This blog post follows on from my comments last night under the title Which Climate Change Consensus?, click here. The following information was sent to me by Ian Castles, Visiting Fellow, Asia Pacific School of Economics and Government, The Australian National University.
“One of the most serious problems that has dogged the climate debate at the science-policy interface and confused the public and political discussion of future climate, since greenhouse warming became an issue in the 1980s, has been the issue of terminology. The unfortunate reality is that, whenever scientists, who speak in the language of the IPCC, and policy people, who speak in the language of the FCCC, refer to climate change, they are usually talking about different things. I firmly believe that a great deal of the public and political confusion about climate change in the world today is the direct result of each community having attached its own interpretation and connotations to statements about climate change made by the other.”
… said Dr. John Zillman in a speech titled Our Changing Climate given on World Meteorological Day in 2003. Dr. Zillman headed the Australian Bureau of Meteorology for 25 years, was President of the World Meteorological Organization from 1995 to 2003, and is President of the Australian Academy of the Technological Sciences and Engineering.
In the 2003 speech, Zillman continued,
“In the IPCC community climate change means change on all timescales, irrespective of the cause, and it thus includes both natural variability and any change that may result from human interference with the working of the climate system. Regrettably, in my view, those who negotiated the FCCC chose to define climate change as only that part that is due to human activity.
Thus, when an IPCC scientist says there is unambiguous evidence of climate change, the Convention people (and, of course, the media) hear, and usually promulgate, an unambiguous conclusion that humans have changed the climate.”
In his contribution to a policy paper published by the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia (ASSA) in February 2005 titled Uncertainty and Climate Change: The Challenge for Policy, Dr. Zillman said that,
“We do not yet understand the natural variability of climate well enough to predict the natural component of change”
and that,
“We do not yet have a sufficient basis for knowing how greenhouse gas emissions will change in the future to enable us to estimate the greenhouse component of the change.”
In February 2004 the leading peer-reviewed journal Ecological Modelling published Climate change: detection and attribution of trends from long-term geologic data (Vol. 171, No. 4: pgs 433-50) by Dr. Craig Loehle of the US National Council for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI), who has over 100 published papers in applied mathematics and ecology on topics that include statistical models, optimization, simulation, artificial intelligence, fractals, and wavelets.
The abstract of this paper reads as follows:
Two questions about climate change remain open: detection and attribution. Detection of change for a complex phenomenon like climate is far from simple, because of the necessary averaging and correcting of the various data sources. Given that change over some period is detected, how do we attribute that change to natural versus anthropogenic causes? Historical data may provide key insights in these critical areas. If historical climate data exhibit regularities such as cycles, then these cycles may be considered to be the “normal” behavior of the system, in which case deviations from the “normal” pattern would be evidence for anthropogenic effects on climate. This study uses this approach to examine the global warming question. Two 3000-year temperature series with minimal dating error were analyzed. A total of seven time-series models were fit to the two temperature series and to an average of the two series. None of these models used 20th Century data. In all cases, a good to excellent fit was obtained. Of the seven models, six show a warming trend over the 20th Century similar in timing and magnitude to the Northern Hemisphere instrumental series. One of the models passes right through the 20th Century data. These results suggest that 20th Century warming trends are plausibly a continuation of past climate patterns. Results are not precise enough to solve the attribution problem by partitioning warming into natural versus human-induced components. However, anywhere from a major portion to all of the warming of the 20th Century could plausibly result from natural causes according to these results. Six of the models project a cooling trend (in the absence of other forcings) over the next 200 years of 0.2-1.4 degrees C.
With the above information from Ian Castles was a note recommending that Phil Done and others spend less time studying the realclimate website and more time reading some peer-reviewed literature instead.
Ian suggested readers of this blog could start with the John Zillman paper for ASSA, and also the contributions of economist Warwick McKibbin and political scientist Aynsley Kellow which are published in the same Policy Paper. It is available on the ASSA website at http://www.assa.edu.au/publications/op.asp .
Ian suggests we then move on to the paper by Roger Pielke Jr. which can be found at http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-479-2004.10.pdf .
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Ian gives very good advice about spending more time reading some peer-reviewed literature. Jennifer you could take this advice on board and next time research some facts to justify and substantiate your claims. Your previous entry on climate change was not supported by references, it criticised a definition of climate change without including or referencing that definition, the source of the criticised definition was identified incorrectly, and you didn’t distinguish between the differing definitions of the IPCC and the UNFCCC (which was crucial to your point). With more credible arguments, people might have a chance of responding meaningfully.
Thinksy,
1.You are obviously more interested in point scoring than the substance of an argument. I wrongly placed the acronym IPCC next to the words ‘United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’ and then continued to use the wrong acronym – when I posted last night. I trust the vast majority of people reading this blog will forgive me.
2. Now at the previous post, in a comment I quoted a figure of 0.8C for the last 30 years? But could it be 0.6C for the last 30 years?
Six comments deleted in this thread. Let’s stick to the issue rather than introduce ‘red herrings’, continue discussion more relevant to previous posts, or make personal attacks on those attempting to progress the debate –
I got a lot out of Ian’s post and Dr Zillman said it all with familiar authority.
Jennifer – “Ian Castles was a note recommending that Phil Done and others spend less time studying the realclimate website and more time reading some peer-reviewed literature instead.”
If you are going to delete my response to this then perhaps such a throw away line could also be deleted.
As I said in my post Real Climate is a attempt of working climate scientists to communicate and explain the complexities of global warming and possible climate change. I am sure the scientists would be aware of the precision of thermometers and would have allowed for that. The point is that sites such as Climate Audit are set up to cast doubt and further the wedge campaign to prevent action on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This is because some fossil fuel companies perceive that this will reduce their profits. The fact that this campaign even extends to state sponsored skepticism from the worlds largest emitter of greenhouse gases is a measure of how successful this campaign has been.
Climate Audit and other sites of this ilk are not good balanced references. Policies are OK but do you, Ian et al, have one to apologise to the world if climate change ruins the planet?
IPCC define climate as thus;
“Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the “average weather”, or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). These quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, precipitation, and wind. Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system.”
They then say that change to climate is “a statistically significant variation in either the mean state of the climate or in its variability, persisting for an extended period (typically decades or longer).”
The UNFCCC attribute climate change solely to human activity whereas IPCC allow that any aprocess human or non human may effect climate change.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/518.htm
Ender, Fair point about Real Climate. I think there is some excellent information there. I will leave Ian’s comment and your comment.
Now can we discuss the issues raised by Zillman and Loehle?
Jennifer while you’re so busy repressing discussion on moral grounds, perhaps you can delete you own post above then where you incorrectly and accusingly say “You are obviously more interested in point scoring than the substance of an argument” to me but you have denied me the right of reply. Equal standards then eh? You shouldn’t be so heavy handed on the repression of right of reply unless you’re prepared to argue your case for right of attack v’s silencing of dissent.
I agree that abusive posts and personal attacks should be deleted, but this should not involve the deletion of valid points. I didn’t think that Ender’s first post warranted deletion, among others.
Jennifer pls delete your first comment above. It meets your criteria for deletion, in that it continues discussion more relevant to previous posts and it makes personal attacks.
Jen,
Rog basically repeated my point on the definition of climate. Why did you remove my posts?
They were on topic and bland.
Jennifer pls delete your first comment above. It meets your criteria for deletion, in that it continues discussion more relevant to previous posts and it makes personal attacks.
yeah there were a number of posts I read that were unnecessarily deleted. They won’t overly offensive or too far off topic (mine included). Over zealous censorship indeed
THE Roger Pielke Jr policy discussion covers in a scholastic fashion many points that are similar to ideas I have, but mine are not as sharply deveoped. In other words, I think he’s got some pretty constructive things to say, and a vehicle for action that gets past the uncertainty impasse. He does this by cleverly identifying actions that make sense, even if there is no carbon dioxide effect on climate, but which minimise harm if it does. win-win in fact, but more so.
Eg do stuff (eg technology, energy, health, assistance to India, Africa, that should be done anyway)
Lets put aside comments “blaming” people for blocking proposals too.
There is harm on both sides of the uncertain decision process, so both sides can be used for blame, so it doesnt win ang arguments.
Pielke’s paper falls on the error of fossil fuels.
Next?
Thanks for this timely post, and for cracking the whip, Jen. You could also delete Thinksy’s 3 almost identical posts in 3 minutes for a blatant attempt at blocking out the space. It is the blogging equivalent of multiple electronic votes.
Lets read that again, “Results are not precise enough to solve the attribution problem by partitioning warming into natural versus human-induced components.” So we have an even greater need for precision if we are to attribute a natural component to human induced impacts as I mentioned in the trail to the (part 1) post.
“However, anywhere from a major portion to all of the warming of the 20th Century could plausibly result from natural causes according to these results. Six of the models project a cooling trend (in the absence of other forcings) over the next 200 years of 0.2-1.4 degrees C.”
Which is another way of saying that this ‘problem’ falls entirely within the normal range of climate variation.
OK – Ian (Mott) tell us how the models work and why you believe them.
And isn’t it a pity that Philipona (version 1 of this post) gives us empirical evidence of the greenhouse flux. Wonder what we’re gonna do about that.
yes I support my repeat posts and this post being deleted (and the relevant sentence from ian’s post if we’re being thorough)
Interesting too that Zillman goes to considerable efforts to describe the greenhouse effect (inappropriately named he says) – but so acknowledges its existence. Then goes on to say why and how modelling the future is difficult and uncertain. Yep sure is.
The Loehle paper is interesting as it gives us an opinion of natural variation being the driver – whatever natural is? Of course still waiting for someone to tell me how Loehle works.
So convenient of Ian to assemble such contradictory aspects in the one post. So we have greenhouse warming but we don’t (careful Louis – wouldn’t want to disagree with John Zillman would you?) – but we don’t have any current solar mechanism to explain the temperature rise.
Golly it’s all a bit complicated and contradictory isn’t it?
As outcome, what does Ian C recommend?
Phil, the modelling appears to be pretty obvious. Extrapolate past cycles over the 20th Century and then see whether observations over the C20th correspond with your extrapolations.
One of the problems with the climate modelling you champion is whether it proves causation or is merely callibrated to show coincidence. Are all the factors included in the models? Are the factors properly related to each other? One way of alternatively modelling is not to try to account for the factors individually but to observe the behaviour of the system over time and model that.
As we know CO2 has been relatively constant over the period of the second modelling, apart from the last 100 or so years, and if that model “predicts” what has happened, then it suggests either that CO2 has had no effect, or more likely, that it is not significant. It could also just be a case of concidence. But at least it demonstrates that current warming trends are unlikely to be catastrophic giving us an ability to more accurately model risk, which is, from a human point of view, more important than whether it is getting hotter.
Statistical extrapolation is a very very poor substitute for physics. Suppose we were to extrapolate for summer based on autumn. Sure, the match would be good in winter, but for next summer? I’m more inclinded to use the physics of planetary motion, personally.
I notice Loechle uses seems to use data for the 18th century. Isn’t this (prehaps) cheating as these data were already showing a warming, in part due to the enhanced greenhouse effect? In the near term statistical models largely rely on persistence. If the last bit of the data were warming, then the near term predictions would be for warming… this isn’t rocket science.
Surely, a real test would be to start the model running at, say, 1800?
We are certainly in curious times when statistics replaced physics, and methodological curiosities such as that above are not questioned. Also, how can one perform an attribution without physics (read the title carefully – Climate change: detection and attribution of trends from long-term geologic data ). A more appopriate title would be “The non-suprising result that one can develop a statistical model that with suitable parameters produces a warming trend during the 20th century.”
I am suprised that a forum so well populated with “experts” is so willing to uncritically accept such results? I’m just a tad nervous that their is a little confirmation bias going on here….
In addition, the journal seems pretty obscure? What has ecological modelling got to do with climate modelling???
David
The paper actually says “these results suggest that solar forcing (and/or other natural cycles) is plausibly responsible for some portion of the 20th century warming trends”
Well holey doley. That’s true according to the IPCC. WHICH part?
“The data available do not allow a partitioning of warming into natural versus anthropogenic components”
Well holey doley II – that is the entire point. The is the entire problem – the rapid increase in GHG gases since in last decades of the 2oth century.
And of course we do have the dangers of extrapolation I believe still taught in elementary stats courses. Solar cycle research has been problematic as projecting cycles forward had not held up in the future. The climate system has quasi-periodic episodic events that may mimic cyclical behaviour. A stats nightmare.
As David says above – poor substitute for physics.
And it is important the the blog applies the same level of criticality to these papers as the other information provided.
Anyway make sure you read the Loehle paper – it’s still a very interesting read. The use of stats is interesting and a good sets of references on paleo work.
So, which of the climate models that you champion, David and Phil, predicts the next ice age?
I haven’t asked anyone to accept Loehle’s paper uncritically, nor would I suggest that its correctness is guaranteed by the fact that the paper was published in a peer-reviewed journal in the Elsevier stable, with a 46-member editorial board from 20 countries. But nor can it be dismissed as a methodological curiousity on the sorts of grounds cited by David. Apart from any other aspect, this is insulting to the reviewers for Ecological Modelling.
On Thinksy’s question of “What would Ian C recommend?, Ive already drawn attention to the recent paper by Roger Pielke, Jr and I agree with detribe’s comments on Professor Pielke’s proposals. Several of the submissions to the inquiry by the Select Committee on Economic Affairs of the House of Lords into The Economics of Climate Change took a similar line. For example, Ms Rosemary Righter, Associate Editor and former Chief Leader Writer of the London Times, recommended that We should go with what we know, not with inaccurate long-range scenarios, and argued that There is time to explore other approaches to climate mitigation, and to weigh more carefully the cost-benefit relationship between drastic action to reduce emissions that exacerbate cyclical warming, and policies designed to reduce our vulnerability to the effects of climate change.
Dr. Indur Goklany of the US Department of the Interior argued persuasively that mitigation can do little to reduce many of the impacts from warming, whereas investment in adaptation now would both reduce the baseline risks that will occur without any warming, and the warming impacts as well (Report, para. 46). Dr Goklany gives many examples: his submission is available at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12we09.htm .
Those who dont have time to read the individual submissions to the Lords Committee should at least find the time to read the Committees excellent Report, the link to which is at http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/lords_economic_affairs.cfm
Don’t like this word “champion”. Moreover what provides a reasoned, scientific argument and consistent story. And best available science. Stats aren’t it. As the Zillman papers discuss there are a number of issues with the various modelling attempts. Work on this is ongoing – it depends whether you believe we have enough evidence to decide that broad changes are highly likely in the direction the scenarios suggest.
How this drives policy then becomes a political, economic and social issue. But don’t shoot the climate scientists for a message that’s economically inconvenient.
Ice Age stuff is way out of time scale IMHO.
I don’t think the next ice age is that relevant – see http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html
Astronomical calculations show that 65N summer insolation should increase gradually over the next 25,000 years, and that no 65N summer insolation declines sufficient to cause an ice age are expected in the next 50,000 – 100,000 years ( Hollan 2000, Berger 2002).
David,
I acknowledge your intelligent contributions, and I’m not trying to be obstructive, but uncertainties abound every where. By replacing the words “statistical” with “computer simulation with high degrees of freedom for adjustable parameters” your last post could well apply to IPCC studies.
That’s why I like Pielke’s path past the uncertainty impasse, because of his emphasis on adaptive policies, which also serve other purposes is extremely constructive to achieve outcomes. It kills two birds with one stone, and if one bird is not there, the first one, real global problems like poverty, in need of massive amounts of investment, certainly is.Isnt it good if investment capital is scarce to make sure its not wasted.
Also I like Pielk’s (I think) bottom up approach.
The enthusiasts for grande Kyoto like schemes don’t seem to be learning much from their failures.
These failures are at least as much a result of their political and economic naivete, as they are due to sabotage. Stamping one’s foot and getting outraged that others dare thwart one’s noble plans for the planet is a luxury that only totalitarian dictators are allowed. (These remarks at not directed at any particular person.)
By all means think globally, but for …… sake act locally. (Perhaps the one piece of Barry Commoner’s opinions that makes real sense.)
As far as the rhetorical question, “what has ecological modelling got to do with global change”, unfortunately the world is that complex. Human society is relevant too, as Ian has so aptly demonstrated, and IPCCC are amateurs at that. Human society actually makes huge amount of three major disturbants, nitrogen fertilisers, water vapour, and CO2, all part of ecology, natural and industrial.
Ian – well where do you put your adaptation dollars if you don’t know what the impacts might likely be. i.e. if we’re modelling hydrological cycle and you get extreme event distributions or the seasonality wrong – well go home now.
Do you think we have enough knowledge to go with what we’ve got now in Australia?? with respect to climate change sceanrios?
Phil, you seem to think economics is separate from climate issues. It isn’t. And I dont mean that in a political sence, I mean it in an ecological sense, industrial and agriculural ecology is part of the total ecological cycle, it’s PHYSICS too, and can’t be ignored, as you put it. One needs to step back from just thinking of the planet as a world with no organism called humans in it as the”natural” world.
Detribe – I guess David is perhaps postulating that Loehle may not have gotten published in the climate journals.
But on your other points – we’re mixing the climate science, Kyoto and adaptation all in the one bucket again.
The Kyoto crowd isn’t necessarily the climate guys.
You need to be discriminating and tease all this part (said respectfully).
In terms of the IPCC being unexpert in ecology etc – well they use all sorts of people – they don’t just have to be climate types.
What is the IPCC other than an international assembling of a high level collection of experts.
And for all the screaming etc over Kyoto – I don’t think the world has done very much so far about AGW except argue about it. Has anyone ruined their economy over it? Is anyone going to?
Detribe – the Bretton Woods institutions for all their power can’t rule the global atmosphere out of order.
That’s the point. The atmosphere is simply a product of physics. It doesn’t care about ecologies, societies, economies or the cricket. If you don’t have a good handle on climate you’re not at first base IMHO.
These last posts by Jen seem to portray “a third way” where we can play with definitions of climate change or suddenly inject some economics into the climate and give it a darn good thrashing. It’s the same nonsense that came out of the Asia PArtnership meeting – like everyone suddenly found God – at last some common sense said all sides of politics. Martin Fergurson improving the languishing ALP profile telling you what they’ve focus-grouped you as wanting to hear.
See Peter Walsh’s stupid rant in the Australian:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17913942%255E7583,00.html
What crap. What old recycled stupid argumnets. But now we’ve found a third way and we can now all sleep well. We’ve all suddenly worked it out – hallelujah !!! We now know what to do! (we do?)
What the ??
What’s changed?
I just don’t see how that all works.
I think you misundersant the point I am making, I actually explicitly (I hoped to) said that agriculture/industry/economics are physics and are part of the planetary system. So I’m absolutely not saying that Bretton Woods overrules physics. Good physics canot leave ecology/human activities out of an assessment of climate scenarios, and including them realistically is complicated.More complicated than quantum calculations of the state of the myoglobin molecule for instance.
Back too win-win.
Pielkes arguments disarm those who worry that expeditures on CO2 emission conrol divert resources from the poor. They’ve got me on board as an advocate of resiliant responses to climate challenges.
Roger Pielke Jr’s paper echoes remarks of mananagement of harm made by the late Aaron Wildavsky, another American professor of Public Policy. He explains how a policy of resilience may be better than anticipation.
I have made a posting of a relevant chapter by Wildavsky from Searching for Safety 1988 at my website
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/01/anticipation-versus-resilience-as.html
His comments on Climate Change in “But is it True?: A Citizen’s Guide to Environmental Health and Safety Issues”, Harvard, 1995 are probably worth re-reading, which I will now do – and it cover all the buzz words appearing here.
Roger Pielke is quoted in this book too.
Interesting reading. Where Loehle says “Results are not precise enough to solve the attribution problem by partitioning warming into natural versus human-induced components”, this is not saying that anthropogenic forces cannot be separated from natural, only that the data in their study does not allow this. The IPCC say that anthropogenically forced climate change can be determined solely from 20th century data (and don’t they also say that projections of less than 2◦C. aren’t reliable?), so I gather it’s back to a deadlock. Perhaps someone can advise me on these points.
Loehle also says “More sophisticated statistical analyses that test for the effect of all known forcing factors conclude that neither natural nor anthropogenic forcings can be rejected as causative factors. Some studies have attempted to quantify the relative contributions of various factors to warming trends.. These studies
estimate anywhere from less than 25% to 75% of
the 20th Century warming to be anthropogenic, with
values clustering around 50%. Results of the present study are in agreement with these studies.” So anthropogenic forcing isn’t discounted, it may account for half of current warming effect.
Ian (Castle) (or others) can you recommend any good articles on the effects of acidification of the oceans and CO2 absorption limits?
It may well be true that Loehles paper wouldn’t have gotten published in climate journals – and by the same token there have been many papers in climate journals that wouldnt have gotten published in the leading economic and statistics journals. I don’t think that this is a happy situation.
There is a rich irony in Phils remark that “the Bretton Woods institutions for all their power can’t rule the global atmosphere out of order”. Robert Watson, the World Bank’s Chief Scientist and its senior spokeperson on global warming and climate change, is very much part of the IPCC milieu. He was Chairman of the IPCC through the whole period of preparation of its Third Assessment, and still claims that title in his page on the World Bank Experts website (though he ceased to hold the post in April 2002). Not surprisingly, the experts from this Bretton Woods institution continue to be invited to IPCC expert meetings and continue to defend the faulty economic analyses in the Panel’s last Assessment Report and in the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios.
In response to Phils question whether we have enough knowledge to go with what we have now in Australia with respect to climate change scenarios, I am happy to accept John Zillman’s assessment (in the paper for ASSA) that he considers it “very likely” [i.e. 90-99 per cent probability] that “we cannot yet say how greenhouse warming will influence the patterns of climate change at the regional level beyond a general expectation of greater warming over the continents than over the oceans.” I note that John was a Review Editor for the chapter on regional projections in the last IPCC Report.
Ian wasn’t tit for tat – simply that the issue of cycles in climate is statistically problematic. That is why it may not have gotten through – past problems with solar cycles etc. Ask the Bureau does the PDO/IPO really exist?
No problem with economists being part of the IPCC. And if they have their economics wrong well they need to sort it out for the next assessment report. I guess the final argument seemed to be whetehr it changed the outcome. Be pleased for your advice.
On the regional climate issue – here we do a have a problem – lot of people out there doing downscaling work, CSIRO doing regional scenarios. What about CSIRO’s latest extreme event work on Gold Coast ? Who are we to be believe?
And how do you allocate your adaptation dollars if we don’t know regional effects i.e. the Barossa Valley is a tad different to Cairns.
The climate chnage problem is a doozey really – the ultimate management call. Imperfect science, imperfect information. But if get all that CO2 up there can you ever get it out again. Can we adpat with 6 billion or more people. Who wins – who loses. Can we change our energy use without stuffing our economy and way or life. And really no other way of tackling the problem excpet for the use of the dreaded models. We don’t have a replicate planet Earth to play with.
Incidentally Ian – do you have a view of weather forecasting versus seasonal climate forecasting (El Nino) versus climate change versus paloeclimate. How would you allocate the split in funding?
Ian – “we cannot yet say how greenhouse warming will influence the patterns of climate change at the regional level beyond a general expectation of greater warming over the continents than over the oceans”
I totally agree with Dr Zillman here as I said in a post on a previous thread we cannot predict the results of global warming.
The question is why do you and other skeptics assume the climate change whatever it is will be benign?
Who takes the responsiblity if the results are not benign and severe disruptions occur. You have, through your actions, prevented timely action on global warming. Are you or any other leading skeptic going to take responsibilty for this?
Thinksy, thanks for repeating the quote I gave from Loehle and providing another one. I agree that anthropogenic forcing isn’t discounted in his paper and that he said that his results were in agreement with other studies. I didn’t mean to imply the contrary, and I don’t think that I did. It was Phil who claimed that I’d assembled contradictory aspects in one post.
I’ll conclude by quoting the abstract of the paper that Aynsley Kellow (then of the Faculty of Environmental Science at Griffith University, now Professor of Government at the University of Tasmania) presented to the National Academies Forum conference on “The Challenge for Australia on Global Climate Change” in Canberra in April 1997 (eight months BEFORE Kyoto and four years before the release of th IPCC Third Assessment Report):
“This paper suggests that the politics of problem definition resulting from highly politicised climate change science is pushing international action in directions which are ultimately likely to minimise prospects for effective international action. It examines the nature of the various interests involved in the climate change debate. It challenges the notion that the science of IPCC is equally as reliable as peer-reviewed science, especially when combined with the precautionary principle which forms an integral part of the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC).”
In my view, subsequent events have vindicated Professor Kellow’s judgments on all points.
Phil, I think the word “champion” precisely describes what you are doing with climate modelling. I assume that what your answer about Ice Ages means is that the models don’t try to incorporate the periodicity of the climate because the modellers don’t think it is significant.
The importance of the models, or probably more correctly, scenarios, based on past cycles of climate change, Ian Castles draws our attention to, is that they demonstrate that the periodicity of climate change does matter. If it is to the extent of 75%, as Thinksy quotes Loehle as saying, the climate models which assume all, or just about all, of the warming to be anthropogenic are bound to be wrong.
Which brings us to the question of David’s physics. It’s all very fine to have a grasp of the reductionist physics of the parts of a system, but here we are analysing a system. The physics of the parts may be very well understood, but until you are sure that you have accounted for all the variables and interactions, or at least those that are significant, then you cannot be sure that your physics is giving you the right answers.
Extrapolating statistical trends _is_ fraught (although something environmental scientists appear to be prone to when it suits them, such as when a straightline leads to catastophe), but the example David gives with respect to extrapolating from autumn is grotesque. However, it does point to a problem with his preferred form of modelling.
The trends that are being extrapolated in the Loehle book are very long term, which is one of their benefits – they are the manifestation of thousands of years of physics, not just the equivalent of Autumn. If 3000 years is autumn, then the 20th Century, on which David’s preferred models appear to be based, is the equivalent at the most of one day until 7:18 a.m. in the morning. David might think he’s got the physics right, but no-one is arrogant enough to make that claim until they have devised an experiment to test it. I can’t see that there is enough data available in David’s time period for any test to be definitive, which is what makes the historical extrapolations valuable.
Graham
I’m saying based on evidence provided that Ice Age orbital forcings are not relevant in the next few centuries. If you read the papers I previously mentioned Hollan 2000, Berger 2002 – would you think these aspects are important to where we are now and about to be heading?
The climate models do not attribute all the forcings to CO2 – most is solar – still the biggest driver. Volcanic activity can be included. But we have not had a major change in solar activity in the last 50 years that would drive climate.
There are well known issues with false predictions from climate cycle analysis. In any case Loehle himself does not really contradict the observations of the 20th century which have had both solar and CO2 drivers.
David doesn’t think he’s got the physics 100% right – but he does think it’s better than Loehle’s stats approach.
Output of GCM models isn’t necessarily a straight-line either – you can changes in climate as we move through CO2 growth phase to levelling out – plateau. Non-linear outcomes are possible.
We clearly don’t know everything but we do know the world is changing – we only have one dominant hypothesis with a explainable mechanism and I think there is enough in the models for us to show some concern on this difficult issue.
I am absolutely flabbergasted that after all the pillorising of GCMs and computer models by skeptics on this blog about how they cannot model that atmosphere, aresubject to assumptions, have parameters shifted etc can now use EXACTLY the same thing to support their arguments.
I read the Loehle paper and it is curve fitting and parameter setting of the highest order. How can you possibly use this as evidence when you have so denigrated computer models? The fact that it agrees with the skeptics notions means that this computer model is OK?
>By replacing the words “statistical” with “computer simulation with high degrees of freedom for adjustable parameters” your last post could well apply to IPCC studies.
The is a fundamental difference between a physical model and a statistical model. The physical models which climate scientists use are based on the laws of conservation of mass, energy, momentumn, water. These are laws most of us accept at the macroscale (if not the nuclear scale). We have known since the early 1900s how to apply these laws to atmospheric prediction, with the first detailed computer modelling starting in the 1950s and rigourous peer reviewed climate prediction published as from the 1970s onwards (I have referenced these previously, and they predicted with considerable skill the 30 year warming which was observed, and have climate sensitivites very similar to current best estimates).
At all points the core of the models have never looked at the past, and are not trained on observations.
Statistical time series modelling has no physical underpinning. The two approaches are chalk and cheese.
Again I suggest that people read the title… It is impossible to attribute without a physical model.
David
I’m not going to try to respond to all of the “When will you stop beating your wife?” type questions that have been addressed to me, but I really can’t let pass the claim that I have, through my actions, prevented timely action on global warming.
The day after Kyoto was signed Al Gore said: As we said from the very beginning, we will not submit this agreement for ratification until key developing nations participate in this effort… This is a global problem that will require a global solution.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/12/11/kyoto/ Of course there was never the slightest chance of key developing nations agreeing to participate. Clinton sent Gore to give concessions and agree to a treaty that they wouldnt even try to have ratified until they renegotiated the very point theyd conceded: participation of all nations.
Professor Ian Lowe, now President of the Australian Conservation Foundation, returned from Kyoto to proclaim that ‘the issue is far more complicated than might be expected by hurried judgments and from agreements hammered out in the middle of the night by non-scientists at international conferences’ (New Scientist, 3 January 1998, p. 45).
Giving evidence to a Senate Committee hearing on the Kyoto Protocol Ratification Bill in early-2004, the Australian Ambassador for the Environment, Chris Langman, said that “in the past when industrialised countries like Australia, Japan and the United States and the European Union have talked about actions that developing countries might take to constrain emissions in the long term, it has always led to a breakdown of the discussions – to walking out – or to incredibly difficult, all-night discussions that produced very little.” Later in his evidence, the Ambassador said “The point is that whenever in the Kyoto negotiation there was an effort to discuss how developing countries might contribute to the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions within the framework of the protocol – or later on; say in the second commitment period – that led to a breakdown of the negotiations.’
It’s those who’ve persisted in advocating Kyoto as a first essential step whom Ender should be blaming for the lack of effective action. As Warwick McKibbin says in the first paragraph of his 2005 paper for ASSA, ‘the Kyoto Protocol is so badly constructed that it has set back the search for sensible and effective policy responses by at least a decade’ Some of the reasons for this are spelled out in Warwicks paper, and some more are in the Conclusions (pps. 61-62) of Aynsley Kellows contribution to the ASSA Policy Paper.
David, I don’t spend my time haunting this blog as some others appear to do. Perhaps you could refer me to the 1970s studies that have accurately predicted cimate change over the last 30 years.
And I don’t have a problem with the idea that the two methods are chalk and cheese, nor that it is only possible to predict using principles, but that doesn’t mean that because you are using principles your predictions are correct. That is why we have theoretical and practical physics.
Ian – I was not trying to set you up in any of my questions. Simply seek your considered opinion.
I am not defending Kyoto nor attacking it – Kyoto is not enough, has not included business near enough, and has failed to be inclusive – but I am defending the climate science against spurious attacks.
Kyoto has shown the sheer difficulty though in getting agreements on carbon trading and running invetories. Land Use and Forestry area for example is tortuous.
As I said to a colleague recently many tend to run the climate science, Kyoto, greenhouse inventory, mitigation options and adaptation options all together in once bucket. So if there is a problem with Kyoto – let’s tear everything down around it as well. This progresses us nowhere.
If we have set our policy response back a decade in formulating Kyoto – who were the negotiators – the climate scientists or ??
Anyway – do we not need to move on. Or perhaps we don’t need to do anything? And if we don’t need to do anything – what’s the excitement about the Asia Pacific Partnership about then?
Graham,
two references for a start are:
“The effects of Doubling of the CO2 concentration on the climate of a general circulation model, J of Atmos Sciences, 1975, 32, 3-14”, and “Mans Impact on the Global Environment, MIT Press, 1970”, which contains the statment a projected 18 percent increase [in CO2] resulting from fossil fuel combustion to the year 2000 (320 ppm to 379 ppm) might increase the surface temperature of the earth 0.5C; a doubling of the CO2 might increase mean annual surface temperatures 2C – the observed warming was 0.45C.
BTW climate models are based on theoretical physics but give practice results (ie are both theoretical and practical). Statistical time series modelling is simply not physics. It is historical data fitting – fancy yes – but most definitely not physics.
Most scientists I know dable in time series analysis, but if given the option will use a physical model.
David
Phil,
The first thing is perhaps to get a decent definition of ‘climate change’, one that doesn’t ignore ‘natural’ processes. In this way you could bring geologists and others into the fold – at least they may be less inclinded to disagree. The current definition is political and alienating to many professional scientists.
>The current definition is political and alienating to many professional scientists.
There are two definitions of climate change – the IPCC version (which includes natural and anthropogenic) and the UNFCCC version (which is anthropogenic). The IPCC is about the science. The UNFCCC is essentially about ensuring anthropogenic interference is not dangerous.
The IPCC is the domain of science. Why should the IPCC version alienate them?
David
I think John Zillman may be very wise indeed:
As of December 2005.
http://info.anu.edu.au/Discover_ANU/News_and_Events/_Files/_1205GraduationZillman.asp
Some quotes from a very good speech of motivation to young Australian scientists and an interesting position on Kyoto.
*************
Let me try to summarise, in two minutes, the key messages that, as a climate scientist, I believe have emerged from the last 25 years of international research into the science of greenhouse warming and climate change.
· First, the global climate system is immensely complex and there is much about the nature and mechanisms of climate that is not yet well understood;
· Second, the climate has always been changing at global, regional and local levels, due to natural processes, on time scales from months to millions of years;
· Third, one of the processes that is reasonably well understood is the greenhouse effect through which the very small amounts of carbon dioxide, water vapour and other so-called ‘greenhouse’ gases in the atmosphere trap some of the outgoing infrared radiation and keep the earth’s surface some 30°C or more warmer than it would otherwise be;
· Fourth, given our understanding of the greenhouse effect, it would be very difficult to conceive of a mechanism through which increased greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere would not lead to higher temperatures at the earth’s surface;
· Fifth, there is absolutely no doubt that both greenhouse gas concentrations and global mean surface temperatures have increased over the past century; that the increase in greenhouse gases is largely, if not solely, due to human influence; and that, while some of the observed warming could be due to natural processes, most of it is almost certainly due to the increased concentrations of greenhouse gases; and
· Sixth, the physically based computer models of the global climate system (the so-called “Global Climate Models”) are substantial simplifications of the real world but they are already sophisticated enough to produce remarkably good simulations of past and present-day climate and to provide the basis for confidence that we can produce reliable projections of how the planet might respond to various possible rates of greenhouse gas build-up over the coming century.
Point 1. On the basis of our current understanding of the science of climate, it is virtually certain that greenhouse warming presents a significant potential threat for the world, and for Australia, which governments must address. It could turn out to be within society’s established capacity to adapt to natural changes in climate, but there is a substantial risk of serious adverse impacts from unmitigated human-induced climate change and some risk of climate catastrophe within the lifetimes of the present generation. There is still a lot of uncertainty in the issue but it is certainly neither fraud nor fantasy;
· Point 2. The Kyoto Protocol is not, and never was, a solution to the threat of greenhouse warming. Like the government, I believe Kyoto was the wrong model. Unlike the government, I tend to believe that, once Kyoto had been concluded, we should have given it our best shot as an important first step, while we proceed to get a better handle on the nature and severity of the threat. But Australia having not ratified Kyoto, and especially the US having not done so, I think it is now critically important that we participate strongly in the search for a new global consensus on strategy for moving toward a low greenhouse gas emissions future which will bring all the big emitters fully on board. I strongly endorse the efforts of the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell, to reposition Australia as an international leader in the search for better ways of addressing the challenge of climate change;
************
I hear you John Zillman !
Jen – do you have a proposal definition as a better way forward? Or at least the elements you want covered if not the phrasing.
David,
My original post (Part 1) and the comments from John Zillman in the body of this post (Part 2) explain how the definitions have been confounded. … the discussion is nolonger honest with people like Ian Lowe writing books that open with the words ‘I am a scientist’ and the go on to work from the UNFCCC definition.
I don’t like the current conflict, but to move forward there has to be more trust and honesty … so what about one honest definition for all?
Phil
If we got some words together we could perhaps run them as a petition … Graham Young runs petitions at National Forum.
The secret would be words that David Jones and Bob Carter and Ian Castles could all agree on?
Holey doley ! that would be something
Thanks for the further quotation from John Zillman, Phil. John is indeed very wise and continues to be widely quoted on many aspects of the debate. Several of his papers were cited by Roger Pielke in the paper that triggered this discussion. I recommended a reading of his February 2005 paper for ASSA. David Henderson cited him in his submission to the House of Lords Committee inquiry, in support of the proposition that the IPCC has now become ‘cast more in the model of supporting than informing policy development.’
John’s recent speech covers a wide canvas, but there’s one proposition in particular on which I need to comment: he says that ‘we can produce reliable projections of how the planet might respond to VARIOUS POSSIBLE RATES of greenhouse gas build-up over the coming century’ (EMPHASIS added).
The point of the IPCC scenarios was to attempt to assess what those rates might be up to 2100. In his posting above, David cites the 1970 MIT study ‘Mans impact on the global environment’ for its success in projecting a global mean temperature increase of 0.5 deg. C by 2000. But note that this projection was based on an assumption that global CO2 emissions from fuel combustion would reach 45.5 million tons by 2000: in the event, these emissions barely reached half of this level, and several of the IPCC emissions scenarios project that, without taking into account any measures taken for climate policy reasons, annual emissions will NEVER reach the level that the MIT projected for 2000. And in making these projections, the IPCC modellers excluded technologies which had not been demonstrated to function on a prototype scale (SRES, p. 216): an extremely conservative assumption for projections running ahead for a century.
So there would still be a very large uncertainty involved in projecting how emissions may evolve over the course of the century, even if it is the case that reliable projections can now be produced of the effects on climate of any given build-up of concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. One might have hoped that the IPCC should have wanted to work towards minimising that uncertainty, and might have considered the proposals (supported by the Australian Government) to involve national accounts statisticians and economic historians in their next assessment. But they decided instead to stick to the original set of flawed projections produced nearly ten years ago. No wonder that the all-party Committee of the House of Lords expressed their concern (see paras. 48-72 of their Report).
An early point in this debate on readings from mercury or alcohol thermometers drew my attention. For the sake of a bold statement; nobody here has handled more mercury than me. I made a business out of calibrating important instruments across a wide range of measurements as used in process control or environmental monitoring. Reading mercury was a handicap.
But industry hired my kind only to trouble shoot the whole control system, not their thermometers. However NATA was always in the background. I was a veteran in dealing with errors in interpretations made from our peripheral measurements and perhaps an expert in quick extrapolations beyond the available records based on sound local knowledge. Some group leaders saw only what they expected every time. That was a dangerous habit in some places. I learned to shoot from the hip.
Please let me say this here in your expert climate forum; accuracy of measurement was hardly ever an issue in understanding critical industrial events but it was, all about best guessing the whole picture in a given time. As in economics, trends in ‘engineering’ may not be easily seen from counting coins.
In industry we used complex models in routine operations every day and often for fresh experiments. Cycles in ‘climate’ or cycles in reactions can lead to bizarre outcomes depending on the power in change drivers and amplified out of phase response. I reckoned the Chernobyl nuclear accident was a classic example. Looking on these situations from the outside can be a health hazard for bystanders too.
To put it in simple terms; all ‘natural’ reactions can go wild after a wind up in the amplitude of ‘normal’ cycles with uncontrolled peaks and troughs. Short cycle operations were difficult enough to predict from merely watching one of the loops on a graph. Catching the drift or trend in a multitude of cycles was beyond the scope of early industrial instruments in simple mathematical combinations.
Computers at their best even today remain only a box of switches. Let me suggest too that programming them all in finding a ‘consensus’ from the available data from various records is the major task in climate modelling.
Lets return to thermometers; from the 1960’s mercury in field instruments was largely replaced by low voltage electrical sensors RTD’s and forced balanced differential pressure cells left over from the space race. With digital electronics and displays that followed, readings in the order of point one C were common. I used platinum pairs for measuring humidity way back.
Smart models are all about knowing what is reliable. On earth we work in conditions a long way above absolute, how stable is any mean or model in the greater scheme of things if we can’t control the energy input?
What controlled the balance before us is a better question.
Revisiting my question above “As outcome, what does Ian C recommend?”, I meant beyond redefining climate change, to tangible actions. Given that the focus of the UNFCCC is limited by its own articles, incorporating and addressing the various additional factors discussed above would call for fundamental changes or, more likely, a new institution. There would be intense resistance over perceived interference tactics and the prospect of more years of negotiations (unless it was agreed to observe the Kyoto Protocol whilst negotiating its replacement) and delays while scientists try to perfect their models of natural climate change (“It’s the termites!” “No no, it’s the trees!”). As Ian Castle pointed out, attempts to involve developing countries in Kyoto commitments led to a breakdown in negotiations. How do you propose that broadening the definition of climate change could then be followed by ‘successful’ and ‘honest’ international negotiations? (Tying ODA to developing country climate activities is difficult). What model/approach do you recommend?
The McKibbin-Wilcoxen Blueprint proposes to modify current trading schemes, with permits that “could be based on the limits in the Kyoto Protocol” but “Unlike the Protocol, however, the Blueprint provides an upper limit on the cost of compliance.” So like Kyoto, but with capped costs, plus with developing countries included, again negotiated (how?) using something like the Kyoto targets. Do you expect that developing countries would need to set the lead to get developing countries on board, as could have happened under Kyoto?
These proposals aren’t so materially different from Kyoto as to justify concluding that the Kytoto Protocol has prevented good policy processes. The main criticisms of Kyoto that I’ve seen from McKibbin et al are the non-involvement of developing nations (touched on above) and the potential high costs of meeting rigid emission limits. McKibbin says the latter doomed the protocol in Australia. Ian recommends considering the cost-benefit relationships , but interestingly McKibbin only addresses the costs. Similarly, the economic modelling of ABARE that was used by the Australian Government ignored the potential benefits of reducing emissions, at the same time as business groups anticipated net benefits from efficiency improvements and technological opportunities. ABARE apparently overlooked the benefits from energy efficiency measures and the opportunities from technological change, assumed that revenues from GHG taxes or trading schemes would be allocated according to past economic priorities, and over-estimated the costs of reducing land clearing. Mapping economic models of emission reductions from around the world, Professor John Weyant (Stanford uni) found that with estimated marginal costs of abatement double those of other models, ABARE had the highest costs. Yet ABARE’s revised cost estimate of meeting the Kyoto Protocal forecast only a 0.18% pa negative impact on GNP, ie it would take an extra 3 weeks to reach forecast annual increases in GNP. Allen Consulting found there would be benefits of increased employment and reduced energy costs.
Beyond agreement on a broader definition, what specific approach is preferred to move towards actual policy that can address the shortfalls of the Kyoto Protocol?
Ian – “One might have hoped that the IPCC should have wanted to work towards minimising that uncertainty, and might have considered the proposals (supported by the Australian Government) to involve national accounts statisticians and economic historians in their next assessment.”
I think economic forecasting, even the best, is as flawed as climate forcasting. Your criticism of the IPCC economics projections are probably quite valid as I respect your knowledge in this area.
However could they have done better? Why would better projections changed policies. This is a discussion of economic modelling involving an economist who writes the Econbrowser blog
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113810608408354680.html?mod=today
Their concluding statements are:
“As a result, my concluding wish would be the same as yours: that policy makers, be they at the Fed, Congress, the White House, or anywhere else, behave as if the future is extremely uncertain — which it is. As your 1% fed-funds rate example illustrates, being overly confident about the future trajectory of the economy may lead policy makers to fall into the trap of enacting policies that could make things worse rather than better. A more explicit acknowledgement that even the best forecasts are only very, very rough guesses might help to reduce violations of the “Economic Hippocratic Oath”: First, do no harm.”
I guess this means that it is better to continue on as we are until something changes. The rough guesses of the IPCC may not be any better than the rough guesses of the best team that you can assemble. If we apply this principle we will lurch on until there is a crisis that makes everyone see that change is unavoidable.
I think the fundamental problem is that you and other economists take it as a given fact that we must make money while dealing with climate change. If dealing with climate change means that we have to stop making money then you will naturally either deny the climate change is happening or try to think of ways to deal with climate change AND make money at the same time. That is that making money is your first priority because money means jobs and mortgages businesses etc. Climate change must fit into that agenda rather than the other way round.
The problem is that the kind of crisis that can cause a shift in attutude is going to be a doozy. Witness the tsanami recently. Even the deaths of 200 000 people did not change anything as most of the same things are going to be rebuilt in the same place ready for the next one. Climate change is not the only crisis we face. In the next few years world oil supplies will peak and for the first time we will come up against a limit to growth – if that happens at the same time as a major climate shift then this could be the crisis that changes world attitudes – The Perfect Storm.
Most scientists are not concerned with with 0.6 degrees heating so much as what this warming can do. Through studies of chaotic systems they have learned that these systems can undergo rapid and dramatic shifts. There are records of this in the ice cores. Our heating of the Earth could be supplying the stimulus for one of those shifts.
I have asked you for a Plan B and of course you do not have one – who could have one for a change of this magnitude. I asked you to take responsibility for climate change and that is unfair because I drive a car, I use electricty so I am as responsible as you.
So I am giving up asking. However for everyone that reads this no matter what you believe how about you think now what would you do if the climate changed. If suddenly overnight your area was plunged into drought or snow or whatever. I realise that this is unlikely however it would be a good excercise and it would sure beat sniping at each other and duelling with quotes.
What would you do, how would you cope with suddenly changed conditions? I have a vested interest because people near to me are dependant on medical technology that I do not want to see disrupted.
What would you do?
And that’s the rub
ongoing drought in Australia for the last 15 years
ongoing water crises in most capital cities
Are these to do with climate change – too early to know but perhaps indicative of what we may face. Interesting to ponder even if variability.
an already over-exploited Murray-Darling system
rampant coastal development at risk from storm surge and cyclone wind damage in northern Australia
many new homes being built with minimal water and energy efficiency standards
extinction possible with species in ecosystems that have nowhere to move (e.g. up slope in the montane rainforests of Bartle Frere)
high demand for our coal and uranium in Asia
long distances, high transportation costs, high climate variability inherent (El Nino)
On these very hot days when everybody flops around the house getting on each others nerves we tend to rush to the cinema for a bit of light relief – I can recommend the latest version of “Pride and Prejudice”, its very good and has a more ‘earthy’ feel about it yet is both grandmother and kid safe.
Thinksy, Phil & Ender,
taking the IPCC head’s advice on board ie we need market initiatives not the corruption of govt subsidy to resolve this apparent dilemma, how would you present your case to the market?
(in 25 words or less)
sorry – we don’t have a market mechanism without some constructs. Individual firms decide to play or not. Global atmosphere shrugs its shoulders.
22-23 words
In Enders apocalypse he mentions “peak oil”, this is the crisis that is always just around the corner. Last July the ‘experts’ were calling oil next winter (now) at +$US100bbl.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,1519745,00.html
Since then we have had all sorts of scares, Iran going nuclear, Venezuela going Red, Iraq getting bogged down, Kuwait reserves now 50%, on it goes.
After what must be one of the coldest northern winters for a long time (heating oil) plus all this impending catastrophe you would expect oil to be at peak demand the price today is ~$US65bbl.
How come?
Obviously the market’s evaluation
..of supply
rog – “Enders apocalypse”
I did not say there was going to be an apocalyse. I wanted you to imagine if there was one what would you do. How would you manage? Abstract thought experiment.
Kuwait is not the only country that has overstated its reserves. Inside info usually reserved for the Royal family was leaked. Peak Oil is difficult to pin down accurately as there are no real oil numbers about. Most estimates are that light sweet crude has already peaked. Actually North America is quite mild at the moment easing demand worries.
Ender wrote, “Most scientists are not concerned with 0.6 degrees heating so much as what this warming can do. Through studies of chaotic systems they have learned that these systems can undergo rapid and dramatic shifts. There are records of this in the ice cores. Our heating of the Earth could be supplying the stimulus for one of those shifts”.
I could say engineers have been dealing with small scale chaotic systems for decades and the practice today in say the electrical power industry reflects some of that experience. The difference with climate science is we remain as mere observers in any event. We don’t control the solar energy absorbed by the earth.
There is something else that I noticed in rapidly changing cycle amplitudes in powerful systems, simple feed back and response is often out of phase with the main cycle. But the rate of response was far more critical in stabilizing the event if the proportion was in the right order of magnitude.
The mainstream arguments for Kyoto depend on some questionable belief that we as whole working in our future endeavors have some impact on what actual trend is occurring now. But growth in all human activities is likely to continue way past peak oil and every government and corporation on the planet will ensure that it continues as it is.
The rate of consumption of fossil fuels was the issue; the new issue is the looming shortage of oil and perhaps its elevation as the unaffordable fuel for the majority of land transport. Price fluctuations today probably only represent the reserves stored out of the ground not under it. Supply of all resources at any time is manipulated in the short term.
I recommend considering fitting pedals to your SUV soon.
Does anyone other than rog really want to distract this thread with a peak oil or apocalypse debate? There have been some decent exchanges above. When/if Ian Castles has the time and the inclination I’m quite keen to hear his response to the questions preceding rog’s Jane Austen & peak oil red herrings. I’d also happily read serious responses from others.
Absolutely well put Thinksy. Lets move on. Focusing on policy realism is what is needed: we’ve heard too much about model uncertainties and physics: were obviously not going to learn more about these topics for quite some time, while policy discussions now can be constructive.
The fact that our discussion is take place is tacit acknowledgement of issues worth progressing, even though different visions of its exact nature exist. There is an elephant in the room. We dont need this pointless effort of different parties trying to make others accept their own view of it. We wouldn’t be talking if we didnt all know there is something worth talking about.
I can’t tell if Rog is serious or bored after a long day.
The reason most environmental problems are problems is that we have no legal framework, externalities not internalised, a commons to exploit or pollute. If the market has no signal why should it care – ethical corporations excepted.
Would California air pollution improve without legislation – toughest in the world?
Global warming is such an issue. So if you want to give the market some signals you need to make carbon a commodity of value and be able to trade it. A global carbon market. But in this case more carbon is worse I guess. But given we have all sorts of derivatives with futures markets including weather derivatives.
You guys don’t like Kyoto – and the Land Use and Forestry stuff is complex.
Rog I think Peak Oil is maybe worth a debate but somewhat out of context here. Given Australia and the USA fields have peaked we do know that peaks will occur and have occured. Perhaps you could ask Jen for thread on the topic. Or a more general thread on “Limits to Growth” or resource limitations – fact or fantasy.
Thanks Thinksy. I do indeed have the inclination, but unfortunately not the time, to answer the large questions Ive been asked. Aynsley Kellow and Warwick McKibbin are both co-authors of books on Kyoto and the alternatives, and the published submissions to the Lords Committee run to over 300 pages. I have high hopes for the outcome of the review of the economics of climate change that is currently being conducted by the UK Treasury and the Cabinet Office under the leadership of Sir Nicholas Stern, Head of the Government Economic Service and former Chief Economist at the World Bank. This is, I think, the first time that these issues are being intensively studied within government by a team of economists.
Meanwhile, fortified by detribe’s call for policy realism, I’ll table my Plan B, with acknowledgement to Indur Goklany:
‘Over the next few decades the focus of climate policy should be to (a) broadly advance sustainable development, particularly in developing countries since that would generally enhance their adaptive capacity to cope with the many urgent problems they currently face, including many that are climate sensitive; (b) specifically reduce vulnerabilities to climate-sensitive problems that are urgent today and might be exacerbated by future climate change; and (c) implement ‘no-regret’ emissions reduction measures; while (d) concurrently striving to expand the universe of no-regret options through research and development to increase the variety and cost-effectiveness of available mitigation options’ (Submission to House of Lords Economic Committee Inquiry).
In the light of this and other submissions, the House of Lords Economic Committee unanimously concluded that ‘The important issue is to wean the international negotiators away from excessive reliance on the ‘targets and penalties’ approach embodied in Kyoto. Hence there should be urgent progress towards thinking about wholly different, and more promising, approaches based on a careful analysis of the incentives that countries have to agree to any measures adopted’ (Report, para. 184).
The objections to Kyoto go deep. To quote a few from Aynsley Kellow’s paper for ASSA, the Protocol ‘lacks adequate enforcement mechanisms; it allows paper reductions in emissions to be offset against future real increases; and it is overly sanguine about the ability to create the institutions (especially measurement and verification measures) which will permit the establishment of effective emissions trading regimes.’
Ender, I agree totally with you about the difficulties of economic forecasting. A major element in the Castles and Henderson critique of the IPCC approach is precisely that the Panel is excessively confident of its ability to make long-term projections of emissions, i.e., of socio-economic conditions and technological possibilities. The concluding statements you quote from the Econbrowser blog summarise precisely why basing policies on very long-term projections of emissions is wrong-headed.
But the emissions scenarios do need to be constrained by what is logically possible, and they do need to be based on sound concepts. For example, it would be a nonsense (a) to assume that average incomes per head in Africa will increase 15-fold by the middle of the century (as the IPCC scenarios with both the highest and lowest emissions profiles do); (b) to base projections of emissions of GHGs on this assumption; but then (c) conclude that climate change will lead to large increases in the numbers at risk of hunger on the continent. Yet this is what is done in the most widely-cited impact study using the IPCC scenarios.
In his submission to the Lords Committee, Julian Morris of the University of Buckingham made the point that, if Bangladesh and the United States prove to have similar levels of output per head by the end of the century, as the IPCC high emissions scenarios assume, this outcome could only have come about because either (a) Bangladesh has found a highly cost-effective way of coping with the adverse effects of climate change or (b) it would not have suffered these effects. He concludes that ‘Either way there appears to be a contradiction between the economic scenarios that underpin the IPCC’s climate forecasts and the scary stories that the IPCC tells on the back of these forecasts.’
I may try and address some of the other questions Ive been asked, but that will have to be on another day.
David, your quotation from the MIT piece illustrates the problem that you have with your models. You say “a projected 18 percent increase [in CO2] resulting from fossil fuel combustion to the year 2000 (320 ppm to 379 ppm) might increase the surface temperature of the earth 0.5C”. Now CO2 is at 380 ppm and you are claiming a rise in surface temperature of 0.5 degrees.
So far, so good, but as we know that temperature of the earth can and does vary independently of CO2 concentrations, how do you know that the rise was due to CO2 alone? And if it wasn’t, then in fact you may have overshot or undershot by more than the 0.5 degrees. If you overshot, your modelling was completely unsuccessful, and if you undershot, then things are a lot worse than you thought.
The IPCC graph at http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm is interesting. It shows general trends between model and observations reaching more or less the same end point, but with significant divergences along the way. You’d probably get a better feel for this by graphing a rolling average.
But you might well be getting this result by massaging the factors that are programmed in until you get a reasonably good fit, but without those factors necessarily being the right ones if you are missing some ingredients.
I’ve gleaned some of my information from the graphs that Jennifer put up on the site on the 28th November. While you’re explaining your models, could you please tell me what the mechanism is that makes temperature dive just after the peaks in CO2 shown in those graphs?
You make a lot of assumptions Phil so I will deal with as a list;
1 peak oil was raised by Ender
2 apocalyptic scenarios also raised by Ender
3 “environmental problems are problems is that we have no legal framework” (there is a mass of enviroment laws eg clean air act, clean water act, OH&S legislation – in Australia http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/law/envlaw.htm)
4 “Markets have no signal why should it care” – markets only serve to facilitate transactions not disburse emotions. Traders who are operating ineffeciently will be of less value as judged by others in the market. In the US Ford, Chrysler and GM are losing market share because their product is not attractive to consumers whereas smaller vehicle builders are reporting massive profits and the hybrids have long waiting lists. GMs report of a quarterly loss of $4.8 billion could wipe a further $2 off the share – share prices reflect earnings real and potential.
I should add that Honda and Toyota shares have risen 40% whilst GM and Ford have dropped 50% over the last two years.
Honda and Toyota are efficient businesses producing an efficient product. As their profits increase they have been reinvesting in R&D of even more efficient vehicles which may eventually reduce emissions of CO2 to zero. Without the investment in these technologies made by private individuals in publicly traded companies operating in a free market such developments may never happen.
Thanks, Ian. Brevity is a virue too.
Let’s try and not expand on the scope of Ian’s proposal, but try and identify any stumbling blocks to it’s general acceptance, and suggest how they can be solved.
Constructive focussed criticism would be great.
Rog – if everyone wants to – no problems with a “Limits to Growth” or “Apocalypse” type discussion – up to Jen for guidance.
AND the reasons small vehicles are popular – gasoline prices in recent times, and perhaps perceptions of Middle East issues and long term supply. The market has a reason to move.
What drives emission standards for vehicles – Californian regulations.
Hard to see why the market should move on global warming or NEW phrase: anhtropogenic emissions from coal and oil combustion – no global framework; USA, China & India not party to anything – lots of people with doubt (e.g. yourself, Louis etc) are saying AGW is b/s.
Why should the market bother. How’s that Asian brown haze cloud – no regulation, no community incentive for action – so just let it rip. Chronic air pollution.
So the CO2 will keep going up and you’ll all get what you voted for.
So Rog in 25 words or less – would you recommend action on this issue and if so, what.
Ian couple of issues:
What’s the practical upshot of PPP versus MER issue. What effect does it have on emissions.
And on the IPCC not updating scenarios issue – isn’t that more a question of resourcing – updating is a multi-year process as I understand it (non-trivial) and the IPCC can only review what it has on hand ?
“The objections to Kyoto go deep. To quote a few from Aynsley Kellow’s paper for ASSA, the Protocol ‘lacks adequate enforcement mechanisms; it allows paper reductions in emissions to be offset against future real increases; and it is overly sanguine about the ability to create the institutions (especially measurement and verification measures) which will permit the establishment of effective emissions trading regimes.'”
These are some of the shortcomings of kyoto. however, the one big advantage of emissions trading with a targets and penalties approach is that it does not favour specific technologies. It allows the market maximum flexibility to respond in the best way possible to reduce emissions.
Ian’s plan B is, by contrast, extremely short on detail. It’s easy to feel that you have a good approach when you have no substance and nothing to criticise. “Advance sustainable development?” Implement ‘no regrets’ efficiencies? Such statements are of little value because they, likewise, do not imply any attempt to MEASURE results, or verify that action is commensurate with the scope of the problem. Will only ‘no regrets’ efficiencies be enough to achieve anything?
How does one ‘broadly advance sustainable development’?
You could hand out money for R&D as Ian suggests, to try and expand the number of no regrets solutions.
However, this approach is possible the most economically fraught approach there is. Loads of cash given to industries in the hope that they will improve. And if they don’t, then its money wasted. And who picks which industries get the cash? Policy makers. You want to rely on policy makers to decide how to invest R&D funds for a global problem? This is an incredibly weak approach – R&D funding is suitable so long as it is very small scale. It’s not a particularly effective approach of a big problem like global warming.
By far, the best driver of innovation is competition. I’m sure most people would agree with this. If you REALLY REALLY REALLY want to expand the array of ‘no regrets’ solutions to global warming, then the best way is to
– communicate to the market that their is value in reducing greenhouse emissions
– let the market do its thing
How do you communicate to the market that their is value in reducing emissions? With a carbon tax, or with emissions trading.
Kyoto.
By far the biggest problem for kyoto is that not all countries are participating. The USA and Australia are making kyoto weak, while proposing alternatives that are even weaker.
The best thing our govts could be doing is fully supporting a market based approach using emissions trading, targets, and penalties, instead of arguing against the grain, and creating uncertainty for the market. Uncertainty inhibits market activity more than an emissions trading scheme ever will.
That is, unless your idea of ‘the market’ and ‘the economy’ doesn’t extend beyond fossil fuel and energy intensive industries.
Now lets not start drawing very long bows from the price of Toyota vs Ford shares. The reason Ford is currently laying off tens of thousands and closing plants in the US is because Ford has 800,000 unfunded pension obligations on it’s books while most foreign owned US auto makers have only a few thousand, if any. That is, unlike Japanese autoworkers who funded their own retirement, US auto unions opted for employer based pensions on the never never. Back to the topic please, it is a good read.
At the end of the day Ford are losing money making cars – sales may have recently increased but only through factory rebates.
It doesn’t matter how many countries do or don’t accept, or then meet, Kyoto commitments. (In fact, it does matter in terms of economic well-being, and hence the ability to address real-life environmental issues.) But the Sun drives our ever-changing climate. In neither inertial nor electromagnetic terms, is ours an autonomous planet; and we can’t control climate until we control the Sun. That will be more difficult than it sounds, because planetary motions drive the Sun’s irregular orbit around the centre-of-mass of the solar system. We won’t get a stable Sun until we do something about those planets!
Nobody is arguing that we should be CONTROLLING the climate fosbob. I’m therefore not sure what your point is.
Ian has provided a good framework in this discussion but I for one can’t leave it to the policy makers and politicians to fix all our problems. Each of us must focus on our own back yard
For too long I have harped on about our lack of basic skills in relation to this country remaining independent and competitive on our way forward. Maintaining a highly skilled as well as highly motivated society is so important. I truly expect big breakthroughs to come from local engineering and innovation. They may include finding better ways for using our coal right here. I expect Kyoto will be a side line for us in the long run
When Steve asks “How does one ‘broadly advance sustainable development,’ my immediate reaction is ‘move the practice away from the rhetoric’. Clever thoughts and words are part of a new ‘knowledge based’ language that in itself does nothing other than exclude the grass roots in our construction.
Whatever we build from now on must relate to an individual view of what is sustainable in their terms, particularly in regard to affordability on a global scale. We must see what’s practical and that probably means diminishing returns for enterprises in the short term.
We need an inclusive approach to all maters related to resource consumption. Smart rationing across the board in industry and commerce is not unreasonable if every one wants that. Selling it now is a big job though for politicians but we can’t wait for the scientists and analysts to confirm a crisis in supply of anything including oil or water.
Within Australia by simply tweaking the existing Standards regime we can do a lot more than we have in regard to design and compliance for a range of better outcomes. That’s depending on engineering again.
COMMENTS POSTED FOR ENDER
1. detribe – “Focusing on policy realism is what is needed”
I think that time for policies is long past however I am interested in Ian Castles guesses as well.
Whatever is going to happen is now going to happen as we have no real chance of arresting warming while making money is more important.
Until someone can make a policy that puts the climate before making money nothing real will be done. Oh sure there will be token efforts however none of them will be allowed to impinge on economic growth and therefore none will be effective.
2. Ian – “..and they do need to be based on sound concepts..”
But what difference would that make. You have admitted that long range forecasting is fraught with difficulty so why would sound concepts make any difference? Why not admit that you really have no idea how the economy will behave in response to climate change? In that case then it would be better to apply the precautionary principle as none of us has any idea of what the climate will do and what the economy will do.
“No regrets” strategies have one fatal flaw. They make no provision for regrets. Making hay while the sun shines is OK as long as you store the hay for when the wind blows. We are not doing anything to cope with the possible regrets of a “no regrets” strategy.
You do not want to talk about peak oil however transportation makes up approx 40% of greenhouse emissions. Fix peak oil and you fix 30 or so percent of greenhouse emissions and you avoid the disruptions that the loss of cheap oil will bring. The battery electric cars and plug in hybrids that can fix peak oil can also fix renewable energy. With millions of batteries in millions of cars the storage required for reliable renewable energy is solved. Reliable renewable energy can fix the remaining emissions from power plants.
Coal burnt in IGCC converters can have the carbon black removed that is acting as a heat shield at the moment (global dimming). A small base load of fossil fuel can provide us with a heat blanket and not emitting carbon aerosols will enable more heat to reach the Earth. Pretty soon, in a thousand years or so, we will be entering another glacial period. These are characterised by very low CO2 levels. If we manage to avoid a global tipping point and the climate remains unchanged in the future we will actually need the CO2 and as much sunlight as possible to mitigate the effects of the new glacial period. Too bad if we have used it all now.
So perhaps the best policy is to fix transportion first so the global economy, based on cheap fossil fuel transport, is not disrupted.
COMMENTS POSTED FOR ENDER BECAUSE MY SYSTEM WAS BLOCKING ACCESS ON BASIS OF ‘QUESTIONABLE COMMENT’, SORRY ENDER.
I’ve posted some of the comment from above as new blog posts, see
part 3 ( http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001138.html )
and part 4 ( http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001139.html )
… in an effort to untangle and progress discussion.
I think your point about tackling transport first is a good one Ender. It is also the one with some apparently viable solutions entering the marketplace.
The electric only and hybrid cars will be contributors, but the cost keeps these vehicles away from the majority of people who drive older cars. Most people also use their vehicles for more than just commuting within a city, and the occasional use of a vehicle for long distance travel would certainly make an electric-only vehicle a total non-option for me. Electric vehicles of any sort also fail to tackle the requirements of heavy transport.
I accept that less than half of transport fuels are used by diesel powered vehicles, but I would guess that the economic importance of those diesel vehicles is far greater than the importance of our personal transport (mostly petrol) vehicles.
So solving the supply for diesel transport fuel would maintain our resource-based economy’s fundamental requirements and also provide a another string to the bow for personal transport. Changing from petrol to diesel cars is an existing very modest step with no infrastructure changes required.
A source of diesel? Biomass (not canola and palm oil or any other edible materials) cracked and synthesised into liquid fuel. We just use technolgy to do what time and geological conditions have done for some time to give us mineral oil. See this little brochure for a start. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/fuels/altfuels/420f00036.pdf
Seems to me that we (globally) are expending most of the intellectual energy directed towards the energy issue arguing about whether or not we should respond to a problem that we don’t yet fully understand and which some would argue does not exist or is not caused by us. This is just a recipe for wasting time – it’s little more than entertainment. We need to think more about how to reduce our emissions and make our energy base more sustainable anyway. We could seek alternatives to mineral oil for many reasons and only one of them is the risk of climate change.
Perhaps also devote a little thought to how we will respond politically at a global level to changes that appear to be innevitable (regardless of their cause) at some stage. Our prospects for controlling climate to prevent climate variability are either very slim or non-existent.
Boxer – “Electric vehicles of any sort also fail to tackle the requirements of heavy transport.”
Why – trains are already hybrids (diesel/electric) and trucks can be plug-in hybrids as well. Trucks can carry heavy batteries quite easily and can swap them more easily, as they can be carried externally, instead of recharging. Delivery vans can be electric as can farm inplements etc as they do not need a long range.
Even then the IGCC plants can easily produce diesel fuel via the Fischer-Tropsch process.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/F/FischerT1.asp
Whoa!
1. Economic predictions have not.
2. Climate predictions have not.
To this individual the presumptions used by 1 and 2 are the problems, not the methodologies used by 1 or 2.
OK, Step back, take a deep breath, run around the block, stare at your navel, and THEN react.
About controlling climate. IPCC’s hypothesis of a people-driven climate says:
* The Mediaeval Warm Period and Little Ice Age cold periods didn’t happen.
* An unchanging climate is only now warming, because of people burning fossil fuels.
* Unless we decarbonise the world economy, continued warming is inevitable.
The EU has called for “Beyond Kyoto” measures to limit global warming to 2C above the pre-industrial level. Tony Blair said in King Canute fashion (in Mozambique on 1 September 2002) “we can defeat climate change if we want to”. HM Government’s scientific adviser, Sir David King was quoted in a piece headed “Why Antarctica will soon be the only place to live – literally” in the (UK) Independent of 2 May 2004:
“Antarctica is likely to be the world’s only habitable continent by the end of this century if global warming remains unchecked ..”
There is a push to do the impossible – control climate. Even in Australia, The Australian Climate Group said (“Climate Change solutions for Australia, published in 2004 by WWF Australia):
* Earth is overheating.
* We hold the future in our hands and we still have choices.
* Our way of life is at risk because Australia is vulnerable to climate change.
* The following keys steps, if taken today, will make an important impact for generations to come …
The first “key step” is:
Setting a national target for a reduction of emissions of 60% by 2050.
But the Sun drives our ever-changing climate, and the planets drive the Sun. Planetary motions can be calculated, and if the Sun keeps playing by the rules, cooling will be detectable by the end of the decade – and the next Little Ice Age cold period will be fully developed by 2030. People starved in the Maunder Minimum (1645-1715). The question is: how will we keep a much larger world population warm and fed during the Landscheidt Minimum?
Phil Done,
You do not understand what a market is.
It is a term used to describe individuals exchanging one good for another.
When we say the “market determines” it means that whe you decide to sell some good or idea, and no one buys it, and you subsequently become broke, then that is a signal to you that your project or idea was wrong.