Arguments
Things I thought were obvious!
Posted on 2 January 2015 by Guest Author
This is a re-post from And Then There's Physics
I hope everyone had an enjoyable and pleasant New Year’s eve, and I hope everyone has a great 2015. The more I get involved in the whole climate debate, the more I start to realise that things I thought were obvious, are not obvious to everyone. This may explain why it is so difficult to discuss this topic with some; you’re not even working from the same basic assumptions. I don’t expect much will change, but I thought I might highlight some of those things that I thought were obvious, but that may not actually be obvious to others.
- The destruction of ecosystems and the extinction of species is something we should be aiming to avoid or minimise.
I had assumed that the above was something that most would agree was relatively obvious. The natural world is both amazing and also a crucial part of our own survival on this planet. Unnecessarily risking damage to ecosystems on which we rely seems incredibly foolish and would seem to be something we should be avoiding. After discussions with Richard Tol on my previous post, it would seem that some (maybe even many) do not agree. It appears as though some think that we can adapt to virtually anything. I find it hard to believe that this is true, and I would really like to know if scientists who study the natural world agree.
- The climate change issue is really about risk, not about certainty
Something else I had thought was self-evidently true, was that climate change is really about risks that we might face, not about showing that we will definitely do so. It is possible that we might warm less than we expect. It might even be possible that the changes will be beneficial, rather than damaging. However, this doesn’t change that we might warm even more than we expect and that the changes could be extremely damaging. Therefore, it seems obvious to me that the real discussion should be about what we might face through climate change and the risks/costs associated with minimising these climate change risks. However, it does appear that there are some who think that we need to show that climate change will definitely be detrimental before we should consider doing anything about it. Not only is this not how one does a risk assessment, it also sets a virtually impossible target. We cannot know with certainty what will happen in the future. The best we can do is consider what might happen under different possible scenarios and consider, given that, how we should proceed. One could be generous and assume that some just don’t realise how one should undertake a risk analysis. The more likely alternative is that some are just setting impossible targets so as to make it difficult (virtually impossible) to act to address the risks associated with climate change.
- Better estimates for climate sensitivity are not necessarily all that relevant.
This comes from reading what Matt Ridley writes and from brief (rather pointless) discussions with Nic Lewis. It appears as though they are amongst a group who seem to think that what we need to do is find the best possible estimate for climate sensitivity and then base policy on that estimate. The problem here (as I had thought was obvious) is that if the analysis does not rule out – with high confidence – climate sensitivities that might lead to damaging impacts under future emission scenarios, then you can’t simply ignore this possibility. This is related to the whole risk assessment issue discussed above; one doesn’t ignore a possible risk simply because things will probably be fine. As I understand it, you need to consider the chance that things will not be fine and balance that with what would be required to minimise that possibility.
- This isn’t about survival of the species, but survival of our civilisations
This may be obvious to all, but sometimes it’s not clear that it actually is. Climate change probably does not present a true existential threat. Whatever happens, there will probably still be life, and humans, on this planet in the coming centuries. The real issue is whether or not the planet can continue to support a human population in excess of 7 billion people with a general standard of living that is – ideally – better than it is today. If all we were worried about was the survival of the species, then climate change doesn’t present much of a risk. If, however, we would like to maintain – and improve – the lives of the descendants of those on the planet today, then an increased risk of heatwaves, significant changes to the water cycle, ocean acidification, and other possible changes, do present a real risk.
I’m not an expert on risk analysis, so maybe I have got some of this wrong. The above are just things that I had thought were relatively obvious and yet have found that many seem to think otherwise. I may well be biased. I’ve lived for more than a year on 4 different continents, and have seen many amazing places and environments. I really appreciate the natural world, and see it has having both intrinsic value as well as being crucial for our own survival. However, maybe others have experienced the same as me but, for reasons known only to them, don’t see it the same way. My understanding of the evidence is that climate change presents real risks and that this suggests that we should be acting to minimise those risks. Others seem to disagree.
So, maybe everyone has the best of intentions and just see different ways to achieve the same basic goals. Sometimes I do think that there might actually be multiple ways of achieving the same thing. We don’t know what will be best, or most effective, and – hence – there may be more than one plausible way forward. However, this would seem to require that none of the options actually violates, or ignores, physical reality. Given that, it’s hard to see how those – for example – who are arguing for the increased use of coal, are not doing essentially this (well, unless their goal is to increase the risk of climate change doing extreme damage). I do think the whole climate change discussion would benefit from people clearly defining their underlying assumptions, their goals, and illustrating that they understand the possible consequences of their preferred way forward. Sadly, it seems obvious that this is not what is going to happen, and maybe this is something obvious on which we can all agree.
dagold@49,
What you mention is similar to what others have pointed out in a very important way.
The action that needs to be taken is to be taken by current day people. And there is no doubt that the result of the required action being taken will be 'at the expense of the opportunity for more benefit by current day people'. The current fatally flawed socioeconomic game has developed many unsustainable damaging activities that have popular support for their unjustified profitability (all those 'externalized costs', consequences that do not have to be paid for by the person benefiting).
Concerns about consequences others in the future face does not enter the personal accounting of many minds. In fact, the way that slave labour has 'developed' in most 'developing nations' to produce cheaper more profitable products to be consumed by people in more developed nations (where people cannot be employed at living wages doing those jobs because that would be less profitable), makes it clear that many people will not even attempt to investigate and account for concerns regarding consequences faced by other people in the same time period, let alone those future ones.
William will no doubt be a strong supporter of the proposal that rich nations give poor nations money to help with the transition to a low carbon world.
Yes OnePlanet - folks sometimes ask me why I am so interested in climate change in particular (I write climate articles for HUffington Post and Common Dreams) when there are so many human induced examples of suffering. I think it's because, to me, climate change is simply the inexorable result of so many of the "ingredients" that have manifested such suffering along the way: Finally, our peculiar propensities toward short-sightedness, self-centeredness and partisanship are tipping the very life-sustaining systems of the biosphere out of balance. It is increasingly awful and sad and in an impossible-to-look-away-from sense....stunningly fascinating.
John Brookes@52 Yes, you're right, I am. But I don't think the majority of first world citizens hold this view.
I don't see why at thos stage first world tax payers should be paying for third world renewable energy infrastructure and particularly compensation for climate change to underdeveloped and or at risk countries predicted to be impacted by climate change.
There is too little known regarding AGW to warrant compensation. For instance at <carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net> research findings reasonably suggest that anthropregenic c02 cannot currently be finger printed merely by interpretation using the Suess effect alone - the depletion of particular carbon isotopes that is currently used to identify anthropregenic c02. It is suggested in research listed that volcanogenic c02 is depleted in the same isotopes as anthroprogenic c02. Research listed also suggests that tonnage of volcanogenic c02 may have been greatly underestimated and in fact may be the dominant contributor to current rises in atmospheric c02 depleted in 13c and 14c. It requires further research in methods to differentiate anthroprogenic c02 from volcanogenic c02.
gac73 - There is no reason to think that volcanic activity (at roughly 1% of anthropogenic emissions) is responsible for recent CO2 rise. This is well understood, here is an article from the US Geological Survey on the topic.
Richard Telford has an excellent article on this, noting that there is no recent increase in volcanic activity, and that total volcanic emissions are well constrained by observed helium/CO2 ratios.
You appear to be grasping at (unsupportable) straws here, gac73 - this volcanic claim is nonsense. If you wish to discuss it further, I suggest using the Search tool on the upper right to find the correct thread, such as Do volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans. The same goes for CO2 was higher in the late Ordovician, and for your issues with renewable energy - these are myths, and have been discussed in some detail.
They are off-topic in this thread, which is rather a meta-discussion on motivations for action.
Following gac73's link goes to a site by one Timoty Casey, who holds a bachelor of science in geology and, among other things, a senior first aid certificate, or something similar. One of his areas of interet includes the expanding earth theory, for which he finds there is less supporting evidence than for continental drift (phew!). Anyone with nothing better to do can go hack at his volcanic ramblings; unfortunately, my own time is already in short supply for much more rewarding activities.
[Rob P] - Please note that gac73's comment was off-topic and that further distracting comments and replies have been deleted. No more in that vein please.
Sorry, the Search tool is on the upper left, not upper right, of the SkS web page.
Common sense is why critical thinking exists as a concept. Critical thinking is the act of systematically testing common sense.
In this case, anyone who brings up 'common sense' is doing so in error. The key word here is 'common': most people don't know enough about the composition or mechanics of the atmosphere to develop common sense. The common sense approach to climate is "it's cold outside; therefore, global warming is wrong."
Any sort of actual critical thinking on volcanic emissions needs to reconcile the following.
1. human emissions exceed volcanic emissions by between 30x and 100x.
2. Atmospheric CO2 has been stable around 280ppm for the last several thousand years.
3. Atmospheric CO2 has bounced between 180ppm and 300ppm for the last several hundred thousand years.
4. Atmospheric CO2 hasn't risen at the current rate of increase in at least 300 million years.
5. Parallel increases in other volcanic gases have not occurred.
6. The trend in atmospheric C isotope ratio parallels the increase in human emissions.
Guessing the behavior of extremely complex, highly-integrated systems by using simple heuristics is a sure method for being wrong.
[JH] Perhaps we rely on experts such as climate scientists because they have "uncommon sense." I certainly do that with my personal Physician.
PhillipeChantreau @57, Casey's interest in "Expanding Earth Theory" is to refute it, which his hardly discreditable. If we accept rebuting nonsense is a reason to dismiss peoples views, then we are self condemned.
Having said that, Casey has stunningly "shown" that there is no greenhouse effect, and what is more, no need to supose one by. The former he manages by completely misrepresenting the science of thermodynamics, and the later by first assuming that the Earth has no albedo and then proposing the novel theory that radiative temperature balances are achieved with the "at the centre of heat capacity" rather than the temperature of the source of the outgoing radiation (as is actually required by thermodynamics). That firmly places him into flat Earth society level kookiness, even if his views on CO2 did not.
I have responded to gac73's claims about CO2 at a more appropriate location. The short skinny is that his source misrepresents the units of data, presenting emissions during singular eruption events as ongoing emissions, and argues that volcanic CO2 can account for the reduced C13 in the atmosphere because volcanoes are depleted in C13 relative to the reference standard, even though they are typically enriched in C13 relative to the atmosphere.
What I want to note is that a common pattern is emerging in gac73's examples of "common sense science". The common feature is that "common sense scientists" leave out, or misrepresent inconvenient data. At least, that has been the case in every example he has presented to date. Given this, my distrust of "common sense science" seems well based. It is merely a name pseudoscientists give to their activities as a means of persuasive definition.
gac73 - why would accept as true the ramblings from a utterly wrong source rather than from peer-reviewed science? You are trying to make a case by claiming things that are not true. That you chose to belief such nonsense without any apparent skepticism is fairly concerning. Science is about being informed by data not by values. Being highly skeptical about peer-reviewed science which sits uncomfortably with your preferences while being unskeptical about nonsense which conforms to your desires is just pseudo-skepticism.
Think like a scientist - what data/observations would change your mind?
JH inline at 59. What makes science trustworthy is not that individual scientists have uncommon sense. Rather it is that it relies on a method in which puts claims to a rigorous test both by requiring that the be submitted before people who are very well informed on the topic for criticism (thus ensuring simple gaffes are quickly noticed and corrected) and by making empirical data the standard against which theories must be tested. Individual scientists need not have uncommon sense at all. Newton, for example, although brilliant enough to present us with the laws of motion and gravity, had his gaffes (acceptance of alchemy) weeded out so that the former survive while the latter is scarcely known and not acted on.
One common feature of gac73's "common sense science" is that its practitioners put their views before the general public (who lack the specialist knowledge to detect gaffes) in preference to publishing in the peer reviewed literature. The reason is that they do not want critical review of their ideas, probably because they realize at least subconsiously that it will not stand up to such review.
[JH] My comment was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. Your response is spot on.
That science denial goes along with other hot-button conservative issues seems pretty obvious. I think to those individuals all educated people are pencil neck geeks or effete, intellectual snobs. They hold to the western myth that the book educated feller is pretty worthless around the ranch. Their world view effectively isolates them from any logical argument. We shouldn’t have to concern ourselves with them except they vote.
The anti-science tone of conservative platforms grew out of an organized campaign to push back against environmental regulations. This started with a group called Sage Brush Rebellion that was embraced by Reagan. Reagan’s in-your-face attitude toward the EPA and the environment didn’t go over well. The anti-environmentalists had to be more subtle. Sage Brush Rebellion became Wise Use. The movement got a huge boost when they were joined by the Christian right. Pat Robertson decided that environmentalists were a greater threat than communists. Eventually we got Gingrich, DeLay, Bush and an industry policy of subverting the EPA from within. No EPA actions were brought against any industrial polluter during Bush’s administration. See Robert Kennedy Jr’s book “Crimes Against Nature”.
Cocoa J, there has indeed been an organized attempt to cast doubt on science since the tobacco/cancer thing. It went beyond lobbyists. There is a core group of scientists who used money from Phillip Morris to found a conservative organization dedicated to disputing the science. I have not read “Merchants of Doubt” but I may have to buy a copy and donate it to the local library. The scientists involved don’t see themselves as evil. Two were physicists and one a soil scientist. They are very conservative and consider government regulation as evil. They had a playbook of how to sow doubt and a list of scientists who would take money to say just about anything. The original reason for this was a fear of personal injury suits against tobacco companies. Once the pieces were in place, they were used to claim acid rain was natural, CFC’s were not causing the ozone hole and DDT was harmless (as Tom DeLay said, safer than table salt). These are the same individuals now responsible for most of the denial propaganda and their techniques include pretty vile personal attacks against sincere researchers and journalists.
So now to the main point of this comment---ubrew’s mention of a free market, anti-tax faith. I think that is more germane to the other posts than has been discussed. There is a movement advocating an extreme form of laissez-faire capitalism as envisioned by Milton Friedman. The precepts of this are no government regulation, whatsoever, no taxes on corporations, no public service sector, privatization of all public held property, no restrictions on open markets and no wage protections. Friedman’s Chicago school of economics ran computer simulations showing that an extreme form of pure capitalism would solve all the world’s problems including unemployment. Their simulations were a bit naïve to say the least.
After military coups had opened up markets in Brazil and Indonesia, the Chicago school trained Chilean economists and attempted to reverse the leftward movement of Chile. At the time western industrialists were concerned about a tendency of South American countries to nationalize industries such as the Chilean copper mines. Getting a democratic country to voluntarily adopt their extreme form of capitalism turned out to not be practical so the Chicago boys in Chile worked with Pinochet and developed an economic plan to be implemented after a military coup. The economic plan was an abysmal failure. Friedman, in correspondence and personal visits, told Pinochet to keep pushing and that the system would work but it hadn’t been taken far enough. The result, of course, was high unemployment, half of the population pushed below the poverty line and tremendous wealth for a few at the very top. This was followed by similar free market experiments, following military coups, in Argentina and Uruguay. They had the same effect.
We have now seen the failure of extreme free market ideals in Poland and Russia and seen an example of extreme capitalism in the world’s biggest authoritarian regime---China. As the global market is increasingly controlled by an extreme free market ideology, it becomes apparent that the success of the system is measured by healthy corporate profits and a robust stock market and not by the well being of populations or the health of the planet.
I have not begun to read my copy of Naomi Klein’s “This Changes Everything” (the stuff about Friedman and the Southern Cone policies are from her book “Shock Doctrine”) but I believe her point is that climate change is a game changer. The corporations who have thought they won the battle for a global free market realize that addressing the issue of warming will require government regulation. We won’t fix the problem with a global system of dictatorship by wealthy corporations. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out the corporate mentality views the coming disruptions as economic opportunities.
I think we will have to have a paradigm shift to a completely new type of economics that does not depend on ever expanding markets. Even reasonable Keynesian economics, applied country by country with international rules guaranteeing similar environmental and worker protections for all countries, probably won't work over the long haul. It would be a good place to start, however.
William[34] wrote: '...[undeveloped]...countries argue that they should not be expected to forgo fossil fuel exploitation, which is what the...[developed economies]...asks of them, as the development of the West was largely facilitated by the burning of fossil fuels.'
That perspective is interesting and understandable.
Which raises the obvious question: Where did anyone read or hear emerging economies demand carbon based fuel explotation?
From this perspective this has been a strategy used by reactionary thinkers to maintain the status quo, what is reality in the recent past and currently is a completely different scenario however.
Multiantional corporations headquartered in developed nations are the ones who wish to expoit these countries and are the ecosystems greatest threat. As they have a history of using local nepotism and corruption of poor public policy due to undeveloped govenace to gain commercial dominace of the carbon energy resources.
It is true undeveloped economies may in the some projected future demand our energy intensive goods and increasingly luxurious lifestyle. And to explot vast resources of fossil fuel. But largely they are happy to get lights, energy for cooking, and the ability to pump clean healthy water. The real world scenario is undeveloped countries have a take up rate of innovative alternative technology that is running at enviable rate.
Where there are individual solar power units on homes, businesses are even creating local small grids and other clean alternative energy sources for power production. They are in the position of being ahead of the developed nations with the clean technology ratio when directly compared to the developed economies.
Our challenge in developed economies is those same using the same corporate culture to lobby against individual power units in local small to large business, homes, schools, and social capital services; creating micro grids for small groups, towns and suburbs. Because the economic leverage of energy monopolies would suffer a poor return on efficiencies due to atrophy in their consumer base and subsequent hit to their yearly profit. While enabling individuals and small business with cheap clean energy.
Realistically undeveloped countries have a distinct and increasing advantage over the developed countries who are still chained to the carbon economy. Left on their own the undeveloped countries will continue to seek current technology that is flexible and affordable. As most importantly clean solar power units to give them cheap power for lights, energy for cooking and pumping clean water. Not only that but the exponential growth in cheap alternative energy in these countries will continue to challenge developed economies for goods production. Most noticeably when sophistication in systems develops even further with automation.
In all probability the emerging undeveloped economies will be even more competitive and then their alternative energy technology uptake rate compared to developed nations will really be seen as clever.
Our best chance is modelling alternative clean and cheap energy sources, setting a better example toward a dominant alternative energy ratio. While at the same time encouraging international regulation of multinational corporations and the partners with the rule of law to put our ecosystem before ROI or yearly profit.
What are the probabilities this will happen though?
My guess for what it's worth is:
The probabilities are the same as carbon energy corporations not attacking the scientific consensus on acidification and warming of oceans.
...
The Japan Meteorological Agency has officially called it:
2014 was by far the hottest year in more than 120 years of record-keeping.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/ann_wld.html
The "pause" is dead. Long live the "pause.
Cocoa Jackson@65,
Noam Chomsky also provides many throughly detailed cases of wealthy powerful people deliberately doing unacceptable things to become even wealthier and more powerful. But reading Noam's published work is definitely tougher than reading Naomi's.
And reflecting more on this issue, I would propose that the term 'developed' is an inaccurate or inappropriate term for societies and economies. Thinking back to the SkS article presenting the case that Climate Disruption is a more descriptive term than Cimate Change because it highlights that something disruptive is occurring, not just the ever changing climate, prompts me to consider using the term 'Advanced' as the proper way of evaluating a society or economy. And a more advanced society or economy would be more sustainable including having developed sustainable more improved circumstances for the least fortunate.
That fits with the accurate suggestions that the least developed nations could be most rapidly 'advanced' by adopting sustainable actions rather than transitioning to them through the damaging unsustainable development that the 'developed' societies and economies seem to be stuck in. And those 'developed' societies are stuck because once an unsustainable or damaging activity becomes popular it will be profitable and that combination makes it an anchor against 'advancement' of the society or economy.
If China can actually snap out of fossil fuel addiction soon enough, before it has become too popular or profitable to fight against changing, they could easily leap-frog past the 'developed' nations.
The sad part is that there have been many amazing 'advancements' created within the developed economies that were stifled rather than being encouraged to grow into the better future that could have been developed. And sadder is that some people may point to something impressive that was developed as proof of the 'advancement' of the society without admitting that as amazing as the development was it failed to be popular because less amazing things that were actually very damaging and ultimately unsustainable were able to continue to be more profitable.
Tom Curtis @ 60. My comment about the exanding Earth theory was tongue in cheek. Don't be too literal. My "phew" of relief should have indicated that much. Nonetheless, it is telling that Casey appears to treat said "theory" as worthy of rational exmination and comes to the well thought out conclusion that it is not well supported, as if the alternative had any chance to ever contend. In fact, his tone about the subject suggests that the jury could possibly be out again, some day. Open minded doesn't mean fill your mind with garbage. Casey tries hard to give the appearance of being open minded.
dklyer@64,
I agree and have some things to add related to the erroneous results of the models of the likes of Milton Friedman. Often these people attempt to predict the future using an economic theory/model with a fundamantal presumption that the people making decisions, particularly the most powerful in leadership roles, would be highly averse to doing something that had a potential negative future consequence. That type of thinking would be the equivalent of a global climate theory/model that was based on human burning of fossil fuels not creating CO2 and that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. The results of such models would never be accurate. And as long as those fundamentals of the theory/model do not change every attempt to 'add accuracy' will fail to produce meaningful helpful results.
I recall that Alan Greenspan (past Chairman of the US Federal Reserve) essentially said 'he had no idea that powerful wealthy people would ever do anything that was potentially damaging' when the US Congress asked him about why he did not foresee the damaging consequences of reduced fiscal regulation that produced the 2008 global tragedy.
The biggest global threat is the indifference many pursuers of profit, power and pleasure have regarding the helpfulness of their acions. Many such pursuers never try to be guided by a desire to help develop a sustainable better future for all life on this amazing planet (See footnote). That indifference to being helpful is a reality that is excluded from most economic models and is the reason the likes of Alan Greenspan fail to anticipate how wrong their 'leadership' is. Though indifference to being helpful is the major problem, the biggest trouble makers are the pursuers of personal power, profit and pleasuer who will deliberately do unhelpful or harmful things in pursuit of what they want. Any economic theory/model that fails to include the existence and potential for success of those type of people is destined to be wildly inaccurate.
This brings me to the evaluation of cost-benefit regarding action on the issue of global warming and climate change. Even people claiming to want to be helpful fail to properly evaluate the cost-benefit of climate change action. The proper evaluation needs to be one that ensures all actions of a current generation produce a sustainable better future fopr all. Evaluations that compare the 'cost/benefit to some in the current generations' against 'cost/benefit to future generations' are fundamentally incorrectly evaluating the acceptability of action by a current generation. Even if a current generation was to determine that the 'costs - lost opportunity to benefit' they evaluated were a match for the 'costs' they evaluated a future generation would face it is unacceptable for a current generation to impose costs onto a future generation, no matter how much benefit the current generation gets. It would be acceptable for a current generation to personally expend their own effort and profit to fully avert future costs, but even that would only be a neutral position, not a helpful development. And that type of balance case is prone to erroneous evaluation by people in a current generaton who are inclined to overstate the costs to the current generation and understate what needs to be done to create the minimum acceptable result of current generation activity, a neutral future condition that is not negatively affected by what the current generation did.
Foot Note - Fairly full disclosure. Referring to the recent reports of a climate change related encyclical being developed by Pope Francis, I am not Roman Catholic so I have not developed or acquired this attitude because of being aware of and adhering to the Roman Catholic position. I believe that there is a spiritual connecton between all life on this amazing planet. And I believe that the Old Testament (the Hebrew Bible) included some very good 'understandings' of how to live that needed to be updated (Leviticus chapters 11 through 15 provide advise about how to avoid food poisoning, how to deal with mold, and a few other helpful things that appear to be scientifically developed even though they are presented as 'rules from God'. And I consider Jesus to be a very wise person who provided important updates of the Old Testament. And I believe there are even more updates that are coming to be understood. Even though I do not believe in God and am an Engineer (and also have an MBA) my values appear to be very well aligned with the most progressive Christian and Muslim sects who are 'evolving their set of values rather than strictly adhering to interpretations of older documents'.
I wonder how many people on earth are alive today because of the extra carbon dioxide in the air causing increases in crop yeilds and thereby less famine?
[JH] Please cite the source of your sweeping claim that extra carbon dioxide in the air has caused increases in crop yield and thereby less famine.
[PS] And any further discussion of this claim should be done on the "CO2 is plant food" myth article
Adrian, probably a tiny fraction of the amount of food that is wasted by middle class culture that has blossomed as a result of the cheap, widely-available, and heavily-subsidized emergence of fossil energy.
Indeed, if you're willing to ask a question like that, then you should ask, "How many people are alive today as a result of the development of a fossil energy-based economy, an economy that is inherently unsustainable?"
[PS] fixed text