Thursday, October 1, 2015

Climate Uncertainties

 
There are uncertainties and conflicting views on some of the interactions involved in the climate system. Much has been made of the apparent slow down in average global temperature rises in recent years. Indeed some sceptics claim that this refutes all the climate models, with some pointing to a 17 year or more period when the running average did not indicate a rise. Explanations have been offered, for example suggesting that the heat has been absorbed in the depths of the oceans, but there is much debate about causes and effects, with some saying that the temperature pause may last for up to 20 years.  www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-28870988 and  http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2006/2006_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

The debate goes on. For example, here are two more or less diametrically opposed accounts of the impacts of water vapour on warming, as relayed in the media. One says humidity levels in the upper atmosphere are increasing, as predicted by the climate models, the other say they are falling, and disproves the models:
www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/aug/13/global-warming-moistening-the-atmosphere  and www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/08/20/declining-relative-humidity-is-defying-global-warming-models/
 
And this adjusts the story to fit! http://theconversation.com/study-vindicates-climate-models-accused-of-missing-the-pause-29477 Though this seems like one of the best explanations for the ‘pause’ so far: http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/Geoscientist/July-2015/Steps-and-cycles

Then again it is always possible that new explanations for at least some of the warming may emerge e.g: http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/astronomy-paper-implies-solar-role-in-climate-change.html  as well as new thinking on the basics: http://euanmearns.com/the-vostok-ice-core-temperature-co2-and-ch4/

However new ideas, debate and conflicts are the lifeblood of science, which moves through periods of doubt and then consensus. At present, the vast majority of climate scientists- up to 97%- are said to believe in human induced climate change: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article (though see: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421514003759)

This contrasts strongly with the results of a UK public opinion survey by ComRes for the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, a non-profit initiative with an Advisory Board including MPs, Peers and leading academics, which found that only 11% of their sample were aware of the strength of the scientific consensus, while 47% thought either that most climate scientists reject the idea that human activities are the main driver of climate change (11%), or that scientists are evenly split on the issue (35%). www.comres.co.uk

For its part though, the Global Warming Policy Foundation quoted an American Meteorological Society poll of their membership, which showed only 52% felt that global warming was mostly man-made. http://us4.campaign-archive1.com/?u=c920274f2a364603849bbb505&id=c1d9a193f3&e=7dd8204640

Moreover nearly three-quarters of UK Conservative MPs did not accept that climate change has been proven to be caused by human activity, according to a Populus poll of 119 MPs from all parties. www.thegwpf.com/overwhelming-majority-of-conservative-mps-are-climate-sceptics/ 

What about the public? 500,000 or so people took part in climate protests around the world in 2014, including 300,000 in the USA, and big marches in London and Melbourne. In a Populus UK public opinion poll, 73% wanted world leaders to agree a global deal and 66% thought action must happen now, only 20% felt it could wait a few years. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/public-want-urgent-global-action-to-tackle-climate-change

However the barrage of contrarian views, as relayed by the media, seems to have had a  major impact in some countries, the US in particular, where global warming and responses to it are very politicised issues. Given that the USA has experienced many severe weather-related shocks in recent years, this may be surprising, but it remains the case that no one weather event can necessarily be directly liked to climate change. 

There is a huge social and political science agenda here- concerning how views are formed and changed.   www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629614000073

This debate also obviously involves climate scientists. Those who are professionally convinced that climate change is real and significant can get somewhat annoyed by the campaigns mounted by contrarian groups, especially if these groups are backed, as it is sometimes alleged, by fossil fuel interests. There may be a temptation to enter the fray, and certainly some do make public statements. On the other side of the fence, some scientists (a small number) have joined or support contrarian groups and risk approbation from their colleagues and the media.  

For example, the UK-based Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), set up by Lord Lawson, is well known for its often strident lobbying on energy/climate issues, backed up by reports from academics evidently sympathetic to its views, overseen by an Advisory Council. It recently made much of the resignation of one such, who claims to have been subject to peer pressure to distance himself from the GWPF.www.thegwpf.org/the-bengtsson-affair-and-the-global-warming-policy-foundation/

The climate debate has certainly been bitter at times, with on one hand, skeptics alleging that the official IPCC stance is unduly politically shaped and, on the other, attacks being made on contrarians. Sometimes this can involve attempts to discredit individuals and their work. Since academics of all types and persuasions can and do align themselves with lobby groups, and go public, they do risk charges of bias.  That’s arguably fair enough- it comes with the territory. But personal attacks are surely much less justifiable. Although identifying political and institutional affiliations may be valid, in general critics should play the ball, not the man (or woman). While many do not see GWPF and similar groups as making a helpful contribution, the debate has to continue, with heretical and ‘outlier’ views playing their part. That surely is how good science is done. Though there must be limits! It’s pretty clear that the world is not flat…

However getting the right balance can be hard. A 2014 report by the UK Science and Technology Select Committee said that the Government was failing to clearly and effectively communicate climate science to the public. The Chair of the Committee said: ‘The Government's hands-off approach to engaging with the public and the media, relying heavily on scientists as the most prominent voice, has a resulted in a vacuum that has allowed inaccurate arguments to flourish with little effective challenge. Science is the ultimate sceptic, challenging theories and opinion and ready to abandon or adapt as the available evidence changes. Genuine scepticism should be embraced by the climate science community. Dogma on either side of the debate should be revealed as such.’ 
The Committee also accused the BBC of misleading the public about climate change, creating a ‘false balance’ by allowing unqualified climate sceptics too much air time and giving opinion the same weight as fact.

There certainly have been some odd notions expressed in the media, as well as claims of inaccuracies by some participants: e.g. in relation to the cost of climate change: www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/Media/Commentary/2014/March/Errors-in-estimates-of-the-aggregate-economic-impacts-of-climate-change.aspx 

The debate on policy, and on the science, continues… with James Lovelock saying ‘It’s just as silly to be a denier as it is to be a believer. You can’t be certain’. Is he right?

No comments:

Post a Comment