Copenhagen result: good enough
Saturday, December 19, 2009 at 2:58AM ARTICLE: Many Goals Remain Unmet in 5 Nations' Climate Deal, By JOHN M. BRODER, New York Times, December 18, 2009
I, for one, find no great "victory" or "disappointment" in the vague but suitably vectored outcome at Copenhagen. It struck me as exactly what the world can muster right now and no more or less: definitely not enough for those convinced we're on the road to certain hell, but responsive enough to those of us who see danger and yet aren't convinced--a la Lomborg--that cranking on the CO2 knob is the all-powerful answer to what lies ahead.
And, given the state of knowledge and where the world finds itself today in globalization's advance and the trailing institutions of management (politics always trailing economics and security always trailing networks), I think such an outcome is enough. Better answers await, along with more political will, but not being able to wrap it all up in Copenhagen is far from any disaster--one way or the other.
Reader Comments (7)
And you think permanent changes in weather patterns, natural or not, is just red herring? Migration of ecosystems, melting of glaciers, changes in precipitation patterns.. that's just nothing? When the water table collapses in Northern China, I hope all the "free marketeers" and the "exploiters" get to take in all the refugees...
and while there's billions and billions for weapons systems and Wall Street bonuses, none for sewage systems, potable water, etc.
A Policy-Neutral Guide to the Science of Global Climate ChangeR.G. Quayle, editor. rgquayle@gmail.com
The Copenhagen agreement is just fine for now because it is what the great powers will tolerate. It gets us on track, so that as science improves, we have a starting point for further action.
However: The physics of global warming is quite compelling. The warming effect works according to the laws of quantum physics. When an infrared heat photon of a specific energy collides with a greenhouse gas molecule, that photon will be absorbed and an excited electron will jump to a higher orbit. However, that new electron orbit is not stable and will soon fall back to its "rest" energy level while emitting a photon of the same energy level (frequency) that was absorbed. While the original photons were on their way out to space when they were absorbed, the new photons will be radiated in a random direction. Some will continue up, some will return toward earth. It is this down-to-earth radiant energy that causes the underlying earth to warm to a new equilibrium temperature. Because of its complexity, only computer models can adequately quantify the greenhouse effect, with its many variables and feedbacks.
Climate change policy can range between two options. Each option can be followed by the same question: What are the consequences if we engage in this policy and we are right, and what are the consequences if we are wrong?1. We should do little or nothing to limit greenhouse gas emissions.2. We should select among a variety of options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Logical flaws and partial truths abound in agenda-driven global climate change discussions. If your source of information is, or seems to be, an advocacy group rather than an objective scientific source, here are some fallacies, misstatements, and partial truths to beware when framing your own personal policy preferences.
“The science is settled. “Ø Actually, the basic physics is quite sound and not in dispute. All else being equal, increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in an atmosphere will raise the equilibrium temperature of the underlying planet. What, exactly, the change will be for earth can only be answered by computer modeling because the climate system is so complex. There are, as of the dawn of 2010, many peer-reviewed models and they all show somewhat different degrees of warming. None show the globe cooling or remaining the same.
“The climate changes in natural cycles, and we are just seeing this, not human-induced changes.“Ø Climate does change naturally, but that does not mean that human activity is not contributing to change. Nor does it mean that climate models have no predictive value. Far more data are available today than for previous climate changes, and climate scientists use both current (instrument) data and past (proxy) data to evaluate their models.
“It was as warm or warmer in the past, so this cycle must be natural.”Ø Previous warmth due to natural causes does not change the physics of how greenhouse gas increases will influence the present and future climates.
“Variations in the sun are causing global warming.”Ø There have been many theories about a solar influence on recent climate changes, but none have stood up to scientific scrutiny.
“There is a big conspiracy among large groups trying to advance a harmful political agenda for their own gain.”Ø There are ardent advocates, even at the highest geopolitical levels, but there is no documentary evidence that any large-scale conspiracy exists to falsify climatic data or computer models. If anyone is guilty of this, it does not alter the scientific facts revealed by the global climate science community as a whole.
“The data are not accurate enough, or the data have been adjusted, and are hence unreliable.”Ø Climatic data analysis is a complex science. Adjustments to homogenize data can and do extract climate signals from noisy, imperfect data. No single data set is without flaws. That is why an integrative approach is necessary, where many data sets and climate indicators must be considered together in order to reliably quantify trends.“The models do not replicate the data, so they are unreliable.”Ø Climate models deal in large scale, long term averages. They don’t predict weather or climate over a few years. They predict climate over decades.
“The models are based on past data, so of so of course they replicate the past, but they are no good for prediction.”Ø Most models are base on both empirical and theoretical considerations. This does not interefere with their predictive capacity.
“Global warming may be beneficial.”Ø Indeed some areas of the globe may benefit, and global warming over a time scale of thousands of years may even result in benefits, like forestalling future ice ages. But at rapid rates (a century or two), the net effects of climate warming as predicted by current models (e.g., disruption of infrastructure, loss of coastal land) would be adverse.
“The world has neither the means nor the political will to avert climate change, even if humans are partly responsible for it.”Ø This may be true in the short run, but it does not mean that conservation and alternative energy should not be pursued. Nor does it mean political structures to deal with climate change should be abandoned. If severe consequences of climate become obvious to a majority of people, the political and scientific structures will be prepared to act more decisively.
“There is no proof that humans are the main cause of climate change.”Ø While there is no irrefutable proof, there is a preponderance of evidence.
“Not all climate scientists agree that significant climate change is caused by humans.”Ø Most climate scientists who produce publication-quality work do. And all scientists who have taken the trouble to construct state-of-the-art, peer reviewed climate prediction models do.
“Thousands of scientists have signed a petition stating that humans are not a major cause of climate change. “Ø Indeed they have. But these are statements of belief, not peer-reviewed scientific assertions. One could undoubtedly get thousands of people to sign a petition stating that there is no sound scientific basis for the theory of evolution. But this is not how the scientific method works. Keep in mind: Major national academies of science and professional scientific associations agree that the climate is warming and that humans are a contributing factor.
“Since around 1998 there has been a global cooling trend, so global warming is a hoax.”Ø The decade of the 1990s was the warmest in over a century. Variations in the 90s are within the bounds of natural variability.
“Following ice ages, carbon dioxide increased after warming began, so carbon dioxide can’t be the cause of global warming.”Following ice ages, variations in the Earth’s orbit and the angle of its axis warmed the planet again. Temperatures began to increase, followed by rising carbon dioxide concentrations. This does not mean that carbon dioxide increases don’t cause warming. It does mean that carbon dioxide did not cause the initial warming that ended ice ages.
And Man, or even the mammals he sprung from, were no more than an evolutional aberration . . at that time . .
Man is still a relatively insignificant resident here and doesn't really make that big a dent in the overall scheme of things . . Our biggest claim to fame might be, we have invented devices that can make ourselves extinct quicker than any other species . .
Our little sphere wobbles, varies it's orbit slightly, and because it isn't run by computer, creates big and little problems for it's passengers . . we either adapt or die . . That's how it's always been . .