The IPCC is intending to release its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) in three parts next year. Part 1 is likely to be launched in early 2007 and focus on the physical basis for climate change. Part 2 is likely to be released mid year and focus on impacts of global warming while Part 3 will be released later in the year and focus on how to mitigate climate change.
In this week’s journal Nature (Vol 441, 6-7, 4 May 2006) there is information about the climate change predictions in the current draft of Part 1, including:
“The current draft, which represents the message that the scientific authors want to present to policy-makers, contains few statements that will surprise climate researchers, but its tone is much more confident than that of its predecessor, published in 2001. And that, say researchers, will make it harder for sceptical politicians and lobbyists to attack climate predictions.
“People won’t be punching holes in the science,” says Jay Gulledge, a senior research fellow at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change in Arlington, Virginia. Emily Shuckburgh, a climate researcher at the University of Cambridge, UK, agrees: “If you’re a sceptic, it’s difficult to see where to attack on the modelling side.”
One critical number in previous reports has been the sensitivity of the climate to increases in greenhouse-gas levels. In 2001, scientists estimated that a doubling of carbon dioxide levels would cause an increase of 1.5–4.5 °C, but acknowledged that this range was little more than a best guess. The draft 2007 WGI report describes how new models and data sets allow the range to be properly quantified. It estimates the effect of doubling carbon dioxide as a rise of 2.0–4.5 °C and, for the first time, suggests a single most likely figure: 3 °C. This estimate is already widely accepted by climate scientists.
Another set of predictions that have become much more robust are those about ‘commitment’ — the ongoing climatic changes that would be expected even if greenhouse-gas levels could be stabilized. The existence of commitment was acknowledged in the last WGI report, but no number was given in the policy-makers’ summary. In contrast, the 2007 summary stresses that even if greenhouse gases level off now, warming will continue at about the current rate for several decades.
The error bars have also shrunk substantially on one of the biggest uncertainties in 2001 — the role of aerosols such as soot from fires, which exert a cooling effect by reflecting sunlight. In addition, certainty over politically important statements about whether climate change has already been observed has increased. Data on twentieth-century changes in precipitation and sea-level rise are now more precise, and the risk of ocean acidification is detailed for the first time. Such assertions are likely to be seized on by environmental groups if they appear in the final document.”
If you have a password, you can access the draft here: http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/ipcc/wg14ar-review.htm .
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
‘The draft 2007 WGI report describes how new models and data sets allow the range to be properly quantified. It estimates the effect of doubling carbon dioxide as a rise of 2.0–4.5 °C and, for the first time, suggests a single most likely figure: 3 °C. This estimate is already widely accepted by climate scientists.’
This is exactly the phenomenon that Garth Paltridge has warned about. This is from his presentation in May last year:
‘The overall process [of evolution of climate models] ensures that there can be a gradual, and largely unconscious, development of a situation where all the supposedly independent models have common physics and common values for their tuneable parameters. They will quite naturally – but for no good physical reason – begin to tell the same phusical story. With this situation comes the danger that the narrowing range of answers given by the various models will be interpreted by scientists as indication that the accuracy of their forecasts is improving.’
Professor Paltridge suggested that the IPCC should ‘insist that all models used in IPCC assessments must calculate and publish the implicit feedback factors built into their calculations’. His example shows the feedback factors that were calculated for a well-known climate model of 20 years ago.
Is this information disclosed in the draft Report that the US has now been made available for comment? If it is not, can someone please explain why it is not?
Hi Ian,
The problem with this first insinuation of Paltridge’s is that improving agreement of models and closer and closer physical representations is also perfectly consistent with better and better understanding and more and more historical and current data.
Fewer and fewer scientists disagreeing can be taken as more and more supression of ideas, but you know, it is also the result of having the right answer. This is by far the most common reality when science comes to a consensus.
Thanks Coby. In my opinion it’s a distortion to describe Paltridge’s comment as an ‘insinuation’ or to suggest that he’s alleging that there’s ‘suppresion of ideas’. You can read his opinion on consensus in the emphasised sentences at the end of the first section of his paper.
I’ve seen a lot of consensuses evaporate in my time, but let’s take an example from climate change science. In October 1987, Richard Morgenstern of the US EPA spoke on ‘Implications of climate change for environmental policy making’ at the conference ‘Preparing for Climate Change’ which was sponsored by the World Resource Institute, UNEP, the US National Science Foundation and 12 other US-based organisations.
He said that there was ‘an emerging concensus that the global warming could result in a rise in sea level on the order of two to seven feet by 2100’, and cited multi-authored books that had appeared in 1983, 1985 and 1987.
The ‘two to seven feet’ translates into 61-213 cm. Thirteen years later the IPCC concensus for the sea level rise between 1990 and 2100 was 9-88 cm – a decrease of 85% at the top of the range and nearly 60% at the bottom. Doesn’t this mean that Paltridge may have a point when he says that ‘Consensus on its own is not the sort of thing on which sensible people put their money?
There are so many differences here I don’t know where to start. But I will start with the fact that these ranges overlap, so in fact both predictions can be satisfied simultaneously. Secondly, sea level is a very uncertain thing, and I note the very weak word “could”. With the AR4 we are now seeing language such as “very likely”. These phrases must be taken in their scientific context btw. See http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/04/scientists-arent-even-sure.html for a little exposition on that idea.
“Doesn’t this mean that Paltridge may have a point when he says that ‘Consensus on its own is not the sort of thing on which sensible people put their money?”
On any matter that takes expert specialization to understand, sensible people most definately put their money on the consensus of the experts.
Scientists in the field should not, but the rest of us certainly should or be prepared to do the work and learn the material ourselves.
As for your specific choice of wording about where peope “put their money” it is quite interesting that none of the well know sceptics are in fact willing to do just that.
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2005/06/betting-summary.html
BTW, I expect higher sea level predictions this time around.
Cheers.
Well of course both predictions overlap – how could they not when the ranges are so wide? But two-thirds of the 2000 range lies below the low limit of the 1987 range (i.e., below the level that was considered infeasible in 1987) and five-sixths of the 1987 range lies above the upper limit of the 2000 range (i.e. was considered infeasible by 2000).
You say that both predictions are satisfied simultaneously. If the IPCC were now to predict that the sea level change by 2100 will be between -70 cm and + 70 cm, would you claim that the 1987, 2000 and 2006 predictions were all satisfied simultaneously?
Meanwhile the Australian Academy of Science declared in 2004 that the IPCC had ‘projected’ that global mean sea level was ‘expected’ to rise between 9 and 88 cm. between 1990 and 2100 with a ‘best estimate’ of 50 cm. (see http://www.science.org.au/nova/082/082key.htm ). Note (a) that what the AAS called the IPCC ‘best estimate’ is below the low end of the very wide 1987 consensus range; (b) that the IPCC Report didn’t provide any ‘best estimate’, and in relation to the ‘central value’, or the arithmetic midpoint of the wide range quoted in the TAR, said that ‘as with other ranges of uncertainty, it is not implied that the central value is the best estimate’ (see http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/553.htm); and (c) that the ‘model average’ sea level rise in ALL SIX of the IPCC scenarios shown in the SRES Tables in Appendix II of the WGI Report is less than 50 cm.
I’m not happy about excusing these sloppy terminological errors on the grounds that it’s clear what they mean. It’s not. People don’t realise that ‘Business as usual’ actually means nothing of the sort, but fantastic ‘what-if’ storylines dreamed up by modellers who’ve stated that they are extremely unlikely. And they wouldn’t guess that what’s been called a ‘best estimate’ of sea level rise is actually higher than the average modelled increase under all six scenarios selected by the IPCC to show the scenario range. This sort of imprecision is quite simply bad science.
Incidentally, the IPCC range for warming between 1990 and 2100 was 1.4°-5.8°C, or 1.2°–5.6°C between 2000 and 2100. Hansen et al put this century’s warming under the A2 scenario (which with a world population of 15 billion at end-century they ludicrously describe as ‘business as usual’) at 2.7°C. So two-thirds of the IPCC’s 2000 range is above the highest emissions scenario considered by Hansen et al. And warming to 2100 under the B1 scenario, which is by no means the lowest of the IPCC scenarios, is put by Hansen et al at 1.1°C , or slightly below the low end of the IPCC range.
So the Hansen et al temperature range ‘overlaps’ the IPCC 2000 range, but it could be argued that it’s not consistent with the IPCC 2000 consensus at all (even though Hansen et al used the IPCC emissions scenarios, most of which are inflated).
Doubling CO2?
If human production of CO2 is meant, then that would hardly make a dent on natural production of CO2.
Ha Louis, still trying to defend the 97-3 fallacy?
The “all natural co2” doesn’t hold, as CO2 is increasing in the oceans, not decreasing. On an annual basis there is less added to the atmosphere than humans produce from non renewable sources.
I am an AGW skeptic, but I am not buying your story.
http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/sink.htm
I received this from Jan Veizer as a result of my post about the work of Shaviv and Veizer elsewhere on this blog, and Nir Shaviv’s response:
I would like to thank you for putting the response of Nir Shaviv on the web sites. In my
age, time is a precious commodity and I usually avoid public airing of science disagreements or active participation outside peer review literature. Posterity will show who is right. However, I wish to point out again that there was absolutely no collusion and manipulation by us. We published the data and trends independently, not even
knowing of each others existence, let alone work. My personal evolution over many
years was from an initial uncritical acceptance of the GHG scenario to serious doubts,
but I was not aware of a constructive alternative until Nir contacted me. And it was the
subsequent reading of literature, not solely the joint work on the Phanerozoic, that
convinced me that the cosmic ray alternative is a feasible proposition that could
reconcile our observations on a variety of time scales with a theory. Eventually, I
published this review in Geoscience Canada (March issue in 2005). It can be
downloaded directly from
http://www.esd.mun.ca/~gac/JOURNALS/geocan.html
Please scroll down to the bottom of that page to supplementary materials. I do have a
more up to date manuscript that incorporates many new empirical observations, but at
this stage it is not public. No matter, because Hadley Centre published an excellent
internal technical note 62 by Gray et al. (2005) entitled “The influence of solar changes
on the Earth’s climate”. This note explicitly discusses the role of cosmic rays and
clouds as potential drivers, albeit mostly on shorter time scales. Please read the 2 last
bullets in the “executive summary” of this publication that can be downloaded from
http://www.met-office.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/pubs/HCTN/HCTN_62.pdf
The general climate models are essentially water cycle models and most of the
temperature in the models is an outcome of the enhanced water vapour greenhouse in
the atmosphere. In order to get more water vapour, the water cycle (natural or in model)
needs to be enhanced. This is achieved by adding energy into the system (usually 4
Watts per meter square for CO2 “doubling”). Note, however, that addition of energy
from whatever source would result in a similar outcome with respect to the water cycle.
For the last century, the correlation of global temperature and solar activity (irradiance)
is better than that with CO2, but – because of the apparently small amplitude of solar
changes – only about 1/3 of the temperature increase was attributed to sun. The
remaining 2/3 “must” therefore be due to something else, such as GHG. This,
however, would not be necessary if an “amplifier” to muted changes in solar irradiance
existed. Such an amplifier could be cosmic rays that help to nucleate cloud droplets.
Clouds, in turn, can reflect the incoming solar energy back into space, cooling the
planet. Considering (IPCC, 2001, chapters 1,7) that solar radiation reflected by the
atmosphere (and albedo of the clouds) account for ~77 Wm2, that climate models may
underestimate the tropospheric short wave absorption by up to 30-40Wm2, and that
evaporatranspiration/precipitation each account for ~78Wm2, a few percent change in
cloudiness could potentially have an impact similar to that attributed to GHG (2.5Wm2).
The GHG and celestial scenarios for driving the climate are not mutually exclusive, they
are complementary. Nevertheless, the relative impact may be opposite to that of the
IPCC. Unfortunately, in terms of energy, the uncertainties in the global budget (+/-
6Wm2; Kandel and Viollier, Space Science Review 120, 1-26) are greater that the
entire magnitude of the observed centenial effect. Thus the issue cannot be resolved by
energy balance considerations alone. Instead, observations based on past climate
trends may help to resolve the conundrum. And this is when the cosmogenic nuclides
(14C, 10Be), generated by cosmic rays that reach our atmosphere, can help. When
the sun is active, it is not only warmer, but also has stronger magnetic and electric
fields (heliosphere) that deflect much of cosmic rays into space . Hence, warmer sun,
more cosmic rays, fewer clouds (less reflected energy to space) and more cosmogenic
nuclides. The latter can be measured in terrestrial archives. It is the correlations of
climate with these cosmogenic nuclides (vs the absence of climate/CO2 correlations, or
CO2 following the temperature in ice cores) over many time scales that is the strongest
argument for the teleconnection from space climate to planetary climate.
In the above scenario, the carbon cycle will be “piggybacking” on the water cycle
instead of driving it (see coupling of water and carbon cycles and figure 18 in the
Geoscience Canada paper) and this may have some impact on our policy making
decisions.
I do hope that the above can give some idea about the alternative, or complementary,
view of climate issues. Future will decide on its validity, but I do believe that the
scenario merits serious consideration.
Sincerely
Jan Veizer
##################################
Jan Veizer
Department of Earth Sciences
University of Ottawa
P.O. Box 450, Station A
Ottawa, Ontario K1N 6N5
See also here:
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/natural-emissions-dwarf-humans.html
I would like to know where this fits in
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20050228/gammaray.html
For the past few weeks I have been immersed in commenting on the latest draft of the fourth IPCC “Climate 2008” report. As is usual on these occasions, I am allocated a secret username and password to access the website, and I may not download the Chapters until I have signed a sworn statement that I will not reveal the contents. Every page has “DO NOT CITE DO NOT QUOTE” on it. I have previously kept to this faithfully, but now…. the draft has now been made public, and apparently the Chairman, Dr Pachauri, was not informed. Who, exactly took the decision? It just shows you that the entire exercise is controlled by politicxians and not by scientists.
Anyway, it means I am released from my pledge and can tell you all about it.
There are 11 Chapters plus a Sunmmary for Policymakers and a Technical Report.
It is a piece of strident propaganda. The main conclusions are repeated over and over and over again They put “Questions” at the end of each Chapter which repeat everything yet again. As I disagree with much of what they say I just cut and paste my comments over and over again.
They make no bones about suppressing any information they do not like. The most important example is McKitrick and Michaels 2004 Climate Research Vol 26 pages 159-173 which shows that the surface temperature record is biased. A statistical study on station records and the total record between 1979 and 2000 shows a significant influence of population increase, fuek usage, prosperity, and even literacy. They also find a bias from “incomplete data” particularly that from Russia. It amazes me that they will Incorporate “annual avergae temperatures” when several months, usually the cold ones, are missing.
Their biggest difficulty they have is that temperature measurements in the lower troposphere, where global warming is supposed to happen, show no evidence of it,. The radiosondes (which I forwarded in Newsletter No 86,) show no temperature change between 1958 and 2004. The satellite measurements show no temperature change between 1979 and 1997,but is then followed by a large sharp peak in 1998 because of the El Niño ocean event of that year, and since 2001 has shown a modest warm spell..
They use strident and insulting language to denigrate and destroy the value of the radiosonde records. Yet they faithfully record all the “natural” climate changes ove the period, suich as volcanos and eEl Niño, so they cannot be far out All they do not show is “global warming”
What have they done? First there was a massive campaign to suggest that all the measurements needed interminable “corrections” , Neither of these records has been affected significantly by this campaign, but now they say that after the “corrections” both the lower troposphere measurements now agree with the surface record. In order to prove this they redraw all three records in such a way as to blur the differences, plot several on the same graph and print all of them as small as they can get away with. They then draw attention away from El Niño as if it does not exust and dream up a “trend” for the sattelite record based almost entirely on the large peak in 1998, thus not only attributing it to greenhouse gases, but landing the rest of the record, which does not show a “:trend” in the same boat.
Demonstrating they are wrong is not easy, as the records are on different scales with different averages. I have attatched my effort. (satjones compare) I blew up that part of the surface record from 1979 and scaled it to the satellite record, and then drew a new average line. You will see that I am right. The surface record shows a steady rise from 1979 but the satellite record shows no rise from 1979 to 1997. Apart from El Niño there are two volcanic events “El Chichon” in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991 which have helped out on the “linear trend” assigned to “greenhouse gases in the lower.troposphere.
Nobody mentions the enormous corrections needed for the surface record because of the immense variety of measuring equipment and location, Where a comprehensive correction procedure has been possible, so far only in the contiguous United States and in China, “global warming” all but disappears. If it were possible with the rest of the data, that also would collapse.
They go to great lengths to cover up all knowledge of El Niño. They divide climate influences into “internal” and “external” “variability” (only greenhouse gases are allowed to cause “change” everything else causes “variability). “internal variability” includes El Niño becasue the oceans are on the earth’;s surface; so “external variability” can exclude El Niño, so when they model “extrenal variability” they can leave it out despite the overwhelming evidence that it influences the lower atmosphere.
Just another example of suppression. They quote a paper by Zwally et al 2005 J Glaciology Vol 51 pages 509 to 527, because they found the Antarctic Ice cap was shrinking from 1992 to 2002. But the same paper found that the Greenland ice cap was growing over the same period, but of course they must not allow people to klnow that.
One wonders how many ordinary folk will bother to read through their stuff and comment on it, and whether they would now dare to alter the final Report if it ever appears.
Cheers
Vincent Gray
Wellington, New Zealand
“It’s not the things you don’t know that fool you.
Vincent Gray refers to “McKitrick and Michaels 2004 Climate Research Vol 26 pages 159-173” which he claims shows that the surface record is biased. This is the paper where McKitrick fed degrees into his software when it expected radians, resulting in all the numbers being wrong. See http://timlambert.org/2004/08/mckitrick6/
Remember desertification?
In view of Vincent Gray’s post, might be a good time to read “Desertification: destroying the myth”
Vincent Gray says: “It just shows you that the entire exercise is controlled by politicians and not by scientists.”
Indeed. And clearly hatchet jobs such as yours are the desired outcome of the US making this report prematurely available. Before it is even out the misrepresentations and non-scientific attacks begin.
Indeed Coby. I’ve never seen an issue where the same falsified information just keeps reappearing like Groundhog Day. I’m working on the polar bear question for the moment. I’ve had folks claim the caribou are increasing with the oil development too. That’s also false.
Let me check this out. Near the top of this thread Ian Castles compares a five year old consensus report for sea level rise to one person’s twenty year old estimate from a conference. Perchance, was the latter even printed?
Coby jumps in, without even seeing the cards coming off the bottom of the deck, tries to talk sense, and, of course, gets tangled up in Ian’s legerdemain. Having set the trap and changed the subject, Ian, of course, no longer has to deal with substantive issues that Coby raised. This is what passes for discourse in denialist circles. Of course, Ian will get all hot and bothered that I am calling him out on this, so let me be clear, I too am not insinuating anything, I am flat out stating that he constructed a phase two strawman after Coby pointed out that his original issue was fertilizer.
Of course, the amusing thing is that many of us have seen the draft of the AR4. In spite of what Vincent Gray may think, everyone is still, at least ethically, bound by the agreement made to gain access to the draft. But of course, given Ian’s performance, what do you want from poor Vincent.
Eli Rabett, What you refer to as one person’s twenty year old estimate from a conference was actually a statement about a CONSENSUS that had emerged during the immediately preceding years.
You ask ‘was the latter even printed?’ Yes, the Director of the Office of Policy Analysis of the USEPA cited three multi-authored books that had appeared in 1983, 1985 and 1987. It is common for books to be printed.
The conference was sponsored by (among others) the Climate Institute, NOAA, the US Department of Energy, the US EPA, the National Science Foundation, NASA, the World Resources Institute and UNEP in cooperation with the Participating Agencies and Universities of the Canadian Climate Program. As might be expected, the Proceedings were printed.
In another presentation at the Conference, James Titus, Project Manager for Sea Level Rise at the EPA, presented a table showing that NASA’s estimate of sea level rise was 70 cm by 2085 and that estimates by other authorieies of sea level rise to 2100 were: EPA, 56-345 cm; National Academy of Science, 50-200 cm.; and Hoffman et al, 57-368cm.
So the CONSENSUS view changed by a huge margin over a period of 13 years – it wasn’t just one person’s estimate.
Ian Castles, your statement of the consensus on global sea level rise 15-20 years ago is false. There is no there there. IPCC and US national academy estimates have been remarkably constant over the past 18 years, with a best estimate bottom of ~20 cm and a top of ~90 cm. Your statement of the TAR consensus was strained. See http://tinyurl.com/fmn2s for details, links and pictures.
However, let me point out that Morgenstern’s opinion was his own, and the IPCC process is
1. Formal
2. International
3. The documents are exposed to a major review and comment process and reconciled against these
4. This results in a document which is a consensus of experts, not an opinion of an expert.
5. Ice sheet collapse is not considered in the IPCC reports, which very well could have been part of that 7 feet upper limit.
6. Conference reports are as mayflies.
7. I have attended enough conferences not to be particularly impressed by your list of sponsors. 8. Morgenstern is no lightweight, but given your statements, I am going to have to look the conference proceedings up myself.
Eli Rabett, By all means look at the proceedings of the conference in October 1987. You’ll find that my statement of what Morgenstern said was not false but was completely accurate: ‘There is an emerging consensus that the global warming could result in a rise in sea level on the order of two to seven feet by 2100 (Dean et al. 1987; Meier et al, 1985; Hoffman et al, 1983).’
It’s true that he only said ‘could’ in that sentence, but in the immediately succeeding paragraph he referred to this rate of sea level rise as EXPECTED.
I translated the upper end of Morgenstern’s ‘consensus’ range from ‘seven feet’ to 213 cm. You say twice on your website that ‘Castles claims the 1987 consensus .. was .. 61-238 cm’: I don’t know where you got the 238 cm. from, but seven feet is 213 cm according to my arithmetic.
The US National Academy Report in 1987 examined three possible scenarios of global sea level rise to 2100 – 50 cm, 100 cm and 150 cm – and also quoted an estimate that a doubling of CO2 over the next century would lead to a rise of 24-154 cm.
The 1989 EPA Report to Congress ‘The Potential Effects of Global Climate Change on the United States’ quoted a range of 50 – 200 cm.
As you correctly say on your website, the first IPCC Report gave a range of 28-98 cm between 1990 and 2090. The range for this period as given in the SRES tables in the TAR was 9-73.5 cm. (The 73.5 cm for 2090 comes from the lower panel of the table and is stated to relate to the A1T scenario, but this is an error in the IPCC Report: it is clear that the column headings have been transposed and that the series in the column headed ‘A1T’in fact relates to the A1FI scenario).
The A1FI scenario projects far more than a doubling in CO2 concentrations by 2090, and I’m surprised that you think that the upper limit of 73.5 cm rise for this scenario is ‘remarkably constant’ compared with the 1987 NAS estimate of 154 cm sea level rise for a temperature rise resulting from a doubling in CO2. And the lower end of the NAS range – 24 cm – isn’t ‘remarkably constant’ compared with the lower end (9 cm) of the TAR range either.
I’m also surprised that you are not impressed by the list of sponsors for the 1987 conference. Didn’t the UNEP become one of the IPCC’s two sponsors, when the Panel was created in the following year.
Ian, arguing that an individual’s assertion of an “emerging consensus” is anywhere near equal in value to an actual consensus statement is just plain fibbing. It throws into question everything else you say.
I don’t think it is your goal Ian, but you are really weakening your claim that Morgenstern’s figure were really a consensus with all these other figures from other agencies. Regardless, Eli has a good point that there are many conferences and many speakers and quoting one speaker at one conference opining about what the consensus is, no matter how expertly, is not a very good comparison to the IPCC process.
If you are merely trying to make the point that scientific findings evolve and/or there is a good deal of uncertainty around sea level rise predictions then you are perfectly correct but I would like to know what specifically you are implying by that.
Before it gets lost in the noise I did want to respond to this a few comments of yours back:
“You say that both predictions are satisfied simultaneously. If the IPCC were now to predict that the sea level change by 2100 will be between -70 cm and + 70 cm, would you claim that the 1987, 2000 and 2006 predictions were all satisfied simultaneously?”
Firstly, any two predictions with overlapping ranges are not in total disagreement, that’s just a fact. Secondly, yes I would still correctly tell you that an additional -70 to +70 prediction is not in total disagreement, but I would tell you it is not a very informative prediction.
You really need to think hard about what it is you want, no one has a crystal ball. We are talking about risk mitigation. I also think it is very fair to say that as science progresses the predictions are likely to be more reliable. Could we learn more and change the predictions later? Yes, certainly this is always possible but, seriously, what do you think that implies? I think at this stage it is *extremely* unlikely that the planet will not continue to warm and sea level will therefore inevitably rise. We don’t know how much how fast and probably will not until it has happened.
There is no other decision making realm that insists on complete inaction absent absolute certainty of danger.
Vincent, you’re lying about Zwally 2005 and you know it. Zwally’s data didn’t include the rapid ice loss at the ice sheet edges shown by contemporaneous papers.
Coby, I’ll be happy to agree that Eli has a good point if he, you or anyone else can cite a prediction of a less-than-50cm rise by 2100 (at the low end) by any recognised institution or individual scientist that was published before 1987. If there was such a prediction, I’m surprised it was not mentioned in either the Titus or Morgenstern papers.
I agree with you that no one has a crystal ball and that as science progresses the predictions are likely to become more reliable.
Your jibe about a ‘decision making realm’ that supposedly ‘insists’ on complete inaction presumes that the actions that we should take now if it is certain that the planet will continue to warm and that sea levels will continue to rise are radically different from those that should be taken in the absence of such certainty. I don’t believe that they are.
The subject has been discussed at length on this blog. In response to questions about my preferred action plan, I cited the submission made to the House of Lords Economic Committee by Dr. Indur Goklany, Assistant Director, Science and Technology Policy, Office of Policy Analysis, US Department of the Interior. Dr. Goklany’s submission, which was made in a personal capacity, included the following:
‘Not only would either focused adaptation or adherence to the [Millennium Development Goals] provide greater benefits at lesser costs through the forseeable future than would any emission reduction scheme, they would help solve today’s urgent problems sooner and more certainly. Equally important, they would also increase the ability to deal with tomorrow’s problems, whether they are caused by climate change or other factors. None of these claims can be reasonably made on behalf of any mitigation scheme today.
‘Accordingly, 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 regrets’ emission reduction scenarios, while (d) concurrently trying to expand the universe of no-regrets options through research and development to increase the variety and cost-effectiveness of available mitigation options.’
The detailed argument and proposals are spelled out in Dr. Goklany’s submissions. He has been presenting the case for a response to climate change along these lines for many years. Here, for example, is the abstract of his paper ‘Strategies to enhance adaptability: technological change, economic growth and free trade’, which was published in ‘Climatic Change’ 1995, vol. 30: 427-449:
‘This article proposes three broad interrelated strategies – stimulating technological change, sustainable economic growth and free, unsubsidized trade – to enhance future adaptability to global (including climate) change and some principles for developing the social, legal and economic frameworks necessary to effect these strategies. The proposals are based upon an examination of the present and potential contributions of the strategies to sustainability, adaptability, and mitigation (limitation) of environmental changes, and the various synergies between these strategies. The strategies and principles would meet criteria which recognize that climate change is inevitable, that any climate change will occur in the context of already-occurring global change due to other agents of change, and that reducing vulnerability to these other changes will increase the future adaptability to climate change. Specifically, the strategies should: (a) increase the ability to feed, clothe and shelter the world’s expanding population regardless of the agent of change; (b) reduce vulnerability of forests, habitats and biological diversity to demographic and other environmental stresses; (c) be compatible with mitigation measures; (d) be independent of results from more detailed and accurate site-specific impacts assessments which will be unavailable for several years; (e) be implementable today; and (f) have clear benefits now and in the future.’
In his paper ‘Understanding Common Climate Claims’ that is to appear in the Proceedings of the 2005 Erice meeting of the World Federation of Scientists on Global Emergencies, Richard Lindzen argues along somewhat similar lines to reach the conclusion that ‘policies promoting the improvement of general welfare throughout the world are also, automatically, the appropriate policies with respect to climate change.’
The ‘automatically’ may be something of an exaggeration, but the IPCC’s B1T MESSAGE scenario demonstrates that steep reductions in GHG emissions could well be achieved without assuming the implementation of policies explicitly addressing climate change. James Hansen argued along similar lines in ‘A Brighter Future’, Climatic Change, 2002, vol. 52, no. 4: 435-440 (‘It is possible to achieve a climatically brighter path with actions .. that make economic sense independent of global warming’). I don’t agree that arguing that measures that constrain emissions should make economic sense independent of global warming is the same thing as insisting on ‘complete inaction’.
Ian,
I have no choice but to and no reason not to accept that that you are “arguing that measures that constrain emissions should make economic sense independent of global warming” and not “insisting on ‘complete inaction’.”
I am however left wondering what is the point of our whole discussion about consensus and sea level.
Thanks for the economic food for thought, I can not fairly make very much comment as it is not material I am very familiar with. On the subject of cost-benefit analyses, can you tell me by any chance what cost is typically assigned to widespread coral reef death? Also, is ocean acidification and its effects a factor in these kinds of studies?
That should give you a clear idea of the kind of concerns I have with the economic views of climate change I am barely familiar with (and I am not talking about esthetic value here, I really mean the dollar cost of coral reef death). Similarily, what is the cost of losing Miami completely? Does such an assessment include the removal cost for the population? Is an value assigned to the trauma of forced relocation? I know that there are formulae for such things in legal liability cases.
I have such a big problem that I don’t know where to start, with this notion that if we accumulate enough wealth we will be able to deal with very severe climate change. To turn a cliche on its head, money doesn’t grow on trees, but food does, what good will money be if there is not enough food globally and water is no longer available where huge populations live?
I agree with you and Hansen that there are alot of “no regrets” options available right now and we should take advanatage of them ASAP.
The claim from Ian Castles that we should follow no cost policies only at this time rings hollow. Those of us in the reality based community were advocating such policies ten years ago when the science was less certain. We also said that it was important to move quickly then as the climate system has a lot of momentum. The Ian Cs of the world said, not needed, move on. Increasingly today no cost policies will not be enough, in large part because of the delay. Indeed, if you actually read Hansen, while advocating no cost policies simply to get moving, he states that they will NOT be enough and that stong restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions will be necessary later on.
I am working on a sea level post, but in that regard interested readers might take a look at http://tinyurl.com/pdjr6 for links to original source materials.