Climate & Climate Change

The Australian Environment Foundation had its first conference and AGM last weekend.* There was some discussion on the subject of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

In my talk I suggested that in the film ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ Al Gore took away the potential for dissent by making global warming a moral issue. I suggested he turned it into an issue of faith.

I quoted Thomas Huxley (a colleague of Charles Darwin) who once wrote something along the lines of “religion is for morality, science is for factuality”.

I went on to suggest that there is no ‘truth’, however inconvenient, that should not be exposed to the blow torch of healthy skepticism and there should be no claim, however morally appealing, that we are not prepared to test against the available evidence.

After my paper there was some discussion about semantics, in particular, David Tribe made comment that it is important to be clear about the distinction between skepticism and being an AGM skeptic.

He made the same point as a comment at another blog post this afternoon:

“This is a good a place as any for me to repeat my view said previously directly to Jen Marohasy that it’s highly important to be clear about semantic distinction between scepticism and being a sceptic on AGW. The later implying you reject well established findings.

I consider that it is part of scientific ethics to always be upfront about the limitation to current data and theories. That is, to know and freely state where certainty and range of precision lie, and to never have to apologise for expecting that, because to fail in doing this do so is professionally unethical.

To demand clearer statements from IPCC about the validity and uncertainty range of their claims is not necessarily to be in disagreement with the validity of parts of their model, but normal ethical practice in science. For example IPCC clearly failed ethically in the hockey stick episode. The computer model has numerous complex assumptions that are empirically unproven.

I note also there is substantial empirical evidence for solar forcing processes whose mechanisms are uncertain. That does not mean I am an AGW sceptic: I want to see those aspects of the IPCC model tested against this recent interesting solar driving hypothesis as it could mean all the CO2 efforts being advocated (Kyoto etc) are completely unnecessary or indeed counter productive.”

Does David make an important point? Most so-called AGW skeptics are not AGW skeptics. They do not deny that C02 causes warming, but rather recognize the limitations of the current data and theories.

In calling us AGW skeptics, are the AGW alarmists suggesting we deny the physics of carbon dioxide based forcing?

So is my recent blog post entitled ‘How to Become a Global Warming Skeptic’ misleading, because while I accepted the label, and encouraged others to nominate for the label, I also explained that I don’t deny global warming or climate change or that increasing levels of carbon dioxide may drive warming.

Should we reject the ‘global warming skeptic’ label? What would George Orwell of said?

—————————–
* I’ll do a summary of the AEF conference for this blog in due course and link to the conference papers which should be up at the AEF website by the end of the week. In the meantime you can see some of the photos from the conference at
http://www.aefweb.info/display/con2006gallery.html . Some regular contributors to this blog were at the conference including David Tribe and Walter Starck.

I received the following note:

“Hi Jennifer,

Tonight the ABC news reported on the large ozone hole over the Antarctic.

On the news, first it was claimed that the large hole was responsible for the record cold weather there. Then that the cold weather was destroying the ozone and causing the hole.

Can you have it both ways?

Cheers, Helen Mahar”

According to ABC New Online:

“Dr Paul Fraser from the CSIRO says the lowest temperatures ever recorded in Antarctica’s upper stratosphere this winter – minus 85 degrees – are the cause.

“It’s certainly the coldest we have ever seen and it requires very cold temperatures to get very significant ozone depletion,” Dr Fraser said.”

And how does this fit with the IPCC global warming projections?

When Bob Foster posted a note here in April claiming that the sun drives climate and the next little ice age will be in 2030 he was roundly condemned by many AGW believers.

Now there is an article in New Scientist also suggesting “that the sun is about to enter another quiet period”.

The abstract includes comment that:

“It is known as the Little Ice Age. Bitter winters blighted much of the northern hemisphere for decades in the second half of the 17th century. The French army used frozen rivers as thoroughfares to invade the Netherlands. New Yorkers walked from Manhattan to Staten Island across the frozen harbour. Sea ice surrounded Iceland for miles and the island’s population halved. It wasn’t the first time temperatures had plunged: a couple of hundred years earlier, between 1420 and 1570, a climatic downturn claimed the Viking colonies on Greenland, turning them from fertile farmlands into arctic wastelands.

Could the sun have been to blame? We now know that, curiously, both these mini ice ages coincided with prolonged lulls in the sun’s activity – the sunspots and dramatic flares that are driven by its powerful magnetic field.

Now some astronomers are predicting that the sun is about to enter another quiet period.“

You can read the full article ‘Global warming: Will the Sun come to our rescue?’ by Stuart Clark which was published on 18th September by clicking here.

Speaking from New York, Virgin Blue Boss Sir Richard Branson has said transport and energy companies must be at the forefront of developing environmentally friendly business strategies and has pledged to invest US$3bn (£1.6bn) to fight global warming.

Branson said he would commit all profits from his travel firms, such as airline Virgin Atlantic and Virgin Trains, over the next 10 years.

It seems that Branson recognizes anthropogenic global warming is an issue that can potentially be solved through new technologies and he plans to invest in new renewable energy technologies through Virgin Fuels.

This approach is consistent with the approach advocated by the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. Also known as the AP6, this group includes ‘kyoto dissidents’ Australia and the US, as well as China, India, South Korea and Japan.

Together these countries account for about half of the world’s GDP, population, energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. The partnership was announced in Laos in July last year and they met for the first time in Sydney in January.

The AP6, like Branson, recognise that the solution to anthropogenic global warming is potentially in the development, sharing and promotion of new and improved technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Of course this approach will also solve ‘the peak oil’ problem because once we move beyond our dependence on fossil fuels it won’t matter how much oil is left.

Australia’s tabloid e-news site Crikey has been suggesting that there are only a few misguided global warming skeptics. On Line Opinion’s editor, Graham Young, has written to Crikey suggesting they, rather than the skeptics, are misguided. Anyway, they haven’t published this note which he sent them a few days ago:

Hey Guys,

If you’re going to put Christopher Pearson on your global warming skeptics list because he pointed out that claims that Tuvalu and Kiribati are sinking due to global warming are fraudulent, then you’d better put me on your list too. Check out http://ambit-gambit.nationalforum.com.au/archives/000593.html and http://ambit-gambit.nationalforum.com.au/archives/000185.html.

I know Al Gore claims that the islands have already sunk and the inhabitants immigrated to New Zealand, but all that proves is that his documentary is faction, not fact. Maybe you should put your skeptics list in your religion section, if you had one, because it seems to be operating on the same scientific basis as intelligent design. Oh, and for the record, while I believe that carbon dioxide contributes to warming of the globe, I have little faith in the accuracy of climate models. Funnily enough, according to John Quiggin at the BrisScience Forum last night, neither does he, so perhaps you should put him on the list as well.

What’s Crikey trying to do – muscle in on Green Left Weekly’s patch?

By the way, as a declaration of pecuniary interest and potential bias I’ve never knowingly received funding from petroleum companies, but if Shell, Exxon or Mobil want to put a banner, tower or island advertisement on the site, and pay for it, then they’re welcome.

The commonsense view on global warming is that there are a range of scenarios, and one should take precautions for the more likely ones, whilst maintaining an economy robust enough to deal with as many as possible. One should never take at face values the assertion of lobbyists or scientists in the pay of big oil, or global warming driven research grants, or any other scientists or lobbyists for that matter. And limiting carbon dioxide output in the 25% of the world that is industrialised while excluding the other 75% which is racing as quickly as possible to increase its carbon dioxide emissions, was always an absurd way to tackle the problem.

I feel much better now that I have come out of the closet and am looking forward to being on your list of people robust enough to ask the hard questions – the sort of thing that I thought Crikey was all about.

Regards,
Graham Young
Chief Editor, On Line Opinion“

I can’t work out why Gore would make the claims that he does in the movie about the Pacific Islands. He actually says that the citizens of Pacific Islands have had to be evacuated to New Zealand because of rising sea-levels.

I’m happy to be corrected, but this is what I understand the situation to be with respect to Pacific Islands and sea-level:

1. Since the last glacial maximum about 20,000 years ago, global-averaged sea level has risen by more than 100 metres as large ice sheets have melted.

2. There is still a general trend of rising global sea level at the rate of 1.8mm per year over the period 1950-2000 with no evidence of an increase in the rate of sea level rise over this period.*

3. The great majority of oceanic islands, including in the Pacific, were formed by volcanic activity. While the volcanoes are active, the islands rise relative to the global averaged sea-level. When volcanic activity stops, the islands will cool and eventually start to sink. So there are islands rising and sinking all the time.

4. According to Marlo Lewis in ‘A Skeptic’s Guide to the Inconvenient Truth’ ** tide gauge records show that sea levels at Tuvalu actually fell during the latter half of the 20th Century. This is an island often quoted as being lost to rising sea levels including in Al Gore’s book also called ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ where there is a two-page photograph and reference to the islands of Funafuti and Tuvalu and residents having to evacuate their homes because of rising seas.

In summary some Pacific islands are sinking, while some Pacific Islands are rising and it was incorrect of Al Gore to suggest that the issue is “rising seas”.

It is also wrong for Crikey’s journalist Sophie Black to suggest there is something wrong with Christopher Pearson for publicly exposing this inconvenient truth.

—————-
* Church et al. 2004, Estimates of the Regional Distribution of Sea Level Rise over the 1950-2000 Period. American Meteorological Society, pgs 2609-2625.

** I understand this assessment was published by the CEI and that they are funded by Big Oil, and as Graham Young states at a recent blog post: Isn’t it a pity that we have to rely on oil companies to finance the devil’s advocate position on global warming? And if you’re inclined to that style of rebuttal, just bear in mind that Al Gore’s political career was financed in part by the tobacco industry.