The frustrating situation that climate change science finds itself in reminds me of one of those disaster movies – you know the one – where a flawed hero is trying to save the planet, or whatever, but is being distracted at every turn by either his own problems, or noises off. In our case the flawed hero is represented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the climate change scientific community; and the flaws have received enough publicity in recent months for me not to dwell on them here. A small but vocal minority of so-called climate change sceptics and deniers have provided the noises off. It could be argued that the ‘hero’ needs these distractions to overcome his flaws and go on to save the day!
This might describe the process that followed the exaggerated claims of Himalayan glacier melting rates quoted in the Working Group II contribution to the IPCC 4th Assessment Report, resulting in publication of the “Review of the Processes and Procedures of the IPCC” by the Inter-Academy Council on 29 August (IAC Report). There have also been two inquiries into the circumstances behind the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, colloquially known as “Climategate”, chaired by Lord Oxburgh and Sir Muir Russell that reported in April and July 2010 respectively.
This might describe the process that followed the exaggerated claims of Himalayan glacier melting rates quoted in the Working Group II contribution to the IPCC 4th Assessment Report, resulting in publication of the “Review of the Processes and Procedures of the IPCC” by the Inter-Academy Council on 29 August (IAC Report). There have also been two inquiries into the circumstances behind the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, colloquially known as “Climategate”, chaired by Lord Oxburgh and Sir Muir Russell that reported in April and July 2010 respectively.
Put simply all this has revealed that some scientists working in the climate change sector have been both slipshod in their practices and overly protective of the information they hold. On the other hand some of the tactics of the more extreme ends of the climate sceptic community have been aggressive, bizarre and ignorant. See Skepticalscience for a useful review of these tactics. Sometimes lost in this melee however are some perfectly reasonable questions concerning some of the more dramatic certainties coming from the climate change protagonists.
The main problem here is just how much is riding on climate change predictions. You have only got to read the 2006 Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change to get a feel for the sums involved and the potential impacts of the decisions with which Governments are faced. As we saw at COP 15 in Copenhagen in December 2009 some Governments are not yet in a position to sign up to significant cuts in carbon emissions when faced with the prospect of curtailing the rate of economic growth at home. On the other hand, although the energy sector makes much of its involvement in renewable energy, there have been reports from the US that companies involved in oil exploration, such as Koch Industries and Exxon Mobil, have funded climate sceptic groups to the tune of millions of dollars.
Although many politicians and journalists involved in making decisions and reporting on and around climate change have a background in science, mostly they rely on the information provided to them by scientists. But of course climate science is incredibly complex and the prediction of climate change far from certain. Politicians and journalists on the other hand like to deal in certainties. In his excellent online book “Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air” (free to download from MacKay) David MacKay provides an example of how journalists can get it so badly wrong. The following is a quote from Dominic Lawson writing in the 8 June 2007 edition of the Independent and paraphrased by Professor MacKay :
“The burning of fossil fuels sends about seven gigatons of CO2 per year into the atmosphere, which sounds like a lot. Yet the biosphere and the oceans send about 1,900 gigatons and 36,000 gigatons of CO2 per year into the atmosphere – . . . one reason why some of us are sceptical about the emphasis put on the role of human fuel-burning in the greenhouse gas effect. Reducing man-made CO2 emissions is megalomania, exaggerating man’s significance. Politicians can’t change the weather.”
Unfortunately Mr Lawson makes some fundamental errors in this article. Apart from getting all the numbers wrong, the emissions from the biosphere and oceans into the atmosphere are balanced by almost exactly the same quantity of CO2 flowing in the opposite direction and being absorbed by the biosphere and oceans. As the IPCC and others can testify, getting the numbers right is also important. In Mr Lawson’s case he makes the common error of mixing up carbon and CO2. In fact the figure he quotes for CO2 emissions from anthropogenic activities is actually that for carbon and should read 26 Gt CO2/annum. Worse still the 36,000 gigatons quoted represents the amount of carbon held in the oceans, the estimated flow rate given by MacKay is 90 gigatonnes of carbon/annum (330 Gt CO2/annum), whilst the flow to and from the biosphere has been estimated at 440 Gt CO2/annum. This cyclical flow of gases between the earth and its atmosphere has been occurring since the atmosphere, oceans and biosphere evolved and is an intrinsic part of the earth’s ‘metabolism’.
The challenges of reporting on climate change science are being presented by the BBC’s Environment Correspondent, Roger Harrabin in his essay “Uncertain Climate”, the first half of which was aired on Radio 4 on Monday 30 August. In this he recognizes that the nuances of climate change science have been lost in the mix, whilst some scientists have expressed an exaggerated degree of certainty about the prospects for global calamity. In contrasting interviews with Al Gore and Tony Blair, he demonstrates both the potential for evangelism driving out rationality, in the case of Gore, and an acceptance that politicians must apply the precautionary principle whilst communicating uncertainties (Blair).
Coincidentally a well-known ‘sceptic’ and author of the “Skeptical Environmentalist” Bjorn Lomborg was reported on the same day as having gone through a Damascene conversion in his most recent book “Smart Solutions to Climate Change”. In fact Lomborg is only the editor of this volume, which has a number of contributors. A closer reading of his cannon however reveals a more nuanced picture than the headlines might portray. Lomborg has never denied the science, he has only questioned priorities, although based originally on what some have claimed is a simplistic comparison of the cost of mitigating climate change with tackling malaria, HIV/AIDS and inadequate sanitation and water supply. This latest book focuses specifically on the priorities to mitigate climate change, analysing the likely costs and benefits of a very wide range of policy options, including geo-engineering, mitigation of CO2, methane and 'black carbon' (soot) emissions, expanding forestation, research and development of low-carbon energy technologies and encouraging green technology transfer. In an interview for the Guardian Lomborg is reported as saying that "the crucial turning point in his argument was the Copenhagen Consensus project (of which he is Director), in which a group of economists were asked to consider how best to spend $50bn. The first results, in 2004, put global warming near the bottom of the list, arguing instead for policies such as fighting malaria and HIV/AIDS. But a repeat analysis in 2008 included new ideas for reducing the temperature rise, some of which emerged about halfway up the ranking. Lomborg said he then decided to consider a much wider variety of policies to reduce global warming, 'so it wouldn't end up at the bottom'." Which sounds a bit like altering the parameters in order to give the result you are after.
The metaphorical hero in our disaster movie may be the IPCC, but the villain of the COP 15 conference proved to be China. As can be seen from the Figure at the start of this post, copied from the MacKay book referred to above, the total CO2 equivalent emissions in 2000, as indicated by the area of each block, were similar for China to that for the USA, although the per capita emissions in the US were about 6 times those for China. However China is going through its very own industrial and economic revolution leading to massive growth in all those criteria that result in increasing greenhouse gas emissions.
China is reported to be commissioning new coal fired power stations at the rate of 2 or 3 per week, with a long term programme to construct more than 500. They are in the middle of a major airport construction and improvement programme, with 42 new airports in the pipeline and 70 being improved. Car ownership increased 5 fold between 2003 and 2008, whilst China’s urbanisation continues unabated, with the percentage of urban residents increasing from 18% in 1978 to 44% in 2006 according to an article in the Economist online.
The latest International Energy Agency statistics (ref IEA energy statistics 2010) indicate that China’s CO2 emissions doubled between 2000 and 2008, coincident with a doubling of coal production.
These same statistics predict an increase in total primary energy supply (TPES) globally of 65% by 2030 from 1990 figures based on ‘policies under consideration’. No predictions are given for the corresponding change in CO2 emissions.
These are scary statistics, and there are plenty more where they came from! One conclusion that can be drawn from the above is that the failure of COP 15 and the ‘noises off’ from climate sceptics must not be allowed to get in the way of future global agreements to mitigate global warming. What we all need is a clear and consistent message from the scientists who have dedicated their lives to studying this complex subject.
No comments:
Post a Comment