Wow. What a week.
On Saturday the Wall Street Journal published a feature article on the current state of climate science that was probably the best detailed article I have ever seen on global climate change. (the good).
On Sunday my local paper reprinted a New York Times article that featured a night photo of the UN building featuring the 2 degree C goal on the face of the building (the bad) and …
On Monday climate protestors amassed on Wall Street (the stupid).
If you haven’t read the Wall Street Journal article, Climate Science is Not Settled, read it now. It is simply the best article on the subject I have seen. The first paragraph is an excellent introduction:
The idea that “Climate science is settled” runs through today’s popular and policy discussions. Unfortunately, that claim is misguided. It has not only distorted our public and policy debates on issues related to energy, greenhouse-gas emissions and the environment. But it also has inhibited the scientific and policy discussions that we need to have about our climate future.
The article begins by acknowledging that the world is warmer and that man is probably responsible for some amount of warming. It then details all the shortcomings in the science. Discussions items include our limited understanding of the Oceans, the wild variability of computer models and the societal desire to have a precise answer when science cannot give us one.
Precise answers are beyond our abilities at this time and yet the UN has been providing precise answers since 1997.
A quotation courtesy of Mark Twain and/or Will Rogers:
It’s not what we don’t know that gets us into trouble, it’s what we know for sure that just ain’t so.
The UN (when discussing global climate) has always been a political association trying to solve an extraordinarily difficult science problem. Political solutions don’t work well in science. The UN has been making specific predictions about future climate for some 20 years now. Those predictions have been wrong because they have not been willing to admit to the scientific shortcomings listed in the WSJ article just referenced.
Natural climate variation and flawed computer modeling have made many predictions in the 2007 synopses report wrong. The recently released 2014 Synopses Report modified those predictions to include climate variation. Some changes in climate that were predicted for our immediate future now might not show up for centuries. But the predictions persist.
The Wall Street Journal article referenced earlier had this to say about specific climatic predictions:
Even though human influences could have serious consequences for the climate, they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole. For example, human additions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by the middle of the 21st century are expected to directly shift the atmosphere’s natural greenhouse effect by only 1% to 2%. Since the climate system is highly variable on its own, that smallness sets a very high bar for confidently projecting the consequences of human influences.
The UN needs a specific identifiable goal to motivate people to act. So they give them one. The following photo accompanied an article about the New York warming protests in my local Sunday paper:
Keep global temperature increases to_less_than 2 degree C is plastered across the UN building encouraging protestors. This goal was a part of the 2007 Synopses report. The UN is supporting the notion that society can control temperature and can keep the change to less than a 2 degree C change since the beginning of the Industrial revolution. The world has already changed more than a degree C since 1750 so the goal is to keep temperature in a very tight range.
Natural climate variation makes the goal virtually impossible.
A few less sunspots, a volcanic eruption, a change in short term weather patterns. A Little Ice Age here, the Medieval Warming Period there, or perhaps the next ice age cold cycle.
One volcanic eruption on the scale of the Mt. Tambora eruption of 1815 would change the world by more than 2 degrees C. 1815 was known around the world as the year without a summer.
Europe in 1709 was a very cold place. It is guesstimated that Europe was a full 7 degrees C below the 20th century average that year. And the Romans built gold mines high in the Alps during a very warm period around 1800 years ago.
Mt. Pinatubo in 1992 changed the world by 1 degree C in only 2 years. Any notion that man can control climate as specifically as the UN stated on their building last Sunday is poppycock and BAD science.
Assume the UN is right and all the problems mentioned in the WSJ article are wrong (bad assumptions both). Gloom and doom is close at hand and immediate action is necessary. So activists protest on Wall Street? Why?
What would that accomplish? What do they expect Wall Street to do? What are their goals?
Carbon production worldwide is growing despite efforts to slow it. Why? Four words…China, India and Nuclear Power. We must find a way to slow the population growth rate and we must construct clean energy plants all over the world. Plants that will operate on cloudy windless days. There is only one choice that will work right now (if you believe the UN math), and that choice is Nuclear Power.
Does the world fear Nuclear Power or global warming more? Right now the answer is Nuclear Power. Western countries are phasing out of Nuclear because of the Fukashima disaster. California and Vermont are closing old Nuclear plants and no new ones are scheduled to be built. That carbon free power is being replaced by power that produces carbon.
China produces more carbon dioxide than the USA and Europe combined. And in the next 50 years India will become the world’s most populous place, adding half a billion people to its already burdensome population. Each additional Indian that makes it to the middle class wants to use energy to improve their quality of life. Cheap power is a necessity.
China’s per capita production of carbon now exceeds the average for Europe. That production is rising at about 8% per year with zero population growth. India’s use is rising faster than it’s population growth. The USA, the world’s second largest producer of carbon, has been reducing production, but it gets lost in the mix as China overwhelms everything else. If India and China don’t change, then it doesn’t matter what the rest of us do.
These are worldwide political problems. And they involve hard choices and tradeoffs. Wall Street has very little to do with either. So why protest there?
Politics of course. And headlines!
I’d be willing to bet that most of the protestors are absolutely sure they are correct….and I’d also be willing to bet they think all the science issues are settled. That is a sad reality that has become global warming politics.