you are leaving those 2.5 kids.
joe // December 18, 2009 at 2:59 pm |
Ray,
Again, I think you do a diservice to your cause with this kind of condescension.
Gavin's Pussycat // December 18, 2009 at 8:04 pm
Sod off, concern troll.
joe // December 18, 2009 at 8:42 pm |
GP,
Grow up!
Deech56 // December 18, 2009 at 9:13 pm |
joe, dude, Ray gave pretty straightforward summary of our current climate knowledge. To dismiss it out of hand because of some perceived “condescension” really makes people think that you weren’t the least bit serious about engaging people, most of us climate science amateurs, who have been studying this topic for years.
joe // December 19, 2009 at 3:35 am
Deech,
I’m not dismissing Rays knowledge. His style is a little offputting, that all.
The Wonderer // December 18, 2009 at 1:37 am |
I think Tim’s idea of discussing the issue with friends, family, and associates in a calm and straightforward manner is a good idea. The subject has been so politicized, and a personal appeal is one way those barriers can be overcome. Not that it would change grandpa’s position, but a good understanding of the usual talking points and a solid rebuttal is vital, and more difficult than just linking to debunking sites with anonymous people on the internet.
I also think it’s time to put denialists on the defensive, and RC’s most recent post is a good start, even if it is tongue-in-cheek.
Deech56 // December 18, 2009 at 2:36 am |
Excellent message, and Deep Climate’s post is also worth going to.
To go back to Nick Barnes’ first post, more and more I have relied on John Cook’s site for basic debunking. Coby Beck’s place was one of the first and deserves also kudos, but I like the fact that John often links to pdf versions of the scientific papers that he cites. He’s posted quite a bit of basic information in the last few months.
syphax // December 18, 2009 at 3:30 am |
And the DDOS on science continues…
joe, you could do worse than reading up on yesterday’s talk by Richard Alley: “The biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth’s Climate History” : http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/?p=1121
The basic physics involved were worked out over 100 years ago by Tyndall and Arrhenius. You can review dozens of papers on the topic at http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/index/
S // December 18, 2009 at 4:35 am |
“What I think should be done is to show loudly how the denial machine works.”
Yes. Expose their tactics.
Douglas Watts // December 18, 2009 at 4:55 am |
Sadly, climate scientists now see and feel interference from political and economic interests. This interference is pervasive.
Welcome to my world! I’ve been involved in hydro-electric dam relicensing in New England since 1991 and have seen every perversion of science by political and economic interests that you can imagine. It’s a feature, not a bug. It is simply part of the landscape in which science must operate if it is to have any effect in the real world. In every proceeding I fully expect my opponents to play dirty, to lie, deceive, twist, distort and cover up, and to my great surprise, they almost always do !!!
There is a quasi-game theory reason for this which I call the Asymmetry of Cheating. If the penalty for being caught playing dirty tricks, etc. in a scientific/regulatory venue is low to non-existent, and the potential reward is high (you get your client’s dam re-licensed with little or no mitigative improvements and your get a fat check from them), there is a powerful incentive to not “play fair” because it presents little risk and has the chance of high reward.
I see this same dynamic playing out now in climate science. The risk from being less than upstanding is virtually nil, yet the reward is perhaps lucrative (via consulting income, media fame, income derived from this fame via speakers fees, publishing a book called SuperFreakonomics, etc.).
For scientists, acknowledging this asymmetry of motivation/reward is the first step to addressing it. Assume they will play dirty and follow the dollar.
guthrie // December 19, 2009 at 12:00 pm |
Aye, thats right. I worked out part of the problem myself a short while ago, namely that here in the UK newspapers can print complete lies and rubbish and suffer no consequences. Hence the Daily Mail leads with “100 reasons AGW is wrong and there’s nothing to worry about” (Or some such title) and every item on it is either wrong or irrelevant.
But newspapers have no obligation to tell the truth, and the worst thing that can happen is that they have to bury an apology on page 83.
Maybe we need a science boycott? Every time a journalist tries to talk to a scientist anywhere in the world, they get a nice reply saying something like “Sorry, we are not speaking to you lot until you start taking what we say seriously.”
Gareth // December 18, 2009 at 7:31 am |
I’m nearing the end of Ben Goldacre’s rather good “book of the blog” Bad Science, and a few minutes ago I read this (he’s talking about the MMR vaccine controversy in the UK):
A rather striking parallel, I think you’ll agree.
In other words, it’s not the scientific case for action climate change that’s in any way lacking, it’s how the case for action is made in the wider community that’s gone so badly astray.
Perhaps a modest call to arms?
Didactylos // December 18, 2009 at 10:00 am |
I agree in general, but I think your analogy is off. The science isn’t a chain, there is no single point of failure. All the evidence is cumulative; we have many independent confirmations for every part.
It’s a rope, and the deniers keep hacking away at individual fibres, one at a time. When they make no impression, they move on to a different strand – but they are always happy to repeat the lies about their attempts on earlier strands. To someone who doesn’t keep informed about these things, it might appear that the rope is frayed indeed – and this is where I usually get into trouble discussing things with deniers, because there are only so many ways you can describe an untruth, and people resent being called liars.
Barton Paul Levenson // December 18, 2009 at 10:56 am |
Tim: X hundred million people will die from famine anyway, which is probably what the Earth needs – a great whack of humans wiped off the face of the Earth (we truly are a parasite).
BPL: I’ll agree to reduce the human population in “one great whack” if you volunteer to be among the whacked.
matthew // December 18, 2009 at 1:27 pm |
We certainly do have great confidence about the human impact on the climate system, but it goes beyond CO2 – one such example:
Dev Niyogi , Rezaul Mahmood and Jimmy O. Adegoke, 2009: Land-Use/Land-Cover Change and Its Impacts on Weather and Climate. Boundary Layer Meteorology. Volume 133, Number 3 / December, 2009. DOI 10.1007/s10546-009-9437-8
It would be great if we could expand the conversation beyond CO2.
Kevin McKinney // December 18, 2009 at 2:51 pm |
Fourier–the first to articulate the greenhouse effect in a scientific paper, back in 1824–predicted that human land use could affect climate. He was quite prescient.
http://hubpages.com/hub/The-Science-Of-Global-Warming-In-The-Age-Of-Napoleon
At the time, chemistry was still debating the atomic theory of Dalton, and the concept of the molecule was relatively undefined. The term “carbon dioxide” did not yet exist.
But my perception is that the conversation already includes a full spectrum of forcings, including land use. Certainly the IPCC AR4 discusses them all. And mitigation efforts have included land use components.
J // December 18, 2009 at 2:30 pm |
Everyone should go read Deep Climate’s post now. It really looks like portions of the Wegman report — which was commissioned by members of the US House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce — may have been secretly ghost-written by a highly partisan denialist.
http://deepclimate.org/2009/12/17/wegman-report-ghostwriter-revealed/
I wonder whether the committee — now chaired by Henry Waxman — would like to summon Wegman and Rapp, and ask them some pointed questions?
dhogaza // December 18, 2009 at 2:54 pm |
It has. That’s why you can quote the paper. That’s why in Copenhagen an agreement for the first world to pay to preserve more of the world’s rain forests is on the table.
matthew // December 19, 2009 at 12:06 am |
dhgoza,
I am glad that you also agree that land-use changes are also first-order climate-drivers. I posted here four times yesterday in relation to other first-order climate-forcings (land-use & black carbon soot), and the post you see was the only one to get through moderation (of course it was the only to have a specific reference in the peer-reviewed lit.). I’m disappointed that Ben Santer only chose to implicate greenhouse gas emissions in his statement, and left out other forcings, which, if included, would add greatly to the debate concerning policy at Copenhagen.
matthew // December 19, 2009 at 12:08 am
sorry, dhogaza
WeatherRusty // December 18, 2009 at 3:10 pm |
Trying to convince Joe six pack of the evidence and scientific merits when the denialist machine and ideological predispositions create a high level of distrust in authority, the UN and climate scientists, is going to be nearly impossible. There is no simple single sentence or paragraph of proof to point to.
People who fundamentally distrust what they are being told, particularly when they can not see the changes with their own two eyes are going to remain skeptical no matter how much science you through at them. The scientists could be lying, the media is lying, the liberals are lying and the gullible believers are following like sheep. How you get beyond this mentality is beyond me.
Hank Roberts // December 18, 2009 at 3:59 pm |
Same old pattern:
New topic on an interesting new piece of information, in this case Ben Santer’s moving speech and how it was applauded.
Immediately interrupted, as usual, by some argument or elementary question, posted by some new userid, leading to long digression repeating easily available information, more expressions of familiar disbelief ….
Damn, it was good to see what Santer had to say.
People should talk more about that.
Ray Ladbury // December 19, 2009 at 2:01 am |
Santer Claus is coming to town?
george // December 18, 2009 at 4:46 pm |
RE: Deep Climate’s post, J says “I wonder whether the committee — now chaired by Henry Waxman — would like to summon Wegman and Rapp, and ask them some pointed questions?”
Perhaps more important still is the question whether this makes Wegman, Rapp, Inhofe and perhaps even McIntyre and McKitrick subject to Freedom of Information requests with regard to their emails and other correspondence leading up to the Inhofe hearing.
What goes around comes around.
You gotta wonder: who’s thinking about deleting emails now?
Douglas Watts // December 18, 2009 at 5:05 pm |
The denialists privately realize that the science of global warming is very good, but the evidence for it forms a chain of reasoning.
Robust science is built upon independent lines of evidence, not a single chain of reasoning. A 20-legged stool is a good metaphor.
One of the best public “messages” is hammering home the concept of multiple, independent lines of evidence: what that phrase means and why it is completely different from the “chain of reasoning” model that many laypeople incorrectly are led to believe is the structure for AGW research.
BoulderBob // December 18, 2009 at 6:39 pm |
This is the first response I give to people who send me emails, or I know the email.
Here are a couple of links you might find useful:
History:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/
Arguments:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
Depth of the studies
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/
What Skepticism means:
http://www.skepdic.com/
Any I’m overlooking?
For the cabdriver, I have a explanation that starts with the question: “Why is the earth warmer than the moon? We are just about the same place in the solar system.”
Cheers
Tom Dayton // December 19, 2009 at 4:29 am |
cce’s The Global Warming Debate. Don’t give up; the server’s just a bit slow.
Nicely narrative and continuous. Good complement to the point-by-point approach of SkepticalScience.com. Less technical than much of the RealClimate “Start Here” material. But has links to peer-reviewed pubs for those more technically inclined.
Berbalang // December 18, 2009 at 8:11 pm |
Didactylos and others: I realize there are multiple lines of evidence that Global Warming is taking place. However, I want you to understand that the analogy isn’t mine and neither is the onion analogy. I’m not comfortable with posting publicly where I got the analogy from, but it is or was central to how the deniers planned their denials.
Ray Ladbury // December 18, 2009 at 8:20 pm |
Joe, perhaps you would be so good as to point out exactly where I’ve been condescending? You asked for certainty–I pointed out that you’d have to go elsewhere than science to get it.
I then pointed out the lines of evidence that support anthropogenic causation. I note that you chose not to address any of the technical points I raised, but instead to take me to task for being a meanie. Well boo-f*cking hoo. Man up, asshat! Either look at the evidence and draw your conclusions or admit that it’s all too scary for you. Dammit. I’m tired of having you jerkwads accuse scientists of fraud and then run to McI or Watts any time somebody calls you on your bullshit. Get serious!
joe // December 18, 2009 at 8:45 pm |
Sorry Ray…I have no interest in “learning” from you. I do appreciate the patience of others here.
Ray Ladbury // December 19, 2009 at 1:59 am |
Joe, to learn would qualify a learning curve with a positive slope. You don’t qualify.
Gavin's Pussycat // December 20, 2009 at 12:47 pm |
You don’t want to learn from me either… or from anyone.
Dumb, loud and proud of it.
Hank Roberts // December 18, 2009 at 9:35 pm |
Excellent perspective on the radio today from, among others, Stephen Schneider:
KQED “Forum” Fri, Dec 18, 2009 — 9:00 AM
http://www.kqed.org/radio/programs/forum/
http://www.kqed.org/news/climatewatch/copenhagen.jsp
http://www.kqed.org/.stream/anon/radio/forum/2009/12/2009-12-18a-forum.mp3
Tony O'Brien // December 18, 2009 at 11:03 pm |
Even if there where no climate change, society as we know it is in very deep trouble. We are approaching peak energy, oil, coal, even uranium if we use it in burner reactors to replace coal.
Our food production and distribution is almost totally dependent upon oil, so we are approaching peak food.
The rate of species extinction is appalling, the nitrogen cycle is approaching crisis in many areas.
The end of exponential growth is upon us. If we prepare now now the let down will only be horribly harsh, wait much longer and the crash of society will be beyond catastrophic and it will be the lucky ones who return to the times of the caveman.
The solutions to climate change will also be the solutions to other problems. Now is the time for humanity to show that it is smarter than pond scum.
Rattus Norvegicus // December 19, 2009 at 7:40 pm |
Oh, we haven’t reached the end of exponential growth, but the slop of the curve is going to go negative.
dhogaza // December 19, 2009 at 1:58 am |
And Coby puts up with far too much repetitive trolling by a small set of dishonest denialists.
The signal-to-noise ratio at skeptical science is much higher, as John Cook has less patience with that.
Jim Steele // December 19, 2009 at 2:44 am |
Can some check my understanding. I understand that CO2 increases temperatures and also creates a positive feedback in which temperatures continue to increase. I see how CO2 and temperatures correlate throughout the glacials and interglacials. Perhaps the sun cycles start the warming contributing say 25-40% of the rise , but the remaining rise is caused as more CO2 is released and positive feedbacks raise the temperatures to a max. Then with change in the solar effects begins a cooling. So again perhaps 25-40% of the temperature decline is due to decreased solar input. But what is the force or forces that counteract the CO2 positive feedbacks in order to push temperatures down to the lowest point?
Tom Dayton // December 19, 2009 at 4:35 am |
Don’t need forces to counteract the positive feedbacks, because the positive feedbacks don’t run away. The feedbacks amplify the increase by a percentage less than one. They don’t amplify the new total after the triggering increase. You can demonstrate this in a spreadsheet, as I described in a comment on SkepticalScience.com.
Jim Steele // December 19, 2009 at 6:24 pm
I apologize if I have miscommunicated my concern. I never said or suggested runaway warming. I am aware that every increase in CO2 imparts a smaller and smaller heat increase, so we would expect convergence at some peak temperature . The question is concerned with what are all the forces that bring the temperature down from that peak convergence to the minimums of the glacial periods.
I understood Milankovitch cycles are only responsible for part of the warming, and thus assumed that they would only be responsible for part of the cooling. Correct?
Those who answered that Milankovitch cycles are responsible, are you saying those cycles are responsible for all of the heating and all the cooling? That suggests that solar forces completely overwhelm all CO2 warming effects, and thus CO2 concentrations are just a result of solar warming and cooling. But that contradicts my understanding of the CO2’s role.
Hank Roberts // December 19, 2009 at 4:40 am |
> what is
Good question, which seems to be keeping many people busy. Here’s a recent paper just for example:
http://eco.confex.com/eco/2009/techprogram/P16425.HTM
out of this series:
http://eco.confex.com/eco/2009/techprogram/S4241.HTM
Former Skeptic // December 19, 2009 at 4:59 am |
Is it just me or does anyone else have a problem accessing RC?
Maybe another Russian h@xor attack?
Craig Allen // December 19, 2009 at 6:13 am |
Joe: You say “how do we know, with absolute certainty, that CO2 is the primary climate forcing causing climate change”.
Joe how can we know, with any certainty that it does not do as the scientists content and that in continuing our current course we aren’t steering a middle road between catastrophe and apocalypse; condemning our grandchildren to a cannibalistic Easter Island/ Mad Max style existence?
There is ample information available for you to work out which is more likely – I recommend http://www.skepticalclimate.com
Douglas Watts // December 19, 2009 at 7:31 am |
But what is the force or forces that counteract the CO2 positive feedbacks in order to push temperatures down to the lowest point?
Milankovitch cycles.
Riccardo // December 19, 2009 at 11:09 am |
Jim Steele,
the CO2 feedback is not a runaway process; given an increase in its concentration there will be a new (higher) equilibrium surface temperature. At that point, a decrease in any other forcing (for example solar during the ice age cycles) will produce a decrease in CO2 concentration and forcing untill, again, equilibrium is reached at a lower temperature.
This mechanism is responsible for the quite similar temperatures during glacials and interglacials.
This is a very simplified description but correctly captures the overall behaviour of the actual climate system.
Barton Paul Levenson // December 19, 2009 at 12:05 pm |
Jim,
Ice ages and their decline are initiated by “Milankovic cycles” in the Earth’s axial tilt and orbit. These change the distribution of sunlight over the Earth’s surface. Co2 multiplies the effect, but it’s a converging series, not a diverging one, so it doesn’t run away. (Think of 1+1+1+1… compared to 1+1/2+1/4+1/8…)
Deech56 // December 19, 2009 at 12:55 pm |
Message from Alley. Thank you, Al Gore and DARPA, for the internet. Now if my service can only survive this little snowstorm (and if my friends can only survive my reminding them that back in Buffalo this is nothin’).
dhogaza // December 19, 2009 at 1:44 pm |
(Jim, in other words, among other things when the oceans begin to cool, they then become a sink for CO2, reducing CO2 in the atmosphere and therefore the CO2 forcing. And as the ice recedes presumably plants recolonize fairly quickly, also taking up CO2. etc etc etc)
Jim Steele // December 19, 2009 at 7:37 pm |
dhogaza I understand that temperature and CO2 will reach an equilibrium, but at any given equilibrium the ice albedo, and plant growth should behave in the same way. However during the glacial cycles, at one given temperature/CO2 equilibrium point the temperatures rise, and then years later as we are headed into the ice ages, at the same given temperature/CO2 equilibrium point, temperatures continue to decrease. So I must assume another force is in play, or as some seem to have suggested, the Milankovic cycles are totally responsible and CO@ feedbacks are insignificant.
dhogaza // December 19, 2009 at 1:47 pm |
Oops, I messed up that last comment, when it’s cooling the ice isn’t receding, it’s advancing, wiping out plants.
It’s too early in the AM to be thinking …
Ray Ladbury // December 19, 2009 at 1:51 pm |
Joe, for the life of me, I can’t see anything in my initial comment that was condescending.
You asked for certainty from science. I pointed out that science is not a source of certainty, only of reliable knowledge.
I cited evidence and suggested it was appropriate to consider our progeny. You completely ignored all the evidence I cited and chose to take offense at some imagined slight.
I would point out that such behavior is indistinguishable from concern trolling. If you wish to establish your bona fides, you might consider asking a sincere question–one that doesn’t come from denialist mothership talking points.
I don’t give a tinker’s damn what you think of me, and I cannot for the life of me understand why you give a damn what I think of you. But it’s up to you to choose to learn or to remain ignorant. Good luck with whichever choice you make.
joe // December 19, 2009 at 8:22 pm |
OK Ray,
Significant and immediate reductions in Co2 are being called for by your side (ie Cap and Trade legislation already passed by US house). How would you explain to regular people, struggling to make ends meet, that they will have to pay significantly more to heat their homes, significantly more to keep gas in their car so they can get to work, significantly more for food and other essentials which will undoubtedly rise sharply due to across the board energy price increases? What family activities… family vacations, perhaps sending a kid to a better school should these families eliminate in order to afford these increased energy prices? Can you tell these people with “great confidence” that if they don’t accept these burdens and go along, that climate catastrophe is inevatable and around the corner? If they do go along, can you tell these people with “great confidence” that their sacrifice will not be simply symbolic (kyoto) and why? These are the people who need convincing..forget about Steve Mcyntire et al.
Academic ivory tower, meet the real world.
pointer // December 19, 2009 at 9:30 pm
How about telling households that cap and trade would lower the deficit? From the CBO score of the current Senate bill:
Link: http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=442
Slioch // December 19, 2009 at 4:00 pm |
Jim
And also remember that CO2 never exceeded 300ppmv throughout all of the glacial/interglacial cycles.
We are at present about 387ppmv and the most ambitious target at the present time is to return CO2 levels to as low as 350ppmv.
You maybe gained the impression that CO2 levels were much higher during the interglacials: that is certainly not the case.
JCH // December 19, 2009 at 5:26 pm |
Jim, my uneducated guess would be “what is ice albedo?”
Layman // December 19, 2009 at 7:59 pm |
This issue of how to convince “Joe sixpack” of AGW and get him to push for change is one that has really got me thinking lately. I myself bounced back and forth between being concerned about AGW and thinking it was a bunch of propaganda for a while as each new headline seemed to tell a different story. “Climategate” finally inspired me to do some more serious research and this website and its contributors have helped a lot. However, it is not reasonable to expect that millions of people are suddenly going to do the same.
As a part of this process of bettering my understanding, I read the headline denialist articles and then follow up on the counterarguments as spelled out here or in the links that people have been kind enough to provide me. That being said, this article actually does make a point worth considering:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1236497/STEPHEN-GLOVER-50-days-save-world-I-listen-doomsayers-werent-ludicrous-hypocrites.html
Now, I’m not here to promote denialist propaganda, and I know nothing about the author, so please don’t take it that way. However, I think there is a lot to be said about leading by example. Part of what contributes to the common man’s skepticism of top-down solutions is the fact that the “elites” who so often push for these solutions seem to exempt themselves from their requirements.
Perhaps we should consider a different tack. Governments themselves are some of the largest organizations around in terms of employees, office space, travel, etc., and certainly have their own output of CO2 to account for, especially their militaries. Maybe we should consider pushing them to set the example, even shaming them for not doing so. Once the “elites” show that they are willing to lead by example, then maybe “Joe sixpack” will begin to take this more seriously.
Anyway, just my 2 cents.
[Response: Here's another thought: let's hold Stephen Glover and other so-called journalists responsible for shameful deception -- like suggesting that the profligate consumption of His Royal Highness Prince Charles has any goddamn bearing on whether or not the message of climate scientists is correct.
That whole argument is so idiotic, Glover and his ilk should be sacked for using it to obstruct taking the problem seriously.]
Ray Ladbury // December 19, 2009 at 8:05 pm |
Jim Steele,
When solar flux begins to decrease in a Milankovitch cycle, the temperature begins to drop. The added CO2 in the atmsophere slows down the drop, but cooler temperatures allow more CO2 to dissolve in the oceans. Eventually, snow falls, and CO2 and CH4 are sequestered in the permafrost. Also some of the CO2 has been sequestered as carbonates–a very slow, but important process.
So Milankovitch processes initiate the process, and CO2 is a feedback (negative this time). Other feedbacks included increased albedo due to snow.
Jim Steele // December 19, 2009 at 9:36 pm |
I understand the sequestration processes. But something is still missing. Let’s use present day temps as a baseline for a interglacial maximum and reference it as 0 degrees. Let’s refer to a glacial minimum as minus -8. I will assume the solar has initiated both the warming and the cooling, but is only responsible for 50% of the temperature change. These number are simply for illustrative purposes.
I am also assuming that midway between the cycles, at a global temperature of -4, we would expect roughly the same amount of albedo, and rates of sequestration to be occurring. However in the glacial interglacial cycles, temperatures pass through this -4 range twice. Once (1) rising to a max at 0, and then again (2) when temperatures are sinking to the minimum -8. What I don’t understand, is why would the same sequestration processes allow warming at -4 (1), but likewise promote cooling the next time temperatures reach -4(2). That’s why I ask, what is the other acting force?
David B. Benson // December 19, 2009 at 8:21 pm |
Jim Steele // December 19, 2009 — Please do read “The Discovery of Global Warming” by Spencer Weart:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html
Jim Steele // December 19, 2009 at 9:41 pm |
Hi David, I have skimmed that before. Could you be more specific how and where your link answers my question? Thanks.
dhogaza // December 19, 2009 at 8:23 pm |
Military … hmmm …
Neven // December 19, 2009 at 8:30 pm |
I went to DeepClimate’s latest blog post on Wegman Report to read up on the comments, but ran into a 404 page. Does anyone know what’s going on? Seemed interesting.
pointer // December 19, 2009 at 9:36 pm |
Neven,
I was keeping an eye on Deep Climate, too. I appreciate what he was trying to do, but I had some reservations about whether he had the evidence. The duplicate text seemed to be confined to a few paragraphs, all of which were definitions and so not original thought. So I was somewhat sceptical, even as I was hoping something newsworthy came out of it.
Now, though, the post is gone. The links in the Recent Comments sidebar don’t point anywhere. I can only speculate that he’s walking it back and preparing a mea culpa. Shame, really.
Neven // December 20, 2009 at 8:35 am
After rereading the post and all comments I think it’s pretty clear that Rapp copied texts from the Wegman Report without referencing. He also cites other work without quotations. I’m sure if the book would be researched closely a lot more stuff comes bubbling up. I wonder what Rapp’s publisher thinks of all this. I also wonder if Deep Climate will leave it at this. Rapp’s reaction made it clear there is much more than meets the eye.
Nasty little, megalomaniac man that Rapp was. But that’s to be expected from a denialist. I hope he’s young enough to realize at some point that AGW really is happening and that he’s partly responsible for the inaction. I don’t think he will, though. People who think they are smart are usually very dumb in some way or other, mostly about themselves.
guthrie // December 20, 2009 at 6:59 pm |
Well, it seemed clear to me that Rapp wasn’t interested in discussing the science, rather beign an overbearing righteous so and so. I thought that if Deepclimate was in the USA they’d be ok due to freedom of speech, and all they need to do is change the claim to plagiarism, which is quite clearly the winner judging by the excepts seen.
Here in the UK deep climate would be in real trouble because of our backwards libel laws.
Neven // December 20, 2009 at 9:36 pm |
I take back what I said about nasty and megalomaniac. That wasn’t nice or smart of me to say based on so little information.
dhogaza // December 19, 2009 at 9:57 pm |
Oh, interesting. Maybe Rapp did what real climate scientists never seem willing to do – a legal threat, or threatened to try to get the ISP to take down the site, or something like that.
Very interesting.
Neven // December 20, 2009 at 9:47 am |
Of course, the question now is: Who will take the Rapp?
Sorry, couldn’t resist it. :-B
Gavin's Pussycat // December 20, 2009 at 12:02 pm |
Yep. Climate scientists aggressively sueing for libel is way overdue. Where is the legal defence fund?
David B. Benson // December 19, 2009 at 11:19 pm |
Jim Steele // December 19, 2009 at 9:41 pm — Not sure, now that I think I understand your question.
The transition from/to stades and interstades or sometimes interglacials involves hysteresis. Possibly there is a good graphic for this in Ray Pierrehumbert’s
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateBook.html
Roughly speaking, you need more variables than just (ocean) temperature and CO2 concentration, but also something such as ice volume. In the ice cores, d18O gives a decent proxy for ice volume. Check
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png
which while it states temperature actually is the d18O proxy. Note carefully the different profiles for that and CO2 when leaving a stade for an interglacial as opposed to re-entering the next stade/interstade period.
David B. Benson // December 19, 2009 at 11:42 pm |
Jim Steele // December 19, 2009 at 9:41 pm — Here we have dD, definitely a temperature proxy, and CO2:
http://www.realclimate.org/epica_co2_f4.jpeg
to check similar variability depending upon whether the cryosphere is expanding or collapsing.
David B. Benson // December 20, 2009 at 12:05 am |
Nope, I stated it wrongly. Here
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ice_Age_Temperature.png
are dD temperatures and d18O ice volumes. The text should clarify.
Derecho64 // December 20, 2009 at 1:40 am |
I know Ben – at least well enough to have a dinner with him – and he’s right on target. I can’t think of another instance in which honest scientists were given the same utterly contemptible personal smears, slurs, and character assassinations. Did the M.D.s and researchers investigating the causality of smoking and cancer have to live with this kind of campaign? I don’t think so. I find it abhorrent.
I believe the ClimateGate hack was a last-ditch attempt to forestall anything meaningful to deal with AGW. Given the billions in revenue that Big Oil/Coal/Gas earn, a relatively small cost to hire hackers to attack CRU, Jones, Mann, Wigley, Trenberth et.al. is a good “investment” from their point of view.
John Mashey // December 20, 2009 at 2:16 am |
JOE (assuming you are in USA):
Let me try a different question. Since you have kids, you may well have grandkids at some point.
Where (approximately) do you live?
And would you like your grandkids to be able to happily live there if they want to?
For everybody: Katharine Hayhoe pointed at some fine work she co-authored:
from US Global Change Research Program.
Specifically, I ask where someone lives because there are differences in regional effects.
The whole book is available on the web, or get the book. It’s good communication by good scientists, trying to explain what’s likely to happen to the general public … or perhaps to their kids and grandkids. +2 degrees C, or whatever doesn’t sound like a big deal, but that will take us out of the temperature zone seen in the entire history of the US, the history of human civilization, the history of humans, period… and it’s the nonobvious side-effects that people need to understand.
[It’s worth reading about other regions, as effects that drive up costs in one place can drive up costs in others. Will it improve the US economy to lose Southern Lousiana? Wll it help to have lower crop yields? How about making CA fruit & veggies more expensive? (CA grows half of that sold in US, and already has serious water problems.) How does it help to have bark beetles surviving winters and killing off the lodgepole pines of Colorado? (Actually, they’re already chewing their way through British Columbia into Alberta. Do *not* tell B.C. lumberman it isn’t happening. Some of them have axes. Will higher-priced lumber be helpful?)
If someone reads this, and afterwards thinks the scientists who wrote it are wrong, an honest expression of opinion would be:
a) Show it to their kids, whenever they are old enough.
b) Tell them they’ve studied it, and the scientists are wrong, and that none of this is likely.
c) And that they should thank their parent(s) for fighting avoid wasting any effort avoiding doing anything about something that would be no problem, and that as they get older, they should remember this and help fight any future such wasteful attempts.
But in any case, the USGCRP looks like a nice effort and deserves to be spread around.
dhogaza // December 20, 2009 at 4:59 am |
Well, if they can hold Obama off, and if the Republicans can regain control of the Senate, or House, or Presidency, then they’ve won (given the supremacy of anti-science in that party).
You’ll see another 8 years minimum, and possibly a decade or two, before any science-based legislation passes.
Barton Paul Levenson // December 20, 2009 at 12:22 pm |
Joe: Significant and immediate reductions in Co2 are being called for by your side (ie Cap and Trade legislation already passed by US house). How would you explain to regular people, struggling to make ends meet, that they will have to pay significantly more to heat their homes, significantly more to keep gas in their car so they can get to work, significantly more for food and other essentials which will undoubtedly rise sharply due to across the board energy price increases?
BPL: By explaining, A) that there are other sources of energy we can switch to they won’t have to pay as much as they think, and won’t even have to pay that for long, and B) human civilization is going to collapse completely if they don’t.
Joe: What family activities… family vacations, perhaps sending a kid to a better school should these families eliminate in order to afford these increased energy prices? Can you tell these people with “great confidence” that if they don’t accept these burdens and go along, that climate catastrophe is inevatable and around the corner?
BPL: Yes, as it happens. Human civilization will collapse complete some time in the next 40 years if we don’t make a massive switch to renewable sources of energy some time in the next ten years. Remember, you heard it here first.
Joe: If they do go along, can you tell these people with “great confidence” that their sacrifice will not be simply symbolic (kyoto) and why?
BPL: Sure. Because the US and Europe will lead and others will follow when we produce renewable sources of energy cheaper than fossil fuels.
joe // December 21, 2009 at 5:28 pm |
BPL:
Thanks for your responses. I would just say that although alterative energy sources are important, I dont’ think we are anywhere near able to deliver affordable energy in required amounts via these new sources anytime soon. I think this is wishfull thinking on your part.
I’ll write down your 40 year prediction, I could still be around to see if you are correct . I wonder if Tamino would concur with this 40 or less complete collapse prediction?
Overall, I think your argument is a very hard sell to regular folks…
Barrett808 // December 21, 2009 at 10:53 pm
Joe: “How would you explain to regular people…”
Dmitry Orlov has some thoughts on communicating the reality of global warming:
Selling Climate Change
http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2009/12/selling-climate-change_05.html
Barton Paul Levenson // December 20, 2009 at 12:27 pm |
JCH,
Albedo is the fraction of percent of light reflected by an object. Ice has a very high albedo, ranging from about 30% for sea ice to 90% for snow-covered new ice. Rock averages about 15%, the sea about 4 or 5%. A mirror is close to 100%, a black hole has an albedo of 0%.
JCH // December 20, 2009 at 6:14 pm |
BPL – I’m the guy who promoted using white guitar cases. They were traditionally black, and, as a result, tens of 1000s of instruments have been damaged by heat. Hide glue melts at a very low temperature.
A few days ago I left $15,000 guitar by a plate glass window. My daughter opened the blinds, and it sat in full sunlight for hours. In a black case that guitar would have suffered extensive damage. In its white case it remained cool as a cucumber.
I used albedo to save 1,000s of musical instruments from heat damage, and I didn’t even know what it is.
What I don’t understand, is even in a hot car trunk, a white case protects better than a black case.
Neven // December 20, 2009 at 7:21 pm |
Does the guitar case know it is in a hot car trunk?
Deep Climate // December 20, 2009 at 7:31 pm |
From Deep Climate http://www.deepclimate.org
Key paragraph:
Note: The post still concludes with an excerpt from Santer.
Barton Paul Levenson // December 20, 2009 at 8:50 pm |
JCH, the only guess I have about the car truck is that the paint or dye must have a high albedo in the infrared as well.
Hank Roberts // December 20, 2009 at 9:42 pm |
> even in a hot car trunk, a white case
> protects better than a black case.
Have you tried putting thermometers in white and black cases, and one outside in the air?
I’d bet the white case is getting warmed mostly by the warm air in the trunk, and the black case is being warmed by that plus heat radiated from the inside of the trunk lid, which is hotter.
Just guessing of course.
Chris Winter // December 22, 2009 at 2:36 am |
In a followup, Joe wrote: “Fine, but isn’t putting all [our] eggs (and cash) in one basket to address CO2 only a problem if 10 years from now we find out that while CO2 is an important forcing in AGW, it is not the primary or only important one? Isn’t this a reasonable concern?
It’s not a reasonable concern, because of the decades of investigation by hundreds of scientists that show it to be the primary forcing right now.
But, hypothetically, if somehow in 10 years it were discovered that there is another forcing driving global warming, and CO2 is not the real culprit, do you think we would continue spending at the same level to reduce CO2 emissions? No, we would cut back that spending. We would change our priorities.
We probably wouldn’t go back to pre-1990 priorities because, as others have already pointed out, there are other reasons to reduce CO2 emissions — the best one being that one way to do it is by everyone cutting energy consumption, which lets Joe Sixpack save money.
Chris Winter // December 22, 2009 at 3:36 am |
In a followup, Joe wrote: “but your side still needs to convince people just like me the sacrifice is worth it if you ever expect to prevail politically on this issue.”
The first problem is the idea of sacrifice. I’ll bet you expect a massive sacrifice will be needed from you. That’s just what the other side wants you to think. (No joke) Just listen to their speeches.
Some sacrifice is involved, sure. And this is a bad time to be thinking about extra expenses. But they’re not automatically going to be crushers. Let’s break out a few examples. CFLs cost more than incandescent bulbs, but they pay for themselves in the long run. Weather-stripping your house costs maybe a couple of hundred for tools and materials, and kills a weekend or two. But it can cut your heating bill way down. It’s that way with a lot of conservation measures.
The picture would be clearer if politics were not so adversarial — Congress could come up with a proposal and get it analyzed to see exactly what the impacts would be. It could be reconsidered and fine-tuned if necessary. But that’s not the way the game is being played in Washington these days.
Chris Winter // December 22, 2009 at 4:16 am |
@Layman:
Sure, Prince Charles and Gordon Brown might have flown to Copenhagen on the same plane (leaving aside the knotty question of whether their schedules dovetailed.) They might thus have saved, what, 6.4 tonnes of CO2?
From my perspective, they and others (Al Gore, John Kerry, etc.) have been warning about global warming for twenty years or so. Mostly, people didn’t accuse them of being hypocrites; most people just didn’t listen — and went on with business as usual. What might the world have accomplished if most people had made some small changes in lifestyle, back then? How many tonnes of carbon might not have been burned? Might we be seeing fewer signs of warming? Might the danger not be so urgent?
We’ll never know, of course. We have to start from where we are. So consider an analogy: If a man prevents 1 million cases of H1N1 flu by getting people to wash their hands frequently, does it matter that he doesn’t wash his own hands?
I’m not saying that disaster is close at hand. I do think we must begin taking measures, because a) we’ve wasted enough time, and b) the longer we wait, the more drastic will be the measures needed.
Dhogaza brought up another good point, in mentioning military hybrid vehicles. It is that sometimes the hypocrisy is more apparent than real. Al Gore is a prime example. His house is a lot greener than it was — not that this matters much in certain quarters.
Ray Ladbury // December 22, 2009 at 10:59 pm |
Chris, I would note also that the Danish government bought carbon offsets (a project in Bengladesh that sounded pretty good) for everyone who attended the conference at a cost of less than 1 million euros. That’s something you don’t hear from the “al-gore-is-fat” contingent.
Layman // December 29, 2009 at 12:05 pm
“If a man prevents 1 million cases of H1N1 flu by getting people to wash their hands frequently, does it matter that he doesn’t wash his own hands?”
Could a man who doesn’t wash his own hands convince a million+ people to do so? Would washing his hands help? If so, why not do it? The worst outcome is that his hands are now cleaner.
My point was not about how much CO2 could be reduced by the government curbing it’s CO2 consumption. It was about combating the skeptcism of the general public and the contribution made to that effort of leading by example.
The President of the US, for example, could issue an executive order establishing CO2 reduction goals for the US government itself. He could also implement a policy whereby all companies doing business with the US government would have to set CO2 reduction goals and their ability to maintain their contracts would be dependent on achieving these goals. Such a policy could then be imitated by the governors of each of the states.
I think this would be a strong statement to the public about how committed the “leaders” are to reducing emissions, indepedent of any formal accords.
Ray Ladbury // December 29, 2009 at 1:01 pm |
Layman et al., Or we could install solar cells on the Whitehouse…
Oh, wait! Jimmy Carter did that back in the 70s, and then Ronald Reagan took them down. Unfortunately, America seems to be divided 50/50 between those who accept physical reality and those who deny it. The ones who really need an example wouldn’t follow it in any case.
Scott A. Mandia // December 22, 2009 at 4:29 pm |
I need your help. I am working on a blog post called How to Talk to a Conservative about Climate Change and would enjoy your comments to make this a better tool to use when faced with a conservative-leaning skeptic. The goal is to end up with something that we can all use. I need no credit – I want this to be a goup effort.
http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2009/12/22/how-to-talk-to-a-conservative-about-climate-change/
Gerry L // December 22, 2009 at 5:25 pm |
When my Dad was trying to save money a while ago he found that CFLs would pay for themselves in about 3 months assuming they were in use for 4 hours a day. That kind of savings is to fast to be called long term. It wasn’t even worth waiting for the incandescent bulbs to burn out first.
Didactylos // December 22, 2009 at 6:30 pm |
The economics have changed considerably since CFLs were first introduced. Ten years ago, they might take a year to pay for themselves (all depending on electricity cost). Now, it’s all savings all the way.
But in the UK, evil filament bulbs are banned, so it’s savings for everyone, whether they like it or not. Amazing how many people don’t like it…. we are, it seems, the nation of whingers we are often painted as.
Didactylos // December 22, 2009 at 6:49 pm |
As Chris Winters points out, some carbon mitigation strategies actually save money. Here is a really great way of visualising it: http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/strategic-options-for-climate-change-mitigation-global-cost-curve-for-greenhouse-gas-abatement-measu
Unsurprisingly, ideas like CCS coal and biodiesel are fairly expensive, but sugarcane biofuels and solar water heating save a useful amount of money, as well as having a good payback in terms of carbon. Insulation improvements is far and away the best, most significant, and most money saving measure. It is no wonder Obama preaches “weatherise, weatherise, weatherise”!
Perhaps more surprisingly, wind is on the “costing money” side. I don’t know why this surprises people, yet I have seen the most bizarre impassioned arguments on this point. Wind will help us, but it has limits both in cost and in scope. Being blind to this will just take focus from all the many other things we should be doing at the same time.
Ray Ladbury // December 22, 2009 at 11:10 pm |
Scott Mandia, What was it George Burns used to say? Something like: “The most important thing is sincerity. If you can learn to fake that, the rest is easy.”
Seriously, though, I think it’s important to be honest. Nobody likes a concern troll. I am upfront with conservatives that I am not religious, am a social liberal, etc. I do tell them that I agree that markets are usually the most efficient mechanism for capital allocation. I sincerely believe that this is one of the most important reasons why it is important whether or not conservatives accept climate science to a sufficient degree that they can advocate solutions consistent with their ideals.
It quickly becomes clear in talking to most people who reject climate change that their rejection has nothing to do with evidence. It is more because they feel hopeless that anything can be done about the problem without wrecking the economy.
Here’s a question I have: One of the most important issues for developing solutions is making capital available to promising energy-saving and energy-generating technologies. It would seem that this was tailor-made for venture capital–although the return horizon might be murky.
Above all, I think it is important to remember that “conservative” is an imprecise term. My parents are both Republicans who favor gay marriage, reproductive rights, liberalization of immigration rules and a bunch of other positions anathema to most of their party fellows. They stay because they are fiscal conservatives (well, that, and because they say, “dammit, we were here first”).
Didactylos // December 23, 2009 at 12:16 am |
In any other country, the Republican party would be three or more different parties. Similarly the Democrats… but the deficiencies of a two-party system is seriously OT.
Scott Mandia // December 23, 2009 at 1:03 am |
Thanks, Ray. The 4th paragraph is something I will be considering when I revise my post. Denmark is a great example of where this worked. I will need to do some research.
Scott Mandia // December 23, 2009 at 7:38 pm |
The Copenhagen That Matters by Thomas L. Friedman in today’s NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/23/opinion/23friedman.html?_r=2&ref=todayspaper
An excerpt:
Although it still generates the majority of its electricity from coal, “since 1990, Denmark has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 14 percent. Over the same time frame, Danish energy consumption has stayed constant and Denmark’s gross domestic product has grown by more than 40 percent. Denmark is the most energy efficient country in the E.U.; due to carbon pricing, through energy taxes, carbon taxes, the ‘cap and trade’ system, strict building codes and energy labeling programs. Renewable resources currently supply almost 30 percent of Denmark’s electricity. Wind power is the largest source of renewable electricity, followed by biomass. … Today, Copenhagen puts only 3 percent of its waste into landfills and incinerates 39 percent to generate electricity for thousands of households.”
TomG // December 28, 2009 at 6:30 pm |
There seems to be a lot of people who reject doing anything about climate change for fear of wrecking the economy…
What will they do when climate change wrecks the economy?
To borrow from the old Fram oil filter commercials:
“You can pay me now, or pay me later.”
dhogaza // December 28, 2009 at 7:02 pm |
Look at it from the point of view of an oil executive. His job is to make money for stockholders, and he’s rewarded handsomely for it.
“you can pay me later …”
From the oil executive’s point of view, that’s the point:
PUSH THE PROBLEM OVER MY RETIREMENT HORIZON.
Right? Once retired, they’re not responsible to shareholders, and society’s not going to hold them responsible, either? They and their offspring will be wealthy enough to cope, after all …
TomG // December 28, 2009 at 10:19 pm |
dhogaza…
I tend to believe that those executives are going to learn the full meaning of the word responsible much sooner than later.