Comments on: New dimensions in earth science uncovered by NZ blogger

By: Phil Scadden

Phil Scadden — Tue, 21 Dec 2010 02:36:07 +0000

Australis – as far as I can see from the documentation, the CO2 scenarios used in the IPCC models do not include any CO2 feedback – I think they also assume that planet will continue to absorb CO2 at current rate. Most if not all of the AR4 models ignore GHG feedback as these are believed to be long term, not short term feedbacks. The futures outlined in the AR4 IPCC impacts reports are uneffected by this – whether you regard this as “catastropic” is relative I suppose.

At least some AR5 model will include carbon feedbacks from what I have heard, so this and many similar papers will be relevant to the next report.
Its also very hard to explain the PETM event without something like hydrate release so lets not be complacent either.

By: Australis

Australis — Tue, 21 Dec 2010 02:05:38 +0000

As a result of Frank’s work, the amount of additional CO2 expected to be released in response to a temperature rise is now 8ppmv/Â°C instead of 40ppmv/Â°C.

This seems to reduce by 80% any likelihood of chain reactions, which have given rise to anxieties about “catastrophic” future warming. It should also markedly extend the period before the verboten 450ppmv is reached.

By: Bandersdad

Bandersdad — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 23:25:35 +0000

I beleive we’re getting closer to the point I’ve been stressing about communication. We need to build a new model of effective communication with the populace. Power will ultimately then reside with them. We already know they all want their kids to grow up in a world without catastrophic climate change.
Marketing is, as you say,a part of it. In a good way though rather than the “other” way. I also like very much the idea of a â€œnational conversationâ€, sounds very much like what I’ve had in mind.

By: Phil Scadden

Phil Scadden — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 22:24:22 +0000

Rob, I am not confusing you with anyone. I didnt know there was a Rob Taylor in Greenpeasce – the greenpeace example was merely one example and just one off the top of head, of where you have activists going in for exaggeration to push a point at the expense of credibility. The problem I think with climate change is that it is a slow process. It will be a problem for my children and grandchildren but I doubt it will personally impact me much. Getting people concerned about a problem that will affect the next generation most isnt easy and that is why I think there is a tendency among activists (not scientists) to overstate the present danger.

And yes, there are nightmare scenarios, especially clathrates which my section is actively involved with. However, so far the evidence doesnt point to this being a likely scenario – though we are pretty short of data to be have any kind of certainty. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/324/5926/506 was disappointing for me as clathrate release would other explain some interesting problems in paleoclimate. 6 degrees by century end is, so far, on the upper end of the predictions so not that comfortable with pushing that as likely. As you point out, its not like 3 degree is a picnic cf natural rates of less than 1 deg per 1000 year. I am not advocating understating the risks either.

By: Rob Taylor

Rob Taylor — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 21:55:41 +0000

Phil, I think you are mistaking me for another Rob Taylor who works for Greenpeace, but I am not he.

I do, however, have honours degrees in physics and mathematics, plus 30 years of experience in government, politics and business. Given that background, I believe I understand the science and politics well enough to see the clear and present danger of where we’re headed.

For example, here is an extract from the 19 March 2009 letter to Nature by Tim Naish et. al, re the results of the ANDRILL programme on the Ross Ice Shelf:
“Our data provide direct evidence for orbitally-induced oscillations in
the WAIS, which periodically collapsed, resulting in a switch from
grounded ice, or ice shelves, to open waters in the Ross embayment
when planetary temperatures were up to 3 C warmer than today
and atmospheric CO2 concentration was as high as 400 p.p.m.v… The evidence is consistent with a new ice-sheet/ice-shelf model that simulates fluctuations in Antarctic ice volume of up to
+7 metres equivalent sea level associated with the loss of the WAIS and
up to +3 metres equivalent sea level from the East Antarctic ice sheet, in response to ocean-induced melting paced by obliquity.”

If a slow orbital forcing can accomplish that, is it not realistic to expect that the relatively precipitous shock of AGW can do the same, if not worse?

Furthermore, is it not possible that AGW will trigger the Arctic clathrate gun, ushering in another mass extinction?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis

I believe these to be prudent, mainstream concerns rather than exaggerated or “alarmist”, particularly as I have children and potential grandchildren to consider…

By: Gareth

Gareth — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 21:53:19 +0000

Marketing's a part of it, sure, but it's not the only thing. It sounds trite, but we need a "national conversation" on climate change (France did something like this with its Grenelle Environnement in 2007). But any sensible discussion means accepting some common ground.

By: Gosman

Gosman — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 21:40:31 +0000

So in your mind it all comes down to spending on marketing so we are ‘all on the same page’?

By: Gareth

Gareth — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 21:38:08 +0000

Interesting conversation. Getting governments and the governed to act on an issue like this is obviously not trivial. A perfect government would look at the evidence, note the need for action, and set about building a consensus for sensible policy creation. Any policy put in place has to be sustainable — capable of surviving long term, and over many electoral cycles — so imposing something because you can win a narrow majority in parliament is not likely to be a successful strategy. There has to be a continuing large majority of politicians and voters who support action on climate change.
Building that sort of consensus is clearly non-trivial, but I don’t think anyone in New Zealand politics has even tried. The last Labour government built a reasonably sensible interlocking set of policies, but made next to no effort to sell the need for action. The current government understands this need in other policy areas — they’re happy to spend $26m this year promoting the “need” for national educational standards, for example. A similar sum spent on building a consensus for action on climate could work wonders. Sometimes leadership means taking a lead…

By: Bandersdad

Bandersdad — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 20:55:02 +0000

There are great points here Phil.
Credibility and honesty have to be paramount as you say. Moving government is, also as you say, problematic. Government is just a representation of the people though and I beleive that’s the point that’s missing. Governments will do what the people tell them (no, I’m not an idealistic idiot); if done well. It comes down to communicating with that public and creating the community of conected individuals who create the result; naturally enough through some great piece of political leadership…

By: Phil Scadden

Phil Scadden — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 20:26:05 +0000

Rob, I appreciate the dangers but I am not keen on exaggeration either. I could be wrong. Someone commented that the science position is cautiously predict 3 degrees and hope its not 6 while joe public reads this and says well denialists say zero so answer probably 1.5 – not too bad. However, what is the importance of credibility? If you overstate a case, then it is easily shot down by critics. For someone neutral, what is more convincing? – science says 3 and on examination you find it could be 6; or someone screaming 6 and you find it is more likely to be 3? And for activists, I would have thought the neutral middle ground is what is important in most debates. You wont convince people with embedded positions so I would say honesty works best for the concerned citizen looking for information.

In a newspaper debate, someone cited a greenpeace website claiming Indonesian peat fires were responsible for 40% (I think – not remember detail) of CO2 emissions. Well the only papers I could find estimate that in one bad season between 5 and 40% of the regions CO2 emissions were from peat fires. Well meaning activism but not helpful.

I have similar misgivings about attempts to move governments by just pushing worst-case scenarios.