NOTES TO A CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER.

NOTES TO A CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER.

When having a conversation with someone who denies a) that the world is warming, and b) that humans beings could not be responsible, it is worth finding the exactly what the conversation is about.

In your last email you wrote: Without empirical SCIENTIFIC measurement as evidence, it is not science.

We sent you a paper by Shakun et al, which you condemned because: “Your cited article's authors rely on computerised numerical models.” So clearly the issue is not so much about empirical evidence but it being contaminated  by the use of modelling.

Without the development of such technology and skills we would not today be flying in the aircraft we do, nor driving the cars we do. Such modelling is fundamental to the development of modern day technological achievements. Many of these are based upon phenomena so complicated that models need to be used as a key element in their development. Climate change while no different in principle, just newer, bigger and more complex, differs from all other science I know of  in that it cannot be duplicated.

While modelling may not be a perfect element of modern science and technology it is getting stronger and more accurate all the time, and to write it out or ignore it is not really sensible if we hope to arrive at solutions to the complex problems we face. I suspect we would be very much worse off without it. (But you might say here we do not face the problems as Richard and I see them as you see our world and society differently to us. See earlier emails).  While I believe papers using modelling predominate in the research, there are those that do not.

If in asking for the tabling of papers exhibiting only empirical evidence without recourse to supporting modelling, that the observed climate change can only be caused by human activities, then I offer a few.  I also provide you with  some slides in the attached power-point which demonstrate the very high probability that the cause of the current increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is anthropogenic rather than ‘natural’.

C12:C13 isotope ratio

1.      Stable isotope ratio mass spectrometry in global climate change research. Prosenjit Ghosh, Willi A. BrandIsotopen- und Gaslabor, Max-Planck-Institut für Biogeochemie, Postfach 100164, Jena 07701, Germany. Received 29 January 2003; accepted 20 May 2003. (no modelling)

2.      Stuiver, M., Burk, R. L. and Quay, P. D. 1984. 13C/12C ratios and the transfer of biospheric carbon to the atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 89, 11,731-11,748. 

3.      Francey, R.J., Allison, C.E., Etheridge, D.M., Trudinger, C.M., Enting, I.G., Leuenberger, M., Langenfelds, R.L., Michel, E., Steele, L.P., 1999. A 1000-year high precision record of d13C in atmospheric CO2. Tellus 51B, 170–193. (modelling used)

4.      Quay, P.D., B. Tilbrook, C.S. Wong. Oceanic uptake of fossil fuel CO2: carbon-13 evidence. Science 256 (1992), 74-79.

Modelling though is not new. When Arrhenius constructed a model of the atmosphere in 1896 he made several key predictions; nights would warm faster than days; winters would warm faster than summers; the arctic would warm faster than anywhere else. All of these predictions have been observed in the 20th and 21st century. How did he arrive at this prediction? He used models!  Does this mean his work is unacceptable?

Today such modelling is used in physics, chemistry and economics. There exists plenty of evidence showing the efficacy of computer modelling. Computer modelling is a key element in adding important and significant value to the science. As I said above, without it we would not have the technologies we have today.

A look at the development of the Milankovitch theory will see the criticism of the early models, but eventually it became accepted that Milankovitch was correct. Modelling was a part of the science that enabled this to be settled. Do you reject Milankovitch’s work because it is supported by modelling?

But you may disagree we are seeing any climate change other than that caused by ‘natural global or planetary cycles’. If this conversation continues I can show you quite clearly the current rapid changes we are observing in our climate are not part of any cycle that predates the last 200 years of human habitation on this planet; and that it fails to fit other shorter term cycles or events put forward by those who dispute anthropogenic climate change.

The other important aspect of science critical to this conversation is the concept of scientific method.  While there have been cases of fraud identified, such the McBride Debendox issue, general process of modern scientific method with peer reviewed publications has stood the test of time very well.

When research is published in peer-reviewed journals, it is accepted that other scientists will attempt to duplicate, or at least look for ways to check the authenticity and efficacy of the work. This is not possible with global warming and the ensuing climate change we are examining and researching for obvious reasons. So to continue this conversation with any sort of rationality we must find a way to compare eggs and eggs, not eggs and rocks.

With global warming and the ensuing climate change we are dealing with something science rarely has dealt with, let alone on such a scale – where we are dealing with events occurring over periods of time varying from a few decades to many hundreds of thousands of years.

The science of global warming and climate change (GWCC) depend not upon any one piece of evidence from any one scientific area, but what some might say, a very disparate bunch of speciality areas, including the physical sciences, maths, chemistry and biology, along with others including hydrologists, isotope geochemists, paleoclimatology and many others.

The climate change being researched is deemed to be occurring mostly over about 50-60 years, since the beginning of mass consumption, with the lead time being perhaps 150 to 200 years to the beginning of the industrial revolution. Given this wide range of disciplines involved in this, there has been a need to create a new type of approach to science, one where the task is as much interpretative as it is empirical.

It has become necessary to explore new paths for a new climate change science by building new research, methodologies and tools to address the developing issues.

Climate Science and Climate Change are not just about science, they are as much about social issues.  Perhaps it cannot better be said than by Beck:

Experts can never provide anything but more or less uncertain knowledge and information on the probabilities of events ...  all statements on risk contain built-in standards of tolerance and acceptance relying on morality, cultural standards and perceptions, which ultimately come down to the question: how do we want to live?  This is a question that can never be answered by experts alone.”  [Ulrich Beck, 1997]  M. Hulme, Bergen November 2010

I would suggest whatever paper I send you to support anthropogenic climate, it will contain some aspect of what Beck says, plus modelling.

I will end with something about society and the systems of government and corporations.

One major issue is that uncertainty is intrinsic to complex systems.  Uncertainty in scientific endeavours is the result of knowledge creation, and not all uncertainties are able to be quantified. We enter the realm of ignorance, assumptions, value loadings, institutional inertia, scientific jealousy, disagreement, contestation, cultural interpretations, conflicts of interests, vested interests and most significantly about our value and belief systems. This is the territory this conversation is grounded in.

The short-term focus of democracy and most other forms of government ensure that the long-term decisions required will be deferred as there is no political capital to be made from them. Only rarely do we find much to the contrary.

The current form of aggressive, free-enterprise capitalism, often backed by corrupt and/or ignorant governments living for short-term political power denies them the long-term view required to correct our current flawed thinking and practices. Both these practices must change.

Limiting the fiduciary responsibility of companies to the shareholder, is also flawed. Companies need to adopt a much broader view of their responsibilities and how they interact with people and the environment.

The values, systems and institutions that have brought us to this position will never be able to solve the problems we face.  We need to explore alternative systems – and I am not suggesting we leave a free-enterprise system but modify the one we have.

“If we live as if it matters, and it doesn’t matter, it doesn’t matter. But if we live as if it doesn't matter, and it does matter, it DOES matter!”  Anon.