… what would it be? I’ll try to get practicing climate scientists to answer the most popular questions, so as the list of questions grows, please indicate which ones you would also like the answer to.
The Yale Project on Climate Change Communications has actually asked Americans in their “Global Warming’s Six Americas in May 2011” report “If you had the opportunity to talk to an expert on global warming, which of the following questions would you like to ask?”
They divide things up by their six groupings:
Nearly 40 percent of American adults are in the two groups most concerned about climate change – the Alarmed and the Concerned – while 25 percent of Americans are in the two groups least concerned about the issue – the Dismissive and Doubtful.
They found:
If given the chance to talk to an expert on global warming, the Alarmed and Concerned would most like to know what the nations of the world can do to reduce global warming, and if there’s still time to do so. The Disengaged would most like to ask whether global warming is actually occurring, and what harm it will cause. The Cautious, Doubtful and Dismissive would most like to have an expert explain how scientists know that global warming is happening and is caused by human activities.
Of course, Climate Progress readers are probably in a small subset of the “Alarmed” and already know how we know humans are causing global warming — see Eight great figures summarizing the evidence for a “human fingerprint” on recent climate change.
So what question would you ask a climate scientist?
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
We’ve been having very extreme weather events all over the world and the average temperature rise, world-wide, is only a couple of degrees F. No one seems to have predicted that such a small rise would have such a big effect. Does this extreme weather surprise you? Do you think there has been a general underestimation of severity of weather events as global warming increases.
Ball errs in asserting “No one seems to have predicted that such a small rise would have such a big effect. ”
In a Summer 1990 National Interest article entitled ‘ War Against Fire’ I averred that :
” My personal expectation-and I reserve the right to change my mind if the evidence does-runs more to centimeter-per-year rises in sea level and a lot more climatic variability than actual temperature rise in that lifetime.”
http://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/a_war_against_fire/
Oh, Russell, quoting Christy and Spencer is bad enough — but to not expunge that nonsensical article and actually proudly post a link to it here undermines your case immensely. I can hardly think of 2 more discredited people these days than those two.
The fact is that not only has 95% of the research in the past few years been considerably more dire than the IPCC, but we are near the highest ranges of emissions trends and your buddies have succeeded in muddying the debate to an extent that action in the foreseeable future is exceedingly unlikely. And that lack of action eliminates virtually all of the uncertainty that kept alive even a moderately small chance of noncatastrophic impacts.
Yes, listening to the deniers is precisely what has doomed us and ensured that they will be proven utterly wrong.
It’s the quote from the author that counts , Joe.
We all go to the climate wars with the literature we’ve got, and in 1989, that included Spencer & Christy who were publishing in Science alongside Hansen.
Disinterested readers will find that, far from endorsing the Huntsville satellite data, this article warned other peer reviewed temperature records pointed ” up , down , and sideways” . Hence what I wrote:
” I reserve the right to change my mind if the evidence does.”
Which it did, and when it did ( lord knows more than Spencer and Christy ‘s work has been modified , discarded or retracted since) i had to change my mind accordingly , as I trust you did too.
None the less , you beg Ball’s question : Did anybody bet on high variability despite low sensitivity per unit forcing ?
The answer, as a matter of record , is yes I did , and decades later , we find you arguing that extremity is the new normal, despite the minimal (< 100 milli K per decade) delta T.
I await your congratulations.
Not.
NASA: “We conclude that global temperature continued to rise rapidly in the past decade” and “there has been no reduction in the global warming trend of 0.15-0.20°C/decade that began in the late 1970s.”
As many folks know, the Dept of Defense and other gov’t organizations work very hard to keep secret/classified information secure. Classified documents are bar-coded and must be “sighted” regularly. People with clearances are subjected to random polygraph examinations and drug tests. Use of USB “memory sticks” and other portable storage devices is strictly prohibited; specialized software is installed on computers to detect (and prevent) the unauthorized transfer of classified info. Network security policies geared toward maximizing security, even at the expense of productivity. Guards regularly sweep offices and conference rooms in search of classified material that has not been properly secured. Passwords, safe/vault combinations, etc. must be changed regularly.
Yet, in spite of all these measures that are designed to keep classified information secure, stuff *still* gets out. For example, the plans for the next-generation “Joint Strike Fighter” recently fell into the hands of foreign interests. And other serious security breaches have occurred over the years.
So, climate scientists, you have been hiding/manipulating raw temperature data for decades without letting any of that hidden raw data leak out. Really — you guys have managed to pull off a decades-long global-scale fraud without letting so much as a shred of evidence of this fraudulent activity leak out.
So my question to you guys is really quite simple: “How do you do it?”
Snark, much appreciated;O) Thee humor helps me deal with it.
Speaking as part of the Seventh America, i.e. Scared S***less, I would ask:
“What is your best personal estimate of the world population in 2050 and 2100? Not what you can prove or disprove, but what you think is most likely, given politics, international relations, economics, human psychology, etc.”
I’ve had this same conversation with a number of people who are not climate scientists, per se, but are extremely well versed on sustainability issues, and I’ve been struck by how many of them sound very calm and deliberate in public, but in private say they expect a population crash by 2100. Numbers in the 1 to 3 billion range aren’t unusual.
As part of this seventh group I’d like to know the best estimate on when this population crash is most likely to occur.
I was part of a group of Cornell researchers that tackled this very question. The resulting paper was published in Human Ecology as “Will Limited Land, Water, and Energy Control Human Population Numbers in the Future?” (http://www.springerlink.com/content/c3707t661n066371/). We suggested that 2 billion people could be sustainable in 2100.
Another version of the paper (titled “Ethics of a Sustainable World Population in 100 Years”) will be released in early 2012 in Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics, 2nd Edition.
As a member of the seventh group as well (is there an 8th group of ‘it’s too late’?) I reiterate Jan @#20′s question: “if you were to buy property now anywhere in the world to hand down to your grandchildren… where would you look and for what [criteria for selection]?
Secondly, I’d ask them what kind of event, at what magnitude, or numbers, or other level of certainty do they need to share publicly what they appear to discuss among themselves privately? What would spur them to publicly join Hansen, for example?
I’m with Lovelock, in the low millions. You see, once rapid climate destabilisation sets off global famines and great movements of desperate people, it will be disease and nuclear war that will do the most damage. Nuclear proliferation will increase as countries search for a means by which to defend themselves or blackmail the rich countries into helping them. The rich are determined, I believe, to facilitate a great cull of as many in the poor world as possible, the only means by which they can maintain their fortunes and dominance. But the poor won’t go as lambs to the slaughter. It is the global civil discord and war that arises from rapid destabilisation that will do the most damage. I dread the possibility of bio-warfare, perhaps genetically based to target certain populations, most of all. We know that research to this end has been undertaken.
I’d like to hear about advances in the ability to model feedback mechanisms, and the chances that these improvements will be included in the next IPCC report. For example, are climate scientists able to model the impacts of thawing permafrost at a level that withstand the peer review process?
Headline typo: “climate scientist”. Right?
I would ask: “Can you privately confirm that the current body of climate science represents a grave underestimate of what is to come? Common sense clearly indicates it (think of the permafrost feedback estimates). But since common sense does not equal peer reviewed science, you can’t say publicly what you think will happen because you cannot back it up with references to papers. Come on, admit it, I’ll tell no one.” (Same goes to you, Joe, I don’t see how anyone as informed as you could not privately expect the collapse of civilization.)
This is a longshot, but it would also be very interesting for climate scientists to share their insights about how the IPCC approval process – namely, the role of government oversight, sign offs from every participating country, etc – lead to “lowest common denominator” outcomes, along with specific examples of how this happened in the past.
Stephen Schneider was one of the lead authors of the 2007 IPCC report. He covers this in “Science As a Contact Sport”. Politics plays a big part in what to leave in and what to leave out – who’s happy and who’s not.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/why-2007-ipcc-report-lacked-embers/
If I could ask a climate scientist one question, it would be something like this:
Have you talked seriously to scientists who study human sociality, psychology, and behavior, and have they told you that the best (and perhaps only) way for the public at large to take climate change as seriously as it should be taken, and begin to take notice, is if climate scientists themselves (i.e., people who understand the reality of the problem) and other scientists demonstrate their seriousness and concerns in ways that can communicate viscerally?
In other words, if climate (and other) scientists hit the streets, hit the board rooms, yell a lot, jump up and down, do the sort of (safe) things that get ‘em thrown in jail for a day or five, and make a stink that’s much bigger than what most of them have been doing so far.
The public will take more notice when — and probably only when — they see folks themselves get really, really, really serious, as if the future depended on it, as it does.
That’s what I’d ask.
Be Well,
Jeff
Good point. If you’re out there nearly every day making your case to the public, good for you. If not, then why not?
Great point. I was a Tar Sands arrestee at the White House last week, and I know it’s already enhanced my ability to reach out and communicate.
Very good one. “Potential grave threat” sounds pretty badass among scientists. It’s like kids writing *pussy* on the classroom blackboard, while boys, just a few years older are out there skipping class, sniffing cocaine and stealing cars.
I’ve long argued that climate scientists should go on hunger strike or do other desperate things to publicly express their desperation. (Are they?)
Yes FOX News will mock them. So what?
On visceral language: pretty simple, let them watch a few disaster movies. What does the hero say when Godzilla’s tail wipes off the roof? “As evident from a proper assessment of the available evidence, not taking urgent measures to escape from this building might substantially increase risk of injury or death.” Give me a break!
I guess scientists can be pretty conservative and technical in their approach, but there’s no reason why they can’t continue improving communication with the general public. The medical community has had some success in educational efforts like anti-smoking, so why not the climatology community regarding the risks of carbon buildup, and the need for everyone to do what they can given the distributed nature of fossil CO2 emission.
Climate scientists at the Whitehouse gates, arm in arm with with green business leaders, mayors & reps from every major environmental org… would no doubt get a lot of deserved media attention, but I think it it should be Plan B behind a direct, formal (and very public) appeal to the President and Congress by climate scientists demanding action.
My question would be: If you are ready to step forward with a unified voice, who will do the speaking, and what forum for delivering the message do you think would be effective? Would you welcome a media alliance with climate activists to get this done?
Climate scientists discuss the merits of activism any time we get together. It’s a tricky question because if we become activists we risk compromising both our credibility, and, perhaps more importantly, our own ability to see clearly through the fog of noisy (and sometimes conflicting) data and model results. Let’s not ignore that second point: it’s hard to be objective, and harder still if you are an activist for one side of an argument. I think most scientists feel that we should play to our strength, focusing on what we, uniquely, can do, namely provide as clear-eyed a look at the facts as possible. Who else is going to do that? and without those facts it’s just another he said/she said contest.
It is a sticky wicket indeed, the choice between staying above the fray vs. stepping right in front of it.
In a perfect world, you and the scientific community would not be put into such an unenviable position.
The ever-louder calls for climate scientists to pick up the megaphone is an inevitable consequence of the deep fear that you guys may be our last chance — the only bullwark between today and ‘too late’.
I entirely agree with Jeff! I reject the argument put forth by scientists, saying they can’t do this because they must remain neutral. They are among the very few who understand the reality of what lies ahead. If the knowledgable scientists are calm and quiet, then it really can’t be THAT bad! So, what’s it going to take to get climate scientists to call for a work stoppage?
We know the implications of GHG emissions and the likely scenarios which will result; but as no one can predict the future, how do we know that this isn’t just a 200-year climate anomaly coincident with the Age of Industry and completely unrelated to human activity (i.e. post hoc)? It seems we don’t even know why exactly Ice Ages occurred when they did and what factors were involved, and we certainly can’t predict local weather accurately more than a day ahead even with constant satellite images. So isn’t it reasonable to think that this trend doesn’t necessarily imply an outcome, that things might swing the other way for reasons yet unknown?
Climate scientists answered these questions a long time ago:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm
The question that you really need to ask is,
“Can I enroll in one of your introductory Earth-science classes?”
A really useful resource which will help answer your question is Real Climate (http://www.realclimate.org/). This is written by scientists for the lay public with a degree of scientific understanding. There are far fewer ‘political’ arguments going on than on some other sites, and a a good list of reading resources too, so you can concentrate on learning about the science – which is what you must do first, before getting involved in the politics!
Once you have learned, you’ll *want* to get involved in the politics… but that’s for another day.
A couple more relevant pieces from SkepticalScience:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us-basic.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-do-we-know-CO2-is-causing-warming.html
And of course, there is a bit of a difference between glacial period termination via orbital forcing over millennia, and risking rapid change in the middle of the relatively mild, populous Holocene.
I would ask them what they were doing to prepare for climate chaos.
Jeff,
While I’m not a climate scientist by any stretch of the language, let me offer an opinion on your question. I don’t think it would make any difference whatsoever, unless scientist activism helped promote a much broader activist movement among non-scientists. And it would have to be a gigantic movement to overcome the PR machinery of the fossil fuel industry.
Barring that kind of mega-grass roots movement, I think the only things that stand a chance of moving the general public are [1] a dozen or more years like the last few, but with even more “natural” disasters, or [2] one huge disaster, like a collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Shelf.
My question is for Dr. Stephen Wofsy of Harvard University from this article from Science News:
Something too new to fully understand (although a report on it is being prepared for publication), Wofsy says, is a finding of notable concentrations of methane in the Arctic’s atmosphere that trace back to the sea.
“Oceanographers have known for some time that there is production of methane in surface waters of the Arctic,” he says, but “it’s never been observed in the atmosphere.” Those oceanographic data, he says, suggest a source for this methane other than sediments or the melting of icy gas hydrates.
The phenomenon also appears very widespread. “We observed that the ocean surface releases methane to the atmosphere all over the whole of the Arctic Ocean,” Wofsy says.
Climate scientists have been concerned about whether the Arctic Ocean’s loss of summer ice cover might lead, through some feedback mechanisms, to boosting the release of methane. Concludes Wofsy: Thanks to HIPPO, “This hypothesized feedback has been observed for the first time.” And there are hints, he adds, that methane’s source may be something other than melting of gas hydrates.
Question: If the methane is not coming from gas hydrates then where is it coming from? Biological processes?
If you compare global warming to the Earth getting hit by an asteroid, what diameter would the asteroid need to have to cause 2, 4, 6, or 8 degrees Celsius warming in a single day?
What diameter would be needed at least to cause Venus syndrome, that is wiping out all life by global meltdown in a single day?
I would ask this:
Hansen’s 1981 projections are matching reality pretty well so far -
http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/1/6/9/7/0/5/1981cfobs-46485264070.jpeg
Continuing on the current course suggests 2C of warming above mid-20th Century global temperature by around 2050.
Do you think there is any chance of us *not* having triggered enough natural positive feedbacks by this point to take the warming out of our hands – i.e. that warming will continue regardless of how much we cut our emissions?
Echoing Arne and Z @ #5&6.
Would you prefer the IPCC report to be published in dual form.
A. These are the unadorned scientific conclusions.
B. This is the result of negotiating with governments of various kinds.
Or, depressingly, do you feel that the observations accumulating for AR5 are so plain that governments will have a hard time changing very much?
(I may not be American, but I count myself in Lou’s 7th ‘scared witless’ category.)
I too am very interested in knowing more about where we stand in terms of our understanding of the permafrost / ice shelf melting and subsequent methane release. What ongoing research is being done and when do we expect to get a better handle on this issue. My very deep fear is that this feedback problem may mean that it’s already too little too late no matter what we do from here on out.
Dear scientist,
When you read or hear commentary from economists on the issue of the destabilizing climate, what is your main emotional reaction? What thoughts are typically elicited? What do you figure is the net effect of most economists on society’s treatment of this issue?
And if you could make an economist realize one thing, what would that be?
What do glaciologists privately think is the possible amount of sea level rise in the next 20 to 50 years.
I spent a couple of years on an ice-field research project 30 years ago, so I know a little bit about the mechanics.
My sense has been that the publicly-released numbers have been conservative, because the system that is the world’s glaciers is too complicated to model defensibly.
I’m guessing that as the glaciers warm a whole bunch of feedback loops are going to come into play and the glaciers are going to surge like toothpaste from 1000 tubes stepped on by Sasquatch, and oceans are going to come up fast.
Are there a lot of glaciologists buying Gulf Coast real estate these days?
hmm.
I posted before reading the comments.
I see I’m not the only one who suspects that those in the field might privately think things are worse than depicted in what has been published.
One other question:
WHY DON’T YOU ALWAYS include temperatures in Ferinheight in materials meant for public?
I’m convinced most Americans think that the predictions are for a much more mild future than is the case, because the just don’t do Celsius.
“Seven degrees warmer? Big whoop. Now if it was 15 degrees, that would be uncomfortable, even unbearable…”
China closely monitors Australia’s carbon policy.
As China prepares for a pilot emissions trading scheme covering 250 million people, Dr Jiang Kejun, from China’s Energy Research Institute, has dismissed the view that what Australia does is unimportant in the global context. Australia ABC News
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3314738.htm
Why are you not on the front line with Hansen?
Yes, I want an answer to that one too. Given the obvious conclusion that global warming threatens the existence of human civilization, why are you passive and uninvolved in political advocacy?
Egoistic (and pessimistic):
In your opinion, what will be the general climate characteristics (and changes) in Germany in the coming decades?
Also, if you were to buy property now anywhere in the world to hand down to your children and grandchildren (forget about country, language, distance to friends/family/job for a minute), where would you look and for what?
In other words, where is the climate going to be most favorable for human life in, say 2100?
Why shouldn’t we despair?
To any recognized, honest climate scientist:
“What will it take for you to ignore your title, research project or credentials and go to the steps of the US Capital to tell the world climate change is now approaching an irreversible state and the only hope for future generations is to prepare for climate chaos?”
This may happen in a State near you:
State climatologist (Ga.) removed by Deal:
http://onlineathens.com/stories/091011/new_883893720.shtml
What is the state of research on the relationship between climate and weather?
I’d be happy to see updates on the current relationships that involve ocean temperature and ENSO, capacity of a sub tropical storm to carry water and how it affects wind speed, Arctic vertical stratification and jet stream patterns, and on and on.
Basically, is there more to say at present besides the 4% increase in water vapor?
You asked for questions directed at climatologists, but I’d like to see what meteorologists make of the westward creep of the N.A.S.H. (North Atlantic Subtropical High, or Bermuda High) and the northward creep of the the intertropical convergence zone (tropical rain band).
Is this stuff getting into meteorological models?
Thanks to a new post at CP on 9-13-11, here’s a link to a response. (!)
http://climatecommunication.org/new/articles/extreme-weather/overview/
I would like to know what the prevailing zeitgeist is among climate scientists whose primary area of study is climate change. What is your assessment of climate scientists’ level of alarm currently compare with that of the “engaged public”. I am not interested in whether climate scientists are more worried than denialists or politicians – I am pretty certain I know the answer to that. Rather, I’d like to know if the level of alarm is, say,
(a) greater than the American public, but less than the National Academy of Sciences.
(b) equal to the National Academy of Sciences
(c) greater than the average of the National Academy, but less than Joe Romm
(d) equal to Joe Romm
(e) equal to Bill McKibben
(I’m probably spitting hairs in (d) and (e), since the only substantive differences between McKibben and Romm lie in strategy – but don’t construe this as putting words in anyone’s mouth.)
c should be the recent Australian Climate Commission Report. Most climate scientists are around c to d.
Yeah, that’s a better choice for (c). Incidentally, the Dunning Kruger effect is powerfully and sadly illustrated with the ‘Six Americas’ results, isn’t it? The scientists working in the area of climate change are virtually unanimously in the ‘alarmed’ and ‘concerned’ categories. They are, essentially by definition, the best informed on the issue. But the members of what group thinks they are best informed? Why, the ‘dismissives’, of course!
Why do low level clouds have a cooling effect (increasing cloud albedo), but high level clouds have a warming effect (trapping more radiative energy)? Or is there more to it than simply the height of the clouds?
I’m interested in the potential of the North American boreal forest to become a much reduced sink or even a source in certain areas. I realize that data here is imperfect, but some conclusions are possible.
We have seen much larger wildfires in North American forests that are attributable to warming caused beetle kill and drier vegetation. The literature on this subject also points to logging as a cause, along with managed forest fire prevention (which leads to hotter fires). This exercise, however, would be most easily performed by assuming only temperature increase effects on forests under current management regimes (translation: regularly clearcut).
Ideal respondents to this question would be Harmon, Mackey, Heath, Weurthner, Franklin, or Hanson. Industry connected foresters need not apply. This is a big question, but should be quantifiable within error bars, and some answers should already be in the literature.
If we want to keep warming to 2 degrees celsius, how many years can we burn fossil fuels at business as usual levels before we need to zero out emissions?
Hal – does your question include assessment of the diverse interactive carbon & non-carbon feedbacks, or does it presume they are not relevant ?
For what it’s worth, before Copenhagen the scientific community was calling for a peak of global GHG outputs in 2015, in order to get a slightly less than even chance of remaining below 2.0C of average warming. (A 46% chance according to the UK Met Office/Hadley Centre).
IIRC this proposed peak date did not incorporate inputs from albedo loss, permafrost or marine clathrates.
Regards,
Lewis
The Earth is a big system that needs to be well understood. If spending on climate science doubled, where would the funding be most well spent? Also, what instruments are needed immediately?
As the deniers keep telling us “CO2 follows temperature. This would imply that the biosphere will become a net source of CO2 at some stage.”
Do we have any idea when this will happen? Do we have any idea of the relative size of the causal mechanisms? So is the change in marine biology towards gelatinous life forms that leave the carbon available more important than the increase tree deaths and wildfires?
Hurricanes, floods and wildfires – but Washington won’t talk global warming
Jules Boykoff: America is seeing record-breaking extreme weather, yet the US political class is paralysed in climate change negligence
http://tinyurl.com/5w8dowp
What is the story with atmospheric methane? While CO2 steadily rises, CH4 seems to rise, stall, and even fall for mysterious reasons. What are the barriers to a better understanding of the methane cycle?
Seconded.
(Reminder: Joe wrote “Please indicate which ones you would also like the answer to.”
Methane observations
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/iadv/ccgg/graphs/ccgg.MLO.ch4.1.none.discrete.all.png
http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/part_CH4.php
And now frame this
Russian, U.S. scientists set to study methane release in Arctic
01:32 02/09/2011
VLADIVOSTOK, September 2 (RIA Novosti
A group of Russian and U.S. scientists will leave the port of
Vladivostok on Friday on board a Russian research ship to study
methane emissions in the eastern part of the Arctic.
“This expedition was organized on a short notice by the Russian Fund
of Fundamental Research and the U.S. National Science Foundation
following the discovery of a dramatic increase in the leakage of
methane gas from the seabed in the eastern part of the Arctic, said
Professor Igor Semiletov, the head of the expedition. http://en.rian.ru/science/20110902/166364635.html
“We assume that the leakage of methane results from the degradation of underwater permafrost…A massive release of such a powerful greenhouse gas may accelerate global warming,” Semiletov said.
Methane is about 20 times more potent than CO2 in trapping solar heat.
Professor Semiletov has been studying methane seepage in the region for the last 15 years, and leads the International Siberian Shelf Study (ISSS), which has launched a number of expeditions to the Arctic Ocean.
“The studies are reaching a more serious level. Many Russian and U.S. universities have joined the [ISSS] program bringing in the most advanced equipment which will allow us to study the structure of underwater permafrost with more precision,” Semiletov said.
At some tipping point (e.g., 2C or 450 ppm) we seriously risk feedbacks that are “unstoppable” even by cutting human emissions to zero forever. Our only option is geoengineering.
As measured by temperature increase and/or CO2 equivalent emissions, where do you believe this tipping point is, and how close to that point, or how soon after we reach it, would recommend that we initiate geoengineering solutions? Which ones would you try first?
What (if anything) gives you hope?
Would you endorse an international climate crimes tribunal?
[JR: No.]
I’ll second that, and crimes against humanity enjoy no statute of limitations. We have already seen the utter obscenity of tobacco harm deniers, who contributed to millions of premature deaths and much morbidity escape all justice, but also manage to misappropriate billions in bonuses, pay and profits for these gigantic crimes. But ‘justice’ and ‘capitalism’ are mutually contradictory.
Although it is disgusting, disgraceful, and tragic, the behavior of tobacco pushers is important when trying to shake some deniers from “the faith”. Whether they are smokers or not, the number of people who now deny the terrible health effects of smoking is fairly small, so even most climate deniers will grant that smoking is dangerous to your health. So what do they do with the current behavior of tobacco companies in developing countries where governments don’t regulate their advertising? Tobacco companies are, of course, selling the poison in pretty much the same way they used to sell it in the USA: as “sexy” and “chic”. How does a climate denier process this example of how corporations will behave if they can get away with it, i.e., devoid of any morality or conscience whatsoever. Can deniers be convinced that they’re being conned by fossil fuel companies in very much the same way when it comes to climate change?
In order to establish a lower bound on climate change, I’d like ask, what will happen to climate change if humankind eliminated ALL industrial CO2 emissions (basically, halt all burning of fossil and other combustible fuels)?
Would atmospheric CO2 actually stabilize at some value? If so, what value?
What do you tell your kids to help them prepare for a climate-changed world?
My question that I would ask, and hopefully hear an answer, is:
“When we take into account that few seem to want to live next to a nuclear power plant or biomass facility, and recent research is all going in the direction of fracking being a net-negative, do we have enough left as ‘wedges’ to mitigate CO2 increases that residents will go for? If not, what do we do?”
I ask this because it seems like from one side of the mouth various renewable energy sources are trumpeted over non-renewables, and then with the other just about all of them have been denigrated in one form or another by environmentalists (nuclear, biomass, natural gas, hydro-power; even windfarms get NIMBY push-back) … Does it seem contradictory? Surely we can’t do it all with solar and geothermal, right?
Davos -
Nuclear, natural gas and mega-hydro are not renewable energies.
Biomass ranges from “Battery Chicken Dung Power” through to traditional native species “Coppice Forestry for Diverse Fuels & Energy” with regard to its sustainability and renewable potential.
The question that needs asking is just why have the most intermittent of the renewables, namely Onshore Wind and Solar PV, thus far been given the vast majority of RD&D funding ?
Regards,
Lewis
I agree that nuclear/natural gas (etc.) are not renewables… but they have been described as “Wedge” elements to help bridge the gap in the transition to lower CO2 targets.
As far as the funding issue is concerned, I think part of my unanswered question addresses the reasons why so little funding goes to RnD in certain renewables categories: Namely, it seems clear that environmentalists that champion renewable energy are in a group of people who refuse to live next to such a large installation (particularly a large biomass facility). The costs for installing windfarms and biomass facilities in New England (for example) must factor in the costs of 8-10 year long protracted lawsuits, ironically pursued by environmentalists who champion renewable energy. These extra costs and time-scale realities can turn off even the most bold developers.
Given the rock steady 6-year El Nino cycle of the Sumatran fossil coral record, which then transitioned to a 4-year cycle, what are the prospects of science identifying the anthropogenic component of the cycle’s progressive collapse since ~1950 into its present chaotic state ?
Reference for that, Lewis? TIA.
Steve -
I’m afraid the best I can do is to say that it was an article in New Scientist reporting a newly published research paper – some time early last decade.
Sorry not to be more precise.
Regards,
Lewis
I’m an ENSO expert and I’ve never heard of a “rock-steady” ENSO cycle at any time. ENSO is inherently an instability and should be expected to have highly variable timing. I think you must have misread or misremembered this article. (But if not, I’d like to hear about it).
BK – The term ‘rock steady’ was as used by a layman – it referred to a very long period in the fossil coral record when Enso was running on a 6-year cycle – I didn’t intend to imply that the strengths of individual cycles were identical.
I think I’ve traced the article: NS issue 2207; “Weather warning ” by Fred Pearce; concerns Dan Shrag’s research into ENSO fossil coral record for Harvard’s Dept of Earth & planetary Science.
Its good to see more scientists here on CP.
Regards,
Lewis
Unfortunately my library only has electronic access to New Scientist from 2002 onward, and that issue is 1999. Possibly it is in hard-copy somewhere in the stacks but …
But I’ve heard Dan Shrag talk about fossil coral records of ENSO. My impression is that what you learn from this is that the “typical” length of an ENSO cycle varies through geologic time, and may have been longer in the past. But let’s drop “rock steady”, or any implication that it is regular. It is not, and the irregularity is seen on short (interannual) and long (decadal to centennial or beyond) timescales.
And given that, I’d be very reluctant to conclude that the length of the cycle has fundamentally changed over the instrumental record (since about 1980). In that time we’ve seen all sorts of behavior; for example there were no El Ninos during the 1930s.
The fact is that ENSO under global warming is one of the most vexing uncertainties. The models are all over the place. For a good discussion of this, see Guilyardi et al “Understanding El Nino in ocean-atmosphere general circulation models”, Bulletin of the AMS, March 2009. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2387.1. You don’t even need to read the whole thing, just have a look at Fig.5 showing the amplitude of ENSO in these climate models (from IPCC AR4). Also Fig.6.
Oops. In my comment above, I meant that the instrumental record is since 1890, not 1980. Sorry!
Given the rising amount of heat being pumped into the arctic by general global warming, and by the loss of ice cover, and by the Gulf Stream, and by regional CH4 emissions, and given the rising influx of fresh water from both Greenland glacier decline and major river outflows, – if the warming is not controlled then the loss of the downwellings driving the Gulf Stream circulation looks only a matter of time.
Could you say how soon it’s likely to be say 70% lost, and roughly what fraction of north European nations would be forced to emigrate ?
given that I had followed directions and did my
disaster preparedness by storing several gallons
of water and some first aid and canned goods then checkes with disaster preparedness to learn that they would try to cover most else necessary
and checked with a church to see is I could count on being one of the chosen few if I would
recant and follow Jesus in time, don’t you think that new mass directions are in order for the coming future.
4degrees and beyond climate conference is a telling
Review of what people deal with in order to say only those parts of the truth that they can prove. If more can be proved then they can show. But, the “quantum leaps of society should move to the more sturdy types of home and office construction.
What about a double walled with sand buffer between walls of the swimming pool style with anchors to keep it from popping out of the ground as a style of weather shelter?
This is a timely post. I’m lucky to have a climate scientist address our educational program yearly—he’ll be coming within the next 2 weeks. He is an arctic specialist and spends summers there—so I’ll ask methane related questions.
But I think the “scientist as activist” one is the thorniest. Don’t most scientists feel that their job is to research and present the data/findings—that it is up to others to discover solutions/be politically active? Traditionally, scientists are trusted because they present “facts” not politically biased opinions. So much for tradition, now, though, given the grim data. I am glad to see Dr. Hansen bring his “findings” to the front line. But it’s a lot to expect all scientists to be marching in the street. We all have different strengths.
I like the “ask the expert” idea. We’ve been toying with incorporating that in an ongoing basis on our webpage—some place people in the community can go for specific answers. The answers on CP should be interesting! Thanks for doing this.
We can’t continue to give scientists a lot of slack simply because political action doesn’t suit their temperaments or job description. The stakes are too big this time, and ill educated global warming activists lack detailed understanding.
Hansen stepped up, along with others. The rest need to follow this example.
See my reply to Jeff Huggins above. If we don’t provide the facts, then who will? Science – the actual work – is all in the details, and that necessarily takes a lot of time, working and reworking and checking and showing preliminary results to colleagues and then going back and reworking it again. It may seem simple from the outside when all you see is the result, but from the inside it’s a slog. If we become activists then we won’t be doing the actual science, and then we won’t have any facts; it’ll just be opinions. Mine vs Rick Perry’s, and he’d win that contest.
Normally this excuse would be OK, but under the circumstances an exception needs to be made.
Society is not making adequate progress to solve this problem in time. So we are balancing this choice: Do we want to preserve a livable climate for the human race by having climate scientists (the people who know) make a real “stink,” or do we want to keep moving towards mass human extinction while we let scientists stay above it all so that they can add yet another study to the thousands that already prove that we need to act now to save a livable climate?
In other words, we’ve long known enough science to know that action is needed now.
Looked at another way, suppose ExxonMobile was writing the play book to guide the actions they’d like scientists to take. It would be exactly what is happening now, except that Jim Hansen and a few others would keep mum too. It’s time to speak up!
BK -
While your point about scientists maintaining impartiality in their researches is a valid one, I don’t see that demanding action on the existential threat science has identified necessarily conflicts with that priority.
With only about 1 in about 280,000 Americans having been arrested on the Tar Sands protest, of whom I’d guess a disproportionate number were scientists, it would be good to see more scientists in street actions – but still better to see a larger fraction of activists and NGO subscribers – who form a vastly larger constituency.
Where scientists could up their game most effectively is in my view in communicating the science:
- 1/. Exactly as you’re doing in this correspondence, by raising participation in well-moderated discussions to raise activists’ understanding of the threats and opportunities.
- 2/. By using any public platform they can access to describe the urgency of action in precise but non-technical language, with particular care to qualify threats as being the result of inaction: i.e. using ‘would’ not ‘will’. Apathy, as the 280,000 figure shows, is plainly our greatest enemy.
This also means dumping politicians’ cliches such as ‘climate change’, in favour of ‘climate destabilization’. And it also means ammending the standard cop-out line on weather events’ causality to read:
“No single weather event can be attributed solely to climate destabilization.”
It would also be very helpful to have scientists publicly drawing a distinction between the profiteering corporate-funded ‘deniers’ of AGW and the ordinary people, termed ‘flukers’, who still view increasing extreme events as just flukes. Using the single arguably derogatory term ‘denier’ to describe both groups is very counter-productive; focussing grass-roots attention on ever more ‘flukes’ could be very helpful.
3/. Getting accurate comprehensive accounts of our predicament into the public domain is something that still needs doing and that only scientists can do. A proposal on these lines is shown at comment #43 below.
You will have access to academic fora that are closed to many of us here, and I wish you’d try circulating these suggestions within them to see what responses they generate. It would be very interesting to have feedback on them.
Regards,
Lewis
It is widely agreed that the purpose of science is to serve human wellbeing by informing society of threats and opportunities. I cannot find any text proposing that the purpose is merely to inform society’s ‘representatives’, and yet this is precisely what climatologists and other scientists have tolerated under the IPCC system of governmental censorship of its Assessment Reports and, with regard to the feedbacks, constraint of the scope of its assessments.
The existential nature of the climate threat demands that scientists assert the independence of aggregate scientific communication with the public in order to fulfil their duty of informing society directly. There are three outstanding issues urgently needing proper description in the public domain.
1/. The assembly and provision of “The Scientists’ Cut” of the IPCC’s AR4, including an additional updated “Summary for the Public”. The “Copenhagen Prognosis” may form a useful basis for that summary.
2/. The assembly and provision of a report of the 5 major feedbacks’ numerical progress to date, with analysis of the extent of their interaction, and prognoses for their ongoing acceleration. (Note: numerical projections of their advance are prevented by their interactive response to unpreditable individual events – such as the 2010 heatwaves over Canada and Russia).
3/. The assembly and provision of a report
- a/. describing thermal inertia and the ‘pipeline warming’, in which it is made clear that the present extent of warming and consequent climate destabilization is time-lagged from the GHG pollution of the 1970s (when we’d raised airborne CO2 ppmv by 55 from 280 to around 335, since when we’ve raised it a further 60 to around 395ppmv, and have yet to peak annual outputs) with the implications for intensifying warming until at least 2060; and
- b/. describing the cooling effect of the sulphate parasol and its loss with the ending of fossil fuel usage, with the implications of a roughly doubled warming thereafter.
The provision of these three reports (both on paper and on the web) would greatly help society to put the climate issue in context, and to apply proper pressure to its national goverments to put aside ruinous nationalist power-plays and agree commensurate action.
The question is, when is the scientific community going to fulfil its duty to inform society by doing so ?
Regards,
Lewis
Good one, Lewis. I hope your suggestions are implemented, or at least considered.
What are the best methods of pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere?
Is carbon sequestration in the soil one part of a viable response or solution?
I’d like to ask them what journals, websites, or other sources of information they feel would be best for people to look at to keep informed of recent research and other developments in climate science.
I’m a little late to the party, but here’s my question.
How hard would it be for scientists to create a frequently updated website where Americans could type in their zip code and get the “best current estimate” climatic projections for their area in 5, 10, 20, 30 and 50 years?
Such a site, run by a credible scientific organization with no political axe to grind, would be an incredibly powerful tool for influencing public opinion.
todd,
I like the concept, but zipcode is probably too ambitious a level of detail. I don’t know where you live, but at least one regional climate change forecast made not too long ago is still functional. The Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment (2007) correctly predicted more frequent intense rainfall events. And here we are.
http://www.northeastclimateimpacts.org/
I’m not suggesting that anyone try to create a long-range climate forecast for an area as small as a zip-code. What I’m suggesting is a nation-wide system that creates estimates for larger geographical areas (perhaps we could divide large states up into 5 or 6 regions, and smaller states into 1 or 2) and then have people access that info by inputing their zip code. The information wouldn’t change, but by framing the request in terms of zip code instead of, say, by state or region, the person would likely develop a stronger personal connection to the forecast. In essence, using zips as the filter would create a stronger connection to the climate model. As Joe likes to point out, it’s all about the framing.
At the same time, zip codes are short, easy to use and easy to remember. I may be wrong, but it just seems like the right compromise on the level of detail.
We put a lot of burden on climate scientists to map out all the implications, but I would like to see some other expertise drawn in, like independent actuaries.
People want to know nitty-gritty stuff. Will a property be inhabitable at the end of its 15-year mortgage, is the customer base going to emigrate to somewhere else or stay put, and the like.
Good points.
Very big question. There is an interesting article on this. Title: “Stationarity is Dead: Whither Water Management?”
http://wwwpaztcn.wr.usgs.gov/julio_pdf/milly_et_al.pdf
A sub heading: “Climate change undermines a basic assumption that historically has facilitated management of water supplies, demands, and risks.”
One quote “Stationarity—the idea that natural systems fluctuate within an unchanging envelope of variability—is a foundational concept that permeates training and practice in water-resource engineering”.
I think I’ve read somewhere this applies to insurers also.
Perhaps the most perplexing question is why, after a century of peer reviewed publications and reviews of the subject , estimates of climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling have not converged on a single value .
Absent agreement even to one decimal place, talk of ‘consensus’ rings hollow.
Actually, what’s remarkable is that the range of sensitivity hasn’t changed for decades BUT that we have eliminated any plausible chance that the sensitivity is on the low side, whereas the upper bound remains potentially very high.
BUT remember we are just talking about the fast feedbacks sensitivity. The slower, decade-scale sensitivity is much higher according to virtually every paleoclimate analysis.
I for one have made clear that I don’t like the word consensus. What we have is a converging understanding that failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would be suicidal for modern civilization.
With current carbonic acid gas atmospheric concentration approaching 400 ppm, what is the additional ppm,equivalent for all the other greenhouse gases in today’s air?
BONUS: If this value totals in the 450 ppm,e or higher range then, since this will bring at least a 2C total rise, are we not out of time for some kind of “orderly” conversion to clean energy if we wish to obey international agreements and avoid cataclysms, even if we discount the profound losses to ecological sectors occurring now?
What I know of Greenland and Antarctic ice cores is that they show a geographical record of rapid climate variability with changes happening within time periods as fast as a few decades. (see: Ice Cores from Greenland Unlock Ancient Climate Secret, Sci. Am., Daniel Glick and The Daily Climate, April 25, 2011)
My question: Do we have a good model that is capable of forecasting those tipping points or are waiting until we’ve hit a planetary “oops.”
Given the current record downpours/floods occurring world wide, is the magnitude of such expected to continue to increase, or will they level off at some point even as temps continue upward?
I haven’t read through all the comments, but I’d like to hear ideas from climate scientists on how to describe/explain the fact that in addition to disrupting our climate system/processes, we’re facing breakdowns in other natural systems as well, some resulting from or exacerbated by climate change, others resulting from decades of toxic pollution and destructive agricultural and land use practices.
(In terms of a system directly impacted by AGW, I’m thinking of ocean acidification and the resulting disruption in the food chain and other effects. In terms of other “unrelated” disruptions, I’m thinking about loss of topsoil, loss of soil nutrients, the bee/pollinator crisis (assuming it’s not AGW-related), loss of permeable surfaces in urban areas, etc, etc… The predictable, but unintended, consequences of our unthinking rush to grow.)
I’m also curious about how these systems work together, how a disruption in one area can worsen the problems in another.
- Celia
2050: THE END OF THE GROWTH ERA? is a more up-to-date version (2008) of his original 2000 essay.