Man-Made Global Warming "Unequivocal"--What Next?
Ronald Bailey | November 19, 2007, 2:02pm
Over the weekend, the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released the Synthesis Report of its Fourth Assessment Report (4AR). The report is being published in advance of the upcoming 13th Conference of the Parties (COP-13) to the U.N Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Bali. At the COP-13, negotiators will try to hammer out a new international treaty to deal with the man-made emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) that are contributing to global warming. Any new treaty would replace the Kyoto Protocol which terminates in 2012. The Kyoto Protocol set a goal of reducing GHG emissions by an average of 5 percent below the level that signatory countries emitted in 1990. In October, the scientific journal Nature published a commentary that declared,
"...as an instrument for achieving emissions reductions, [the Kyoto Protocol] has failed. It has produced no demonstrable reductions in emissions or even in anticipated emissions growth."
Among other things, the Synthesis Report concludes:
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level...
Most of the observed increase in globally-averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.7 It is likely there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica)...
The Synthesis Report further notes:
Determining what constitutes “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” in relation to Article 2 of the UNFCCC involves value judgements. Science can support informed decisions on this issue,...
The negotiations in Bali will be over these value judgements and how to balance higher energy costs with the benefits of a cooler climate.
Impacts of climate change are very likely to impose net annual costs which will increase over time as global temperatures increase. Peer-reviewed estimates of the social cost of carbon23 in 2005 average US$12 per tonne of CO2, but the range from 100 estimates is large (-$3 to $95/tCO2). This is due in large part to differences in assumptions regarding climate sensitivity, response lags, the treatment of risk and equity, economic and noneconomic impacts, the inclusion of potentially catastrophic losses, and discount rates. Aggregate estimates of costs mask significant differences in impacts across sectors, regions and populations and very likely underestimate damage costs because they cannot include many non-quantifiable impacts.
Limited and early analytical results from integrated analyses of the costs and benefits of mitigation indicate that they are broadly comparable in magnitude, but do not as yet permit an unambiguous determination of an emissions pathway or stabilisation level where benefits exceed costs.
Climate sensitivity is a key uncertainty for mitigation scenarios for specific temperature levels.
Choices about the scale and timing of GHG mitigation involve balancing the economic costs of more rapid emission reductions now against the corresponding medium-term and long-term climate risks of delay.
Summary of Synthesis Report here.
Heads up: I will be posting daily dispatches from Bali covering the final week of the COP-13 climate change negotiations (Dec. 10-14).
Ken Shultz | November 19, 2007, 2:37pm | #
Yeah, um, the argument about whether or not global warming is bullshit, that's a real interesting one, uh, really, I'm sure. Somebody wake me up when it's over, mkay?
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
"Determining what constitutes “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” in relation to Article 2 of the UNFCCC involves value judgements. Science can support informed decisions on this issue,..."
Meanwhile, assuming that we're going to deal with this via public policy and that I'm reading the above properly, they're saying that what it's going to take to have a significant impact on emissions is also going to be devastating to our economy. ...that's our jobs, standard of living, poverty rate, level of violent crime, etc., etc.
So, I'm going to insist that whatever public policy prescriptions we adopt to deal with greenhouse gas emissions absolutely must, must, must include a gigantic stimulus package, or at the very least, we'll need a stimu one as powerful as the "mitigation" is costly.
Indeed, if the mitigation is so god awful costly, then we need to start doing some really big things now, like eliminating the capital gains tax and slashing corporate taxes and eliminating the income tax entirely, and, of course, we need to cut our spending as well, both foreign and domestic--especially in the area of defense. Sorry, but if what they're saying is true, there's just no way we're going to be able to afford an empire anymore.
Paul | November 19, 2007, 3:01pm | #
The United Nations' Nobel Prize-winning panel on climate change approved the final installment of its landmark report on global warming Friday, concluding that even the best efforts at reducing carbon-dioxide levels will not be enough.
First off, is anyone else getting tired of prefacing Al Gore or the IPCC as "Nobel Prize-winning"?
It's like 'Oh, they won a nobel prize, I guess it's true and
good, now'.
Second, "even the best efforts won't be enough."
I mean, come on, this logically has two ways it can go.
1. It's true, then we can't stop it. I have to assume that if we really did our "best effort", then there is no possible "better effort". I further conclude that if we reduced our CO2 output to pre 1900 levels, that that still wouldn't be good enough?
2. It's not true, which calls into question these summary reports this organization puts out. They're simply making the dire predictions that some policy makers want to see so as to wrest more control over the populace.
Third, we keep getting told with every report "it's worse than we thought". Wow, ten years ago, it was already supposed to be much worse than it is now. When do their 'worse than we thought' predictions eventually circle around on themselves?
concluded the delegates, who have been meeting in Valencia, Spain.
Fourth, I wanna go to Valencia, Spain, too. It must be nice to fly all over the world to exotic locales, and talk about how much CO2 we're putting into the air.
It would be like me getting out on my kayak every day to count the number of kayakers, and writing a report of how too many people are out on the water kayaking.
"The importance of adaptation has been growing in the IPCC reports."
Advocating for adaptation once was viewed as defeatism, especially among environmentalists.
So, are we defeated? Help me out, here.
Sean W. Malone | November 19, 2007, 9:32pm | #
Am I going to have to intellectually smack joe around AGAIN? Gah...
1. Does anyone else find it odd that so many people who bitched about the "hoax" the other day and who were calling for Reason to fire Ron Bailey (*Joe*) now seem to be ok with him reporting on the IPCC recommendations? Man I sure do... I guess it's ok if he reports on this topic provided that the information he's reporting is supporting their view.
and now, for the important part:
2. The InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change is made up of *shock* POLITICIANS!! It's not a panel of scientists and according to the IPCC guidelines, they are allowed to edit the submitted material in order to more closely match the (bureaucrat-written) summary. The summary, it must be noted, is often written in advance of the individual chapters or any section written by the scientists - who are only there for expert testimony. Do not for one instant be fooled into thinking this paper (it is NOT a study!) is in anyway scientific.
So let's try to keep that in mind and have some better context applied to this whole damn issue right from the start. Make no mistake here, the IPCC is a government body and it's ultimate purpose is to make POLICY decisions - its purpose is not, and simply couldn't be, scientifically controlled climate research.
For government officials, this isn't really a science issue so much as a "what shall we do about it!?" public-policy issue. And since that is the case, we all have to realize that they're already operating under two basic assumptions:
A. Global Warming is happening to such a degree that something MUST be done (i.e. IPCC's 90% likely major catastrophe claims)
and
B. That we (humanity) actually has the power to do something - which is one of several reasons why the idea that global warming is human-caused because of nasty CO2 "pollution" is so appealing to them! ***(CO2 is rather important to such processes as photosynthesis, so I find it hard to call a commonly occurring natural compound, 'pollution')***
IF Global Warming is actually just a natural phenomenon, which a very large group of highly respected scientists believe and regularly publish peer-reviewed studies about (though which are much less frequently reported by famed science journalist Leonardo DiCaprio among others...) THEN an Intergovernmental Panel's sweeping public-policy changes would be a waste of time and resources.
Go with me on a little thought experiment and see if we can't follow the money trail & personal incentives...
...Senator "Bob" knows that an election is coming up next year and he'd like to be senator another term. Over the past 2 years, Bob hasn't really done very much that's particularly visible and he voted for the war in Iraq which isn't very popular now and is worried about his constituents who might not think he's working in their interests anymore... This is bad for Senator Bob. Unfortunately, it's too late to do much about the war, besides, at this point it's easier to back-pedal and blame the President for that whole mess (better to distance oneself), so he probably won't win many votes talking about militaristic defense. But wait a minute! Global Warming is a big issue, and everyone's talking about it a lot now so some of Bob's constituents are getting rather worried.
Of course, Bob doesn't know anything about the science - he got a law degree 30 years ago after all. However, Bob does know that there are two sides to this issue - on one side, some scientists believe that there are highly complex causes that are as of yet, pretty unknown and that because warming and cooling periods occur regularly on a dynamic planet such as Earth, there's probably nothing to worry about. On the other side, there are computer models, shiny graphs and shocking anecdotes about ice-caps melting, animal species dying out and warnings of a major global catastrophe to occur "soon". And, because it's all wrapped up in a nice little package, this catastrophe will be mankind's fault for driving cars - just like in a science fiction movie!
Senator Bob weighs his options:
1. Say to his constituents, "the Earth appears to be warming, but there are no conclusive causes to be found and it's probably going to be fine - I guess you'll have to judge me on the other issues you care about like my poor war record."
2. Say to his constituents, "The Earth is heading for eminent disaster and if you re-elect me, *I* can avert a major catastrophe! I also care deeply about your family and the environment."
Now - depending on what political ideology Bob has, choice number 2 has even more benefits. He might get kickbacks from an energy lobby and car manufacturers trying to manipulate the impending legislation, or perhaps he'll rake it in from environmental groups, journalists & the screen actors guild. On top of all that, he's also got a license to raise taxes and write new laws - because of course, he can't do anything about the immediate devastation that is sure to visit his constituents without a larger staff, a raise for himself and the authority to sponsor a bunch of new agencies and programs... all those need funding too.
And the best part of all!? Bob's previous record is all but ignored!
Ok.
So does that little scenario seem plausible to you? The bottom line is, catastrophes sell, will get politicians elected/re-elected, give license for reduction of freedom (which is always the trade off when we make new laws) and to raise taxes to fund new programs created by an expanding government and word of them travels much faster than word of non-events.
You put a nut up against a sensible person on TV, the nut wins. Every time.
Don't let these nuts use the federal government in further unconstitutional and ridiculously imprudent ways.
Sean W. Malone | November 20, 2007, 12:38pm | #
"Can you think of a distinction that can be drawn between the IPCC report and the hoax story other than whose political agenda their conclusions support?
I can: one of them is true and based on sound science, and the other is false and based on wishful thinking."
Do you not even bother to read what I write Joe? The IPCC is a panel of GOVERNMENT officials. "Based on sound science" my aching ass! It's based on the assumption that international governmental policy is the most significant factor affecting the environment - and then finding scientists who will agree with that position! Considering the alternative makes politicians around the world seem a lot less useful, we should all be rather skeptical of whether or not the IPCC has any valid motives what-so-ever.
And I'm not writing about the "hoax" anymore, you're way off base with everything and if anyone wants to read why, I already pwned you on the other board. I'm not interested in continually providing reason to someone who doesn't even bother to read what I've written, much less even bother to read actual studies. Especially when I link to them directly to make it easy!
And to Skoal:
I covered the issue of "consensus" in my earlier discussion with Joe - according to a recent (extremely comprehensive) study by Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte, only 7% of peer-reviewed, published climatologists explicitly believe humanity is "at least somewhat" responsible for global warming trends. Only 45% have *implicitly* agreed with that position.
Like the term "theory", the word consensus does not have the same meaning in science that it has colloquially. It refers not to a majority opinion, but to the current prevailing hypothesis.
A hypothesis, as anyone who had high-school science should remember, is almost at the very bottom of the scientific method. There is nothing particularly robust about a hypothesis, nor is it remotely confirmed with research, and that's where the cause of global warming is right now.
When scientists start using terms like "theory of CO2 emissions" or "Gore's law of global warming", then we can assume that some significant research and evidence has been done on the topic. Prior to that time however, if we listen to people like the IPCC we're letting government hijack reason and run away with more rights and more money because they scare us.
What I'm saying here is:
If you look at this issue from a scientific perspective, there's simply not enough evidence or understanding to make sweeping conclusions - and the debate is raging among climatologists. So, it makes no sense to be talking about carbon-taxes, caps on emissions, banning SUVs, or whatever else. Yet.
If you look at it from a political perspective however, it makes PERFECT sense to talk about all that stuff! Politicians get elected based on what they *promise* to do... Global Warming is one of the best things that's ever happened to them - nebulous science, results that won't manifest themselves for dozens of years at the earliest...
This is great for them! Politicians everywhere can say "We're all going to die unless you elect me, and allow me to raise taxes and start programs", then when they get elected they have a blank check to fix this (and add to the budgets for said programs whatever pork they might like) and THEN at the end of it all, if nothing comes of Global Warming and no catastrophes are reported, they'll either be dead or get to say "see, my policies worked! re-elect me!" and if something DOES come of it (which it won't), then they get to say "Damn (insert opposing politician here), if it weren't for those deniers we'd all be fine now."
It is WIN-WIN to take a position like the IPCC - IF YOU'RE A POLITICIAN. If however, you have some intellectual integrity and don't have anything to profit from just the idea of worldwide disasters, the issue becomes a lot more complex.
Sean W. Malone | November 21, 2007, 1:24am | #
Nothing against the IPCC specifically... though I suppose I have something against the Nobel Peace Prize bestowed upon them (explain to me again how a government panel which has so far only reported on individual scientist findings on environmental issues constitutes a contribution to world peace?), but that's not a huge deal considering that particular prize barely means anything if it's given to dictators and ineffectual presidents as well...
I do have a thing against government in general though, and specifically government using the language of science to scare people into giving away more rights and writing a blank check to politicians who have a track-record of abusing blank checks. Especially considering the scientific language is being used in absolute terms when the science itself is not absolute.
Oh... and I read the blogs you linked to, and I'll just say two things.
1. Regardless of what Oreskes might have to say about Schulte's study or her ad hominem attacks about him being a medical researcher, her study still constitutes data that's at least 3 years old and upwards of 15 in many cases. Besides, debate is to be expected when one person's findings differ significantly than someone else's... Admittedly, I am slightly inclined to give Schulte the benefit of some doubt precisely because I've observed how much hyperbole is on the pro AGW side and because his study takes into account more recent data. With all due respect to Oreskes, in the past 3-4 years the whole issue has seen a lot more press than it has in the past 20 so it doesn't seem terribly unlikely to me that more scientists are taking another look. Either way, there does seem to be a pretty severe tendency for people who support AGW to spend more effort trying to shut people up and using ad hominems than discussing the issues openly and honestly.
2. I'm really just a layman trying to apply some common sense to this issue. Other people have their blogs, I have mine... And I can link to blogs which support my ideas too... For example, one that talks about flaws in the original Oreskes study:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/05/oreskes-study-errata.html
However, none of this proves much of anything - so for future reference, I'd rather be linked to actual studies if at all possible instead of other people's blogs.
As far as it goes, I think the whole issue is blown out of proportion by everyone in the media. As Christopher Hitchens & Michael Shermer like to point out, we are a species that likes to find patterns - even if we don't have enough information for those patterns to mean anything. This planet is at best guess 4 billion years old. We've been collecting data consistently for about 100 years... It doesn't take much of a mathematician to realize that we know barely anything at all about large scale patterns in weather. A few degrees warmer or colder regardless of the cause isn't going to kill off all life, and if people aren't fit enough to adapt to such a moderate change then we've got much bigger problems than whether or not we have put too much CO2 into the air.
Personally, my bullshit meter is through the roof on this issue and I would simply pose that the people who benefit the most from a pro-AGW position are politicians and subsequently scientists with government grants. And not-so-shockingly, that's who's making the biggest noise about it. As someone who is passionately pro-liberty, pro-free markets and pro-science, I can't help but be a bit miffed at the sweeping, international regulations that are clearly on the horizon, the tax increases that are bound to come and myriad of new bureaucracies which are on the verge of being created to deal with something that is in all likelihood, not going to be that big of a deal. There are always people, quite often in government, ready to tell us the sky is falling. It's not.
And by the way - Reggie: If that company is able to make solar power rentals cheaper than the up-front cost and actually make solar energy worth paying for, THAT would be exactly how to solve any energy problem! Government solutions are going to be freedom-crippling, inefficient and uselessly slow (as always). I wish that company much luck and success. Hopefully they aren't regulated out of existence by politicians who "know what's best." A free market's ability to reward innovative thinkers is the answer here.
