Butterfly futures flutter by

by Bryan Walker on October 2, 2011

James Hansen’s latest discussion paper begins and ends with Monarch butterflies. He watches some on his property in Pennsylvania as they prepare to leave for their migration to Mexico and reflects on the prospects for their survival as a species as global warming takes hold. The Monarchs cross Texas on their way south, a difficult path this year over desolate, baked-out territory. Which leads Hansen to a spirited denunciation of “well-oiled Governors and Senators in Texas and Oklahoma” who assert that global warming is a hoax and help business-as-usual CO2 emissions to continue.

He addresses the question of whether the drought and fires in Texas can be attributed to global warming. The media have remained largely silent this year on possible connections between extreme weather events and human-made climate forcing, and Hansen asks whether scientists should be making more effort to draw public attention to the human role in climate anomalies.

The longstanding difficulty in such communication is distinguishing climate change caused by global warming from natural climate variability.  “The human-made climate ‘signal’ must be extracted from the large ‘noise’.” But he thinks the public can understand the distinctions.

He sets out the reasons we can expect intensified climate extremes from global warming:

(1) Warmer air holds more water vapor, and precipitation occurs in more extreme events. ’100-year floods’ and even ’500-year floods’ will become more likely. Storms fueled by water vapor (latent heat), including thunderstorms, tornadoes and tropical storms, will have the potential to be stronger. Storm damage will increase because of increased flooding and stronger winds.

(2) Where weather patterns create dry conditions, global warming will intensify the drought, because of increased evaporation and evapotranspiration. Thus fires will be more frequent and burn hotter. Observations confirm that heat waves and regional drought have become more frequent and intense over the past 50 years. Rainfall in the heaviest downpours has increased about 20 percent. The destructive energy in hurricanes has increased (USGCRP, 2009).

What about the Texas drought? Is it related to human-made global warming?

There is strong reason to believe that it is. Basic theory and models (Held and Soden, 2006) and empirical evidence (Seidal and Randel, 2006) indicate that the global overturning circulation, air rising in the tropics and subsiding in the subtropics, expands in latitude with global warming. Such expansion tends to make droughts more frequent and severe in the southern United States and the Mediterranean region, for example.

But while the occurrence of unusual Texas heat and drought is consistent with expectations for increasing CO2, may this year’s event just be climate ‘noise’?

I used ‘climate dice’ in conjunction with testimony to Congress in 1988 to try to help the public understand that the human-made climate ‘signal’ must be extracted from the large ‘noise’ of natural climate variability.

In an upcoming post (Climate Variability and Climate Change, Hansen, Sato and Ruedy) we try to clarify this matter via simple maps and graphs that show how the odds have changed, allowing comparison of expectations and reality…

We show that a ‘signal’ due to global warming is already rising out of the climate ‘noise’, even on regional scales.

Hansen offers maps and some technical detail to illustrate this, and concludes:

The chaotic element in climate variability makes it impossible to say exactly where large anomalies will occur in a given year. However, we can say with assurance that the area and magnitude of the anomalies and their practical impact will continue to increase. Clear presentations of the data should help the public appreciate the situation as global warming continues to rise further above the level of natural variability.

So much for the longstanding difficulty for scientists in helping the public understand the distinction between climate variability and the overall trend of the effects of global warming. But Hansen also describes a new difficulty which has arisen more recently and which has nothing to do with the science. It is the character assassination of scientists, mainly directed against Ben Santer, Michael Mann and Phil Jones.

The important point I wish to note is that each of these three targets, the scientific conclusions that provoked the critics and which they aimed to destroy or discredit, have been shown in subsequent analyses to have been correct, indeed, dead-on-the-mark.

However, the scientific community is well aware of the toll that these attacks took on the scientists, despite the fact that their work was eventually vindicated and corroborated.

Thus, it would not be surprising if these experiences have an effect on the willingness of other scientists to make statements that draw attention to the likely role of human-made forcings as a contributor to the climate extremes of the past summer.

But the “inherent objectivity” of science is needed to help society find a path which will avoid our exiting the stable Holocene climate in which civilisation developed. Hansen is not prepared to stop short of engagement with the policy implications of the science, though governments want scientists to do so. He explains why:

If scientists do not connect all of the dots in this story, the dots will be connected by people with a vested interest in preserving the fossil fuel industry. The resources that the fossil fuel industry brings to bear in protecting its economic interests are formidable. The public is immersed daily in advertisements using effective spokespeople including skilled professional actors. Their message has appeal. They say that efforts to extract fossil fuels in tar sands, in the Arctic, and so on, would provide jobs and produce needed energy.

Existing irrefragable climate science makes clear that this path – advocated by the fossil fuel industry and supported by governments worldwide – would be calamitous for young people and nature. Yet if scientists bring only this negative message, there is no hope of stopping the fossil fuel juggernaut with its aim to exploit all fossil fuels.

Hansen’s positive message, which is well known by now, is that the way forward is a rising carbon fee or tax collected from fossil fuel companies and returned to the population on a per capita basis. He has been criticised for his advocacy of a fee-and-dividend policy and blunt rejection of cap-and-trade schemes, which he describes in this paper as “designed to allow business-as-usual, leading to certain mining of all fossil fuels on the planet and a debacle for young people”.

His specific advocacy may be arguable. However it is important that scientists who know the consequences of continuing to extract and burn fossil fuels should speak up if politicians who claim to be addressing the problem are at the same time allowing and even abetting the further exploitation of fossil fuels – as if the magic of trading and offsetting will somehow render them harmless. That appears to be very much the case in New Zealand under present government policies which unashamedly look to a prosperous future from fossil fuel exploration and exploitation while running an ineffectual ETS on the side and getting credit internationally for doing so. Hansen’s forthrightness exposes this for the greenwash that it is.

And his carbon tax proposals are not foolish, even if they’re not flavour of the month.  I recently reviewed Shi-ling Hsu’s book The Case for A Carbon Tax, which advanced a strong and well-considered argument for such an approach. Al Gore has expressed his preference for a carbon tax albeit acknowledging it is not currently acceptable in the US.

Hansen’s paper ends wryly with those butterflies:

Survival of the Monarch will depend more on conditions in Mexico than in Texas. If business-as-usual continues and we burn most of the fossil fuels this century, it is unlikely that those forests [where the Monarchs winter] or the Monarchs will survive. There is not much that the Monarch can do about this matter. Their fate will be up to the intelligent species.

{ 24 comments… read them below or add one }

Bob Bingham October 2, 2011 at 5:33 pm

What ever we think of the importance of butterflies in our lives. If the butterflies can’t cross Texas safely then Texans wont be able to farm. Ask a Texan what his state will be like when the conditions are so bad farming can’t continue.
A bit like today come to think of it.

Carol Cowan October 2, 2011 at 10:02 pm

And that drought could carry on for another 9 years! http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/29/us-drought-texas-idUSTRE78S6J520110929
(I know there’s a better way to provide links, but I don’t know how to do it. Could someone teach me?)

Bob Bingham October 2, 2011 at 10:14 pm

It works fine. Stick with it.

Gareth October 2, 2011 at 11:27 pm

Try using the HTML < a > tag, thus: < a href="http://www.the link" rel="nofollow">your choice of words< / a>. No spaces before the a’s.

bill October 3, 2011 at 12:06 pm

Um, writing out the ‘rel=”nofollow” ‘ link? Doesn’t the blog software insert that automatically? I’m genuinely curious…

Gareth October 3, 2011 at 2:44 pm

It does, and did, because I didn’t! If you see what I mean…

Carol Cowan October 3, 2011 at 9:24 pm

Thanks Gareth. I’m not sure that I understand but I will give it a try next time I want to post a link.

Dappledwater October 4, 2011 at 7:39 am

Carol, following the example Gareth has provided, just make sure there are no spaces (like Gareth has done to avoid this blog from recognizing them as html tags)

Carol Cowan October 4, 2011 at 8:50 pm

I’ll give it a try mywebsite

Carol Cowan October 4, 2011 at 8:53 pm

Um, that didn’t go well. Maybe I should go somewhere quiet and practice.
I saw my first monarch butterfly of the season today. Where do our butterflies migrate to?

bill October 4, 2011 at 9:41 pm

<a target="_blank" href="http://www.yourwebaddresshere.com"&gt; insert the text you’d like to link to your web address</a>

With luck, the above should work via a simple cut and paste!

Macro October 4, 2011 at 9:41 pm
bill October 4, 2011 at 9:44 pm

blast! someone’s posted already and now I can’t edit it!

anyway, replace the & g t ; at the end of the web address with a closing > – as so ‘>’ – and it should work just fine!

Macro October 4, 2011 at 9:47 pm

thanks for that bill! Now I can’t use the bloody editor to correct my typo! lol

bill October 4, 2011 at 9:51 pm

sorry – determined to get this right!

<a href="http://www.yourwebaddressgoeshere.com">the text you want to make a link goes here</a>

bill October 4, 2011 at 10:00 pm

talk about the festival of cross purposes!

however, ignoring the fact that wordpress has kindly automatically made a nonsense link and the line spacing between ‘a’ and ‘href’ that magically appeared, that last one i posted is actually how it’s supposed to look!

here’s a link to where i got it to work just right – second to bottom line of the group rules, just subsitute your link text and web address and robert’s your father’s brother (true in my case!)

AndrewH October 4, 2011 at 9:41 pm

I have to search it every time (google “html anchor”) and when I mess up Gareth fixes. Slow learning being a hallmark of advancing years (or is it too much chocolate)

Macro October 4, 2011 at 9:53 pm

I have the instructions printed off and stuck on the front of my computer.
Still have finger trouble tho!

Gareth October 4, 2011 at 9:59 pm

Chortle!

Carol Cowan October 4, 2011 at 10:05 pm

Thanks guys, and my apologies for sending this great post off topic.
Okay, one last try before I go to bed:
<a target="_blank" href="http://www.carol360.weebly.com">my website

So much for the cut and paste, lol. I think i will just stick with the things I know. You are welcome to visit my website, it’s where I post links to info I put in letters to the Southland Times (thus saving on putting long web addresses in the letters)

bill October 3, 2011 at 12:11 pm

irrefragable“! That’s my something new for today…

Gareth October 3, 2011 at 2:45 pm

I will confess to having had to look that up. Doesn’t happen to me often… ;-)

tom October 4, 2011 at 3:12 pm

adding to Bill’s sentiment above, and strictly in passing as it were, TP have an item on crop-loss related to climate change.

Interesting insofar attendent commentary there we learn of Lomborg’s latest sin of “ideological science” wherein his Uni employer cannot make such distinctions anymore.

Case of delivering the bacon at last… wot!

Carol Cowan October 4, 2011 at 8:56 pm

Too hot for chocolate!!!! Now put that headline in the daily papers and you will rally the women of the world to insist on reducing carbon emissions RIGHT NOW.

Previous post:

Next post: