Prometheus on Bleak Prospects for Climate Stabilization

Jake,

Pielke is correct in his assessment that mitigation is a lost cause. The good news is that the "worst case" scenarios often quoted by the scaremongers are highly unlikely to occur.

Your following statement, "Whether or not you agree with the core argument of anthropogenic global warming, overwhelming evidence suggests that the world is in fact warming. Even climate change skeptics don't dispute that anymore." is true if you mean that climate "skeptics" acknowledge a modest one-degree increase over the past century. The "overwhelming evidence" points to the fact that the mean global temperature increased modesstly through the 1940's, dropped until the seventies and then increased again until the 1990's where it has essentially remained constant.

My main problem with anthropogenic climate change is two fold.

First the anthropogenic part; there is no hard evidence linking CO2 to increased temperature. If you disagree I would be delighted to see the evidence.

My second objection is to the "change" part. The climate is not a static system and hence Pielke's reference to "stabilizing" the climate is pure nonsense. There is ample evidence to the dynamic nature of the earth's climate system and it is hubris on a grand scale to believe that we humans have tipped the climate apple cart.

There is little doubt that we hominids have increased the CO2 content of the atmosphere. The truth is it was an exceedingly small component to begin with and we have made it a slightly larger but still exceedingly small component.

Everything else is political posturing PERIOD!

Disagree? Show me some proof of a CAUSAL link between anthropogenic CO2 and global mean temperature. Spare me the pseudo-argument of "this happened during the same time as this other thing happened". I can show you the same linkage between the number of telephones and global mean temperature.

My point is simple. The modest increase in mean temperature of the earth over the last century is completely consistent with the past history of the planet. The burden of proof is on the Chicken Littles to prove otherwise.

Spare me any moralizing "precautionary principle" tripe. That is the purview of the leftist demagogues. I will require factual evidence before I blithely give up the greatest energy source ever discovered by man, petroleum. It is a dense source of energy and spews from the ground under its own pressure.

It has powered the great leap forward of the industrial revolution and there is enough of it, despite the equally spurious and politically motivated "peak oil" nonsense, to provide our energy needs for at least the next fifty years.

But I am a rational sort and if you show me real evidence why I should abandon this boon to mankind I will consider looking for an alternative.

I await your enlightened reply.

Lance..

As far as 'Worst Case' scenarios go, it depends on the scenario. Certainly, disintegration of the West Antartic Ice Sheet is no out of the question; there is plenty of evidence for it happening in response to natural changes in the region of 1-2K.

I'm not sure how you get the temperature to be constant from the 1990s, unless you start from the freak el Nino year of 1998.

Now, are you seriously claiming that there is no connection whatsoever between atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperature? If this is true, then you will have to explain why the earth is not frozen solid; without the natural CO2 thermostat effect there is absolutely no way of explaining how the planet has remained hospitable for life for the past 4 billion years.

All the evidence you need is in the IPCC TAR. Unless you've adpoted the trick of demanding 'hard evidence' (please tell us exactly what form this evidence should take..), and then deciding that all such evidence is politically motivated. In which case it's pretty silly for anyone to try and convince you.

FYI, the industrial revolution was powered almost entirely by coal; oil didn't really become a major player until the 1904 decision of the British Navy to move from coal-fired boilers in their warships to more efficient oil-fired. Coal is still a larger CO2 contributor than oil, and vastly easier to replace.

And oil no longer comes out of the ground under its own pressure in the vast majority of fields; most major producing fields are several decades old and getting pretty exhausted. The idea that production of conventional oil can continue to increase for the next 50 years flies in the face of geological reality and oil company assesments..

Hey Andrew,

The evidence for the Greenland ice sheet melting only shows melting for the last four years. Before that it was gaining ice mass, as evidence shows Antarctica still is. Even assuming the current rate of melting it would take hundreds of years to cause a significant rise in sea levels. Look at the original IPCC report if you doubt that claim. It forecasts a rise of something like 20cm over the next one hundred years. Actual measurements of sea level show less than that over the past century.

Hansen and the other doom criers have to postulate a "tipping point" to push the melting to a level that is cause for concern. No evidence for this phenomenon exists outside the minds of the scaremongers.

I didn't claim there was NO connection between CO2 and the temperature of the planet. As you point out CO2 is one of the reasons that the earth's temperature is what it is. The question is whether a doubling of CO2 will cause the claimed 2.5 - 10 degree Celsius rise in temperature over the next century. These projections are based solely on climate models that have not been shown to be able to predict the climate during the period since they were formulated. Why would you expect them to be right about a time one hundred years hence when they have been shown to be highly inaccurate for the recent past?

At times in the distant past the earth's atmosphere had much higher levels of CO2 and did NOT experience the catastrophic temperatures being currently predicted. Why not?

The relationship between atmospheric CO2 and temperature is not linear it is logarithmic, meaning that increases in CO2 concentration result in diminishing rises in temperature. Water vapor is a much more powerful green house gas, as is methane. The truth is that the mechanisms that determine the climate are not understood to any great degree of accuracy. Pushing for large-scale changes to our way of life that would cause widespread economic hardship based on the current data would be irrational.

While you are correct that the industrial revolution began with coal it really took off with petroleum. Currently oil and natural gas fuel 65% of the US economy. I used the "spew from the ground" phrase as a colorful metaphor, oil need not gush from the ground under pressure for it to be a highly cost effective resource.

I'm not sure where you are getting your information but just last week a major oil field was discovered in the Gulf of Mexico that could increase the US oil reserves by up to 50%. Pessimistic claims of "peak oil" have a notoriously bleak record of inaccuracy. There are oil sands in Canada that become economically viable when the price of gasoline reaches current levels. These reserves alone could supply the US for hundreds of years. With ever increasing levels of technology petroleum becomes a viable resource for generations to come.

I do not claim that there is no cause and effect relationship between human activities and the climate. I merely state the obvious fact that no credible evidence exists to make drastic changes that would negatively affect the lives of literally billions of people.

One need only look at the political demagoguery over hurricane Katrina to see an example of dishonest attempts to use emotional arguments to push political agendas. The science does not support a causal connection between increased CO2 and "killer storms".

While I believe the majority of climate scientists are sincere and rational I fear that a vocal and politically motivated minority is driving the discussion. Those that question them are shouted down as "denialists" and derided for being morally irresponsible.

Pielke is a rational guy and his Prometheus website is a good source of information. He calls himself a "non-skeptical heretic" meaning he doesn't dispute the idea that there is some connection between human activity and the climate, but that he doesn't buy the catastrophic part. I agree with much of his statements on the website. I just don't feel the need to pull my punches when I see conjecture masquerading as scientific evidence.

A good example of the political posturing and formation of cliques is in evidence over Michael Mann's discredited MBH 98 (The Hockey Stick), which was a key feature of the IPCC report. Some people continue to defend it or pretend it wasn't a major part of the scare campaign used to push AGW. Mann himself continues to tap dance around this embarrassing fiasco rather than just admit his mistake. His buddies at real climate shamefully continue to back him up rather than be true to their obligation as scientists and plainly admit the errors they and he have made. Websites like Deltoid and Infopollution show their clear political biases by not honestly pointing out Mann's mistakes.

Unfortunately the Internet debate over AGW has largely become a battle of entrenched ideologues that are loath to yield even a single point to the enemy. I sometimes fall into this trap myself. It is after all human nature to emotionally defend your ideas and beliefs. As a scientist I try to resist this impulse and realize only when you discover you are wrong can you make meaningful progress towards new ideas.

What are your motivations Andrew? Are you open-minded or just a faithful soldier for the cause?

Lance,

I was talking about that WAIS; sorry if this departed from your script. Greenland is unlikely to change drastically over short timescales simply due to the geometry of the ice sheet. WIAS is, however, grounded below sea level and hence far less stable.

Would you like to define the term 'catastrophic'; as far as I can tell this gives you a vague term 'catastrophic climate change' which can be safely denied since it is never really defined.

The current IPCC range is, I believe, 1.5-4.5K over the next century. The models used give an excellent fit over the past 100 years. Not sure where you are getting your 2.5-10K range from.

Earth has had higher levels of CO2 in the past; this is associated with much higher temperatures than present, since ice at the poles is - if you look the the geological record - quite a rare occurance. Over the very long term (>100ma), CO2 levels have diminshed as the sun has become brighter as it progresses through the main sequence, as higher temperatures cause higher erosional CO2 drawdown rates. Were it not for this effect, the planet would have been frozen solid for most of its history.

So you are factually incorrect about higher CO2 levels being unrelated to ice-free conditions. This isn't a matter of politics, it's established geological fact. I assume that as a scientist you'll change your position on this.

The discovery in the deepwater GOM was not the 15 billion barrels that appeared on the headline; the field concerned is in the range 300 million-500 million, and the top-end estimate for the entire play is 15 billion, with 3 Billion recoverable a best estimate figure. Try not to believe sensational headlines.

And yes, I am a qualified petroleum geologist. Peak conventional oil is going to happen in the near future; and the world's hydrocarbon resources of all kinds are completely insufficient to supply a world of 9 billion people at US standards (~210 billion barrels/year would be required). Only the nuclear fuels - uranium/thorium with breeder cycles and fusion - exist in quantities sufficient to give the world of 2050 the standard of living I'd like to see.

The US currently uses around 7 billion barrels of oil per year. Recoverable Tar sands are in the region of 170 billion barrels, which would make 30 years (not several hundred) if it were technically possible to extract them that fast.

But to AGW; you have a very slippery position here. You won't deny a CO2-climate connection, but you seem to be dismissing it implicitly. That's politician-speak to me. As is the idea that the 'hockey stick' is the be-all and end-all of it. The science behind it has been confirmed, but even were it dismissed tomorrow it wouldn't have a major impact.

Additionally, you seem to be assuming that reducing CO2 emissions would 'negatively affect the lives of billions'; to me, this is either political scaremongering or displays a staggering lack of imagination.

Just as those on the environmental side tend to wildly overestimate the potential of renewables whilst being blind to any downsides, those who blindly ignore the limits and impacts of fossil fuels are effectively giving a false message to policymakers (and those who vote for them).

The world - everywhere - needs modern energy as a prerequesite to communications, clean water, refrigeration, cooking, sanitation, transport and indeed everything that those of us in the west take as essential even for the poorest in society. There is insufficient fossil energy to achieve this, and even attempting to do so will cause large capital and productivity losses due to climate change and other environmental impacts.

Renewables are completely inadequete for the task, unless we can dispose of 90% of the planet's population. I'm not a great fan of genocide.

So, if you look at the energy/environmental problems from a scientific point of view, it's fairly hard to come to a conclusion other than one that it is vital to invest in nuclear energy in a very large way. You'll find it hard to find many people at the sharp end of the energy industry who disagree with that.

Hi Andrew,

While the IPCC TAR cites a 1.5-4.5K increase in mean global temperature over the next century a much higher figure of up to 10K is often cited by AGW scaremongers like Al Gore. As a scientist one of the things I always look for is the error estimate and accuracy claim usually given as plus or minus some number. Notice that no such number is usually associated with these AGW claims. That is because they have no way to really quantify a number that is essentially a guess based on a myriad of unknowns cranked through computer algorithms that they won't publish.

I wouldn't invest $500 dollars on this kind of estimate let alone the economy and well being of billions of people. Why would you?

You seem to be a rational person. However your claim that the WAIS is "less stable" and hence in peril is not backed by quantifiable evidence. There is no indication that it is about to slough off anytime soon. This amounts to a scare tactic. Making dire predictions based on conjecture is not sound science or the basis for sound public policy.

Your statement that higher CO2 levels of the past are only linked to much higher temperatures is incorrect. There are ice cores from the last interglacial period that showed much higher CO2 levels than the present yet glaciation and indeed an ice age followed. If CO2 leads to increased temperatures why did no severe warming follow these past higher levels of CO2?

Yes, I got my information on the GOM oil find from the popular media. As far as current oil supplies are concerned they must not be too scarce because a recent trip to the local Shell station shows that prices have fallen precipitously.

We can bandy about estimates of oil reserves but the fact is that past predictions of "peak oil" have proven entirely inaccurate. If the stuff runs out I am confident market forces will provide alternatives. You seem keen on nuclear energy. I find this to be evidence that you are not an ideologically driven "greenie". Some estimates for the available reserves of Uranium are that if we converted to nuclear energy it might last twenty years. So you see there are anti-nuclear forces that claim a looming "peak uranium" crisis.

I am confident that if and when oil becomes scarce we will find viable alternatives. I again got my estimate of "hundreds of years of supply" for the Canadian oil sands from the popular press. Since you are a qualified petroleum geologist surely you are aware that plenty of other potential sources of hydrocarbon-based energy are abundant. Coal, to name just one, is quite plentiful and I'm sure we could find a way to burn it cleanly. Well at least if you don't consider CO2 a "pollutant".

Even if it turns out that I am dead wrong about AGW, perish the thought, there are ways to remove the evil CO2 from the atmosphere. Admittedly these processes are all endothermic and would require energy.

I think the crux of our disagreement is shown in your following statement "There is insufficient fossil energy to achieve this, and even attempting to do so will cause large capital and productivity losses due to climate change and other environmental impacts." I disagree that climate change has been shown to be responsible for ANY loss of productivity. Also as I have shown there are plenty of fossil fuels besides oil to fall back on. Also not using a currently abundant resource like oil would be highly unproductive. Especially since our energy infrastructure is specifically designed to use it. If you ignore spurious claims like hurricanes, droughts and desertification being caused by climate change there is no rational scientific reason not to use oil.

It is clear to me that, to this point, there is no conclusive evidence to support the idea that AGW is a real threat. Andrew, you are fond of the IPCC TAR. If you look at the actual scientific reports and not the recommendation to "policymakers" that was written mostly by diplomats there is little to be concerned about. Despite attempts by Mann, and a few other politically motivated paleoclimatoligists, to obscure the climate history of the last millennium there is ample evidence that the planet was warmer during the medieval warm period and then cooled during the "little ice age" and now is warming again.

As I said there is no credible evidence that the modest amounts of CO2 being added by humans is going to cause a change in the climate that will have large scale negative effects to human civilization or the biosphere in general.

There are geopolitical considerations of wealth transfer to unstable and repressive regimes but that is a different discussion.

I agree that "renewables" are unlikely to solve our needs in the near future. Although I am intrigued by the fact that vast amounts of geothermal energy are literally beneath our feet. I read a study about dry rock geothermal energy production that showed great promise. I am also impressed that you realize that the rest of the developing world should aspire to western standards of living. Some environmental ideologues wish to return us to a Neolithic pastoral existence. I like camping for about a week and then I want to get back in my air-conditioned sports sedan, go home and take a hot shower and go out to dinner and a movie.

I'm all for nuclear energy but I'm not going to be easily persuaded to pay a considerable penalty to give up oil just because the planet has warmed one whole degree in the last hundred years. Like it or not there is no free lunch and converting to a nuclear society would come at a huge cost. Not to mention the fact that it takes about 15 years to take a nuclear power plant from planning to kilowatts. Then there is the fact that we can't agree where to put the waste we have already generated let alone the hundreds of times greater quantities that a total nuclear society would produce. Admittedly much of that is because previous irrational environmental scare tactics have made the process almost politically impossible.

Maybe some of my fellow physicists will find a practical solution to the fusion problem and we'll all be sipping lattes from plastic cups that are the only remaining profitable use of petroleum, looking back on all this climate change nonsense with bemusement.

Until then I'm gonna guiltlessly pump petrol into the ol' jalope and heat my house with methane. Oh, and vote against any politician trying to "save the planet" from AGW.

The range 1.5-4.5K for warming is based on the draft of the Fourth Assesment report; its centered on 3K with an uncertanty range. Computer models are actually very useful for quantifying uncertanty; the only real problem is the tendancy to dismiss any models that predict disaster.

However your claim that the WAIS is "less stable" and hence in peril is not backed by quantifiable evidence.

Actually, it is. It's collapsed before. Ref

There are ice cores from the last interglacial period that showed much higher CO2 levels than the present yet glaciation and indeed an ice age followed.

That is simply false. You are not a scientist.

We can bandy about estimates of oil reserves but the fact is that past predictions of "peak oil" have proven entirely inaccurate.

So have repeated predictions that we should be drowning in the stuff. Still, the non-doomer all-liquids estimates are still coming in around the 2008-2010 area and have been for a while now. Even a couple of years ago, the idea of $50/barrel would have been laughed out as way too expensive.

If there is 'emple evidence' that the MWP and LIA were global times of warmer and cooler temperatures then feel free to post it. Given that above, I'm pretty sure that this is made up as well.

You can deny anthropogenic climate change as much as you want, but you don't seem to be able to back this claim up. You seem to want to have it both ways - nor disagreeing with the physics but somehow claiming that is won't affect anything. This is entirely inconsistent.

Oh, and geothermal isn't actually renewable. I'll leave it to the reader to work out why.

It's interesting that you think that nuclear is expensive; this is different from industry estimates. There is anopther aspect to this; the cost of fossil fuels and the energy derived from them is linked to the availability of these fuels, and is hence unlikely ever to really drop. The cost of nuclear electric is essentially technology based and can in theory drop much further.

Andrew,

Getting a little testy I see. Computer model estimates are not based on measured quantities that can be established within experimental limits. They program some basic equations into an algorithm that is iterated many millions of times to simulate the interactions of air masses, atmospheric gases, water vapor, biological systems, solar input, etc. Then these numbers are "adjusted" to make them better agree with known parameters.

Any error estimate attached is an educated guess at best. As a scientist you should understand the difference between this and actual experiments based on observations. Computer models are predictions not observed phenomenon and the errors associated with them are far different than the "calculated" experimental error of observation based experiments.

Computer simulated models of multivariate nonlinear systems are inherently imprecise. Quantifying the imprecision and error of such models is far different than just reporting the accuracy of observed measurements and calculating a range of error for those observations.

The measured experimental phenomenon show an increase of global mean temperature of 0.6 ± 0.2 °Celsius (1.1 ± 0.4 °Fahrenheit) over the last century. Even this figure is a topic of some contention based on the many different standards of measurement and levels of accuracy of the individual measurements and their sources. Not to mention that the great majority of them are land based which represents far less than half of the earth?s surface.

I checked my facts and you are correct I misspoke when I said "CO2 levels from the last interglacial where much higher than today." It turns out it was a couple of interglacials ago. My point is still valid however. Higher CO2 levels were followed by an ice age not a warmer climate. Care to explain that in light of your expectations of a warmer future?

By the way there was no need for the nasty ad hom "You are not a scientist" remark. Scientists are not infallible and as I stated earlier it is by correction of their incorrect data and theories that progress is made. Your dismissive attack is more inline with the expectations of religious authorities than scientists. You appear to be emotionally attached to AGW and react with the vehemence of the faithful attacking a heretic.

Obviously geothermal energy is ultimately "nonrenewable" but since the thermal energy content of the earths core is several billion times our yearly energy usage I think we can live with its limitations. It would seem that you are now trying to nit-pick me into submission. I don't see you as an adversary sorry if you have perceived me as one.

The case for AGW is weak and it has been my experience that those that defend it become emotional and resort to personal and moral attacks when they run out of scientifically valid arguments. Hence the new strategy of claiming victory and then ridiculing any "denialists" that remain unconvinced or attacking them as irresponsible or immoral "exxonians".

If you care to continue with a scientific discussion I'm more than willing to participate. If you would prefer to make insulting remarks, take one last parting shot and we'll call it a day.

The angstrom symbols in the above global mean temperature figures appeared in the post but not the preview. I pasted a plus or minus symbol and for some reason the comment editor inserted the extraneous symbols. Sorry for any confusion that may have resulted.

I agree that Andrew appears to include a religious element in his firm attachment to AGW beliefs based on GCM models. Lance, it's good to see the rational side of the argument presented so well, without rancor.

Lance -

First, considering that you are contiually accusing me of bias, and have been with absolutely no evidence,
despite the demonstrated fact that it is you who refuses to check your facts, you can expect me to get a little testy.

I'm still not sure what your problem is with computer models. Yes, they are complex, but as I said you can calibrate them against previous known results (ie the last 100 or so years of climate); varying assorted elements of your model to test sensitivities, and hence giving a range of expected outcomes.

I'm aware of the temperature increase over the last century. Why did you bring it up?

As far as CO2 levels go, you are still making things up. CO2 levels have not been this high since well before the current glacial/interglacial cycle. Unless, of course, you wish to act like a scientist and < A HREF="http://www.world-nuclear.org/opinion/kump.htm">mention your sources?

I find it quite funny that from the start I have been accused of being a 'foot soldier' - an ad-hom attack, but of course, should I mention that you claim to want a scientific debate that the same time as apparently using news headlines as a primary source than it's me who is at fault.

AGW is a robust scientific theory; if you wish to make any scientific points against it then go ahead. But you have done nothing apart from making up things to try and support a preconcieved notion against AGW, and accuse me of bias.

There is a certain irony of someone who is unable to make a single argument against AGW first claim it to be 'weak' and in the same breath going on about people who 'claim victory'.

Oh, and geothermal energy is generally non-renewable because rocks have such poor thermal conductivity that you spend more energy drilling new wells and pumping water than you get out.

Andrew,

Even climate alarmists acknowledge that atmospheric CO2 levels were higher during past interglacial periods. They of course twist it around to fit scary headlines like "CO2 levels higher than anytime in the last 650,000 years!" Failing to mention that the interglacial cycle has a period of greater than 100,000 years so it really isn't such a big deal.

CO2 levels during the last interglacial were as high as 350 ppm, higher than "pre-industrial" levels and nearly the same as our current 380ppm, and preceded the most recent ice age. (Wagner, F., Bohncke, S.J.P., Dilcher, D.L., Kurschner, W.M., van Geel, B. and Visscher, H. 1999. Century-scale shifts in early Holocene atmospheric CO2 concentration. Science 284: 1971-1973.)

Alarmists also neglect to mention that evidence clearly suggests that ice core evidence indicates rises in CO2 LAGGED rises in temperature and were followed by ice ages NOT higher global temperatures. This would indicate that rising temperatures caused rising levels of CO2 (from decreased solvency in sea water, plant respiration, etc.) and not the other way round.

I could site ample studies if you wish to get into a battle of sources. I find those kinds of arguments pointless. You claim to be a geologist so I'm assuming you should have learned some of this before.

For a nice graph showing the CO2/global mean temperature correspondence over the entire history of the earth go to...

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

you will see that the current situation is one of impoverished CO2 levels and that CO2 and global temperatures have shown a rough correlation but nothing to indicate a simple causal relationship either way.

As for "my problem with climate models" I think I was pretty clear. Despite your faith in them they have not proven accurate to date. I think I was pretty specific in my criticism of trying to ascribe verifiable error estimates to computer generated guesses. Saying that a guess is in a range between a and b is not the same thing as giving a true estimate of its accuracy.

As for AGW being a "robust" theory I must disagree. For a theory to be robust it must show a strong correlation between theory predictions and observed phenomenon with a method to show causation. AGW has no such record of verification or method of validation. It has only distant predictions of increased temperature that even were they to occur would not be proof of causation.

As for your remarks about geothermal I might point out that my mother's homeland, Iceland, heats nearly half its homes with geothermal energy using 1930's technology.

The US Department of Energy doesn't share your pessimism on geothermal electricity production...

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/powerplants.html

I never claimed you were a "foot soldier" for AGW, so please don't use quotes as if I had said that, but you do seem to be awfully quick to turn up the emotional rancor and down the scientific debate.