Blog bits #438(b)

Observant readers might have noticed a few changes at Hot Topic over the weekend. Two new navigation options have popped up over the header: Book Reviews and Debate Map. The first one’s fairly straightforward, it’s a link to the book reviews category — a short cut to all the book reviews we’ve published at Hot Topic since Bryan started diligently working his way through new and notable climate-related books. Thanks to his efforts we now host the most comprehensive review coverage of climate books on the web (that’s my claim, and I’m sticking to it).

The Debate Map link goes to a new page created to provide a permanent home for the Debategraph interactive map of the climate debate I first posted about back in March. It’s a wiki-style site given a nice graphical structure. I find the whole thing fascinating, so I urge all Hot Topic‘s readers (even sceptics) to go and have a play and don’t be afraid to contribute items and arguments. Debategraph head honcho David Price provides the accompanying text, and is very happy to discuss any aspects of the map with interested readers.

One other tweak regular readers may like: I’ve updated the site’s theme to allow for “threaded comments”. This means you can now reply to individual comments by clicking on the “reply” link at the bottom of each comment. Your response will then appear immediately underneath, slightly indented. You should be able to reply to replies up to five indents deep, but I haven’t tested that…

Heaven is a place on earth

Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science

The Australian twin to Wishart’s Air Con is Professor Ian Plimer’s Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science, published last month. According to Bob Carter (in all his oleaginous glory here) on Leighton Smith’s Newstalk ZB programme recently it’s “an excellent book”. Carter assures Smith that “the authoritative science is in Ian Plimer’s book”. Fortunately, to save Hot Topic the chore of wading through Plimer’s prose, The Australian (noted for a tendency to push crank arguments) has published a most interesting review of Plimer’s opus by Michael Ashley, a professor of astrophysics at the University of New South Wales. What does he make of Plimer’s “authoritative science”?

Perhaps we will find a stitch-by-stitch demolition of climate science in his book, as promised? No such luck. The arguments that Plimer advances in the 503 pages and 2311 footnotes in Heaven and Earth are nonsense. The book is largely a collection of contrarian ideas and conspiracy theories that are rife in the blogosphere. The writing is rambling and repetitive; the arguments flawed and illogical.

Just like Wishart then.

Plimer has done an enormous disservice to science, and the dedicated scientists who are trying to understand climate and the influence of humans, by publishing this book. It is not “merely” atmospheric scientists that would have to be wrong for Plimer to be right. It would require a rewriting of biology, geology, physics, oceanography, astronomy and statistics. Plimer’s book deserves to languish on the shelves along with similar pseudo-science such as the writings of Immanuel Velikovsky and Erich von Daniken.

[Hat tip: Deltoid]
See also; Prof Barry Brooke’s review of Plimer’s book.
[Belinda Carlisle]

Picturing the Science

Climate Change: Picturing the Science

“It is simply the best available collection of essays by climate scientists on the nature of human-induced climate change, the ways scientists have come to understand and measure the risks that it poses, and the options that we face.”
Thus Jeffrey Sachs in his foreword to Climate Change: Picturing the Science edited by Gavin Schmidt and Joshua Wolfe. He has a somewhat proprietary interest in the publication in that much of it is written by scientists associated with his Columbia University’s Earth Institute, but his declaration is not overblown.

Gavin Schmidt is well known to readers of the RealClimate website, of which he was a co-founder. He is a climate scientist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.  Joshua Wolfe is a documentary photographer much of whose work focuses on climate change.  His is one of three splendid photo essays which punctuate the book, along with many other carefully selected illustrative photographs on almost every page.

Medical terms head the book’s three parts – symptoms, diagnosis and possible cures.  Seven climate scientists contribute chapters with one or two experts in technology and policy joining them in part three.

The symptoms section has five headings: the unequivocal warming of the globe; the changes occurring in the Arctic; changes to the chemistry, biology and level of the sea; the likelihood of extreme events; the threat to biodiversity. In all these areas troubles are already apparent or can be seen developing.

The diagnosis section has three chapters.  The first describes the drivers of climate and the part played by anthropogenic forcings.  The second explains the study of climate “one of the most complex and lively branches in all of Earth science.”  Dozens of different fields are involved. The chapter lists some of them: meteorology, oceanography, biology, chemistry, quantum physics, orbital mechanics, and ecology. It has a useful characterisation of the four overlapping groups into which climate scientists can be broadly split: those studying the physical processes in the current climate system, others looking for indications of how and why climates were different in the past, yet others documenting the impacts of change today, and some bringing all these elements together to try and say something about the future.  The third chapter discusses prognoses for that future, making a helpful distinction between forecasts, predictions and projections before examining prospects for rising temperatures, rainfall changes, rising sea levels, ocean changes, greenhouse gas feedbacks, decreasing biodiversity, human health risks, and agricultural impacts. Surprises are inevitable, and they are not likely to be benign.

These two sections of the book are straightforward explanations of where the science stands today.  They acknowledge plenty of uncertainties. Schmidt states that the book has eschewed polemics “in favour of a ‘warts and all’ exposition of what we know, what we don’t know, and what is already being seen.”  The tone is restrained, the content factual.  The complexities of the science are not compromised, but the findings are laid out in terms that any general reader can comprehend.  Although the path to understanding what is going on has its complications, and there have been major intellectual feats (and sometimes physical ones as well) along the way as the clues have been put together, the basic picture which has emerged is not hard to grasp.

Turning to possible cures in the book’s third section the various, now familiar technologies are surveyed and the political aspects of emission reduction explored.  The difficulties of adequate action and internationally agreed policy are acknowledged, but a degree of somewhat dogged hope also finds expression.

Slightly aside from the main thrust of the book, it’s worth drawing attention to a couple of the brief contributions which interleave the major chapters.  Elizabeth Kolbert (whose Field Notes from a Catastrophe was my introduction to the seriousness of climate change) has an illuminating reflection on why it has been hard for journalism to communicate the reality of global warming.  Naomi Oreskes writes thoughtfully about the scientific consensus on climate change and why it is under no challenge from contrarian claims.

We need to see climate scientists making the kind of communication to the public this book represents.  Straight from the horse’s mouth.  I don’t imagine all scientists would relish the task, but certainly those chosen for this publication write clearly and accessibly for the lay person. The reader gets not only a survey of where things stand in the areas each of the writers is engaged with but also an awareness of the scope and range of the scientific activity associated with climate change. I doubt most people are aware of the magnitude of the scientific attention the subject is now receiving.

A full picture is what the book provides, mostly through words but also through the striking images which accompany the text.  It will be a very helpful aid to readers who want to see that full picture, either because they don’t have hold of it yet or because they want to fill in gaps in their understanding.

It is a large, handsomely produced volume which will adorn any surface on which it lies while its reader works through it. Not at one sitting, I would suggest, but filling in the picture slowly chapter by chapter.

Has it come to this?

The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning

James Lovelock is renowned for his Gaia theory: using metaphor to illuminate science, he has argued that the earth is a living planet, a self-regulating system made up of organisms, surface rocks, the ocean and the atmosphere interacting to provide conditions favourable for life. Three years ago, in The Revenge of Gaia, he declared that our burning of fossil fuels, our replacement of too many eco-systems with farmland and our overload of human population had put Gaia under threat and badly impaired her ability to produce conditions comfortable for life and we will suffer dire consequences.

The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning is a follow-up and the little shreds of hope that one could sometimes discern in its predecessor are even less apparent, at least from the perspective with which I view life.  Lovelock himself is almost lyrical in his final vision of a future Gaia adjusted to a hotter state, populated by the remnant of human survivors from the disasters ahead, survivors strong in mind and body and ready to start a new evolution in which our intelligence will be beneficial to Gaia and may make of her an intelligent planet. (I don’t pretend to understand what he means by that.) I’m afraid my attention is on the billions who fail to make it to the lifeboat and I derive no consolation at all from Lovelock’s vision.

However that’s at the end of the book. An early remark perhaps suggests how he gets there. He describes himself as a scientist who works independently of any human agency:  ”Independence allows me to consider the health of the Earth without the constraint that the welfare of mankind comes first.”

He is critical of the IPCC and its reliance on models, not because he is a contrarian or lacks respect for the scientists involved but because its models are not correctly forecasting the course of climate change revealed by observation.  They have underestimated the rate of sea level rise and the rate of melting sea ice in the Arctic. They have not taken into account the progressive decline in the population of ocean algae, which act to cool the Earth in a number of ways. They do not in his opinion make use of the Gaia theory predictions of climate change but still act from within the various scientific specialisations as if Earth were a dead planet.  He produces a simple model of his own based on Gaia theory which shows an abrupt 5 degree rise in global mean temperature at an atmospheric CO2 level of between 400 and 500 parts per million.  The smooth path of slowly and sedately rising temperatures predicted by the IPCC will not be borne out in reality. There will be spells of constancy followed by jumps to greater heat.

Lovelock records with approval James Hansen’s call for a far greater reduction in CO2 than that suggested as adequate by the IPCC reports. He notes that Hansen’s concern is based on recent observations and on the Earth’s climate history and thinks this means that Hansen himself must have doubts about the adequacy of models based on atmospheric physics alone.

In fact Lovelock’s view of the possible changes ahead does not seem radically different from those of many other scientists who freely acknowledge that the IPCC predictions are proving too conservative.  The scientific consensus notion against which Lovelock rails does not seem to prevent them from pointing out inadequacies in the models. My understanding is that those working with the models are constantly seeking to improve them and are well aware of their limitations. The positive feedback potential from the loss of land-based ecosystems, the desertification of the land and ocean surfaces, and the loss of polar ice is frequently discussed by scientists I have read.

Where Lovelock differs most markedly from scientists equally aware of the dangers he points to is in the fact that he seems to think those outcomes already inescapable. So strongly is he convinced of this that he is roundly dismissive of many attempts at mitigation, especially if they carry a green tinge. Reducing carbon footprints and planning to drastically lower emissions are at best romantic nonsense and at worst a dangerous distraction from the real task.  We can’t save our familiar world.  What we need to do is to prepare for the coming changes in what will be a human world of lifeboat islands (the UK and NZ prominent among them) and a few continental oases in favourable latitudes. Greens who put their faith in renewable energy, and especially those who view negatively the development of nuclear energy, are sabotaging the future of the lifeboat societies.  He is particularly scornful of wind turbines, allowing they may perhaps be of some use in some places, but certainly not in his part of the world. Unexpectedly he presents solar energy in a favourable light on the grounds that it is not visionary – he even attaches the word hope to it, though any hope the book offers is always severely qualified.

He does allow for some geo-engineering possibilities, though without much conviction. Various schemes to manipulate the planetary albedo – sunlight reflected back to space – are acknowledged. Karl Lackner’s proposals to strip CO2 from the atmosphere and sequester it as described in Broecker and Kunzig’s Fixing Climate is treated with respect. Fertilisation with iron to encourage algal blooms that would cool the Earth by removing CO2 may be effective. He explains his own suggestion, in collaboration with Chris Rapley, of large pipes set vertically in the ocean to draw up cooler, nutrient-rich water to encourage algal blooms.  Most promising of all would be the widespread use of biochar. However he checks any undue optimism by recalling that whatever we do as geoengineers is unlikely to stop dangerous climate change or prevent death on a scale that makes all previous wars, famines and disasters small. Geoengineering would be better than business as usual, but that’s about the most that can be said for it.

The crux for Lovelock is that there are far too many people living as we do. Gaia has too many humans.  He briefly acknowledges that vegetarian diets and food synthesis by chemical and biochemical industries might help, but is pretty sure it will never happen this way. The effects of prolonged and unremitting drought, the greatest threat to humanity from global heating, will mean food and water shortages which will kill off most of us. Gaia will save herself by severely culling us.

Lovelock is a compelling writer. His prose is elegant and clear and his books packed with intelligent insights.  One can’t help but pay him attention. He is an able exponent of the worst case, but that doesn’t make his depressing prognostications right.  He himself praises the work of James Hansen, Tim Flannery and Al Gore among others, people who are not at all ready to give up on mitigation. I’m with them, and hope we can yet avoid the catastrophic and deeply depressing human future Lovelock foresees, through a combination of the means by which he sets little store.

Melting Point

Melting Point

Eric Dorfman is an ecologist.  He has been aware of the science of climate change since his doctoral student days in the 1990s but he credits Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth with inspiring him to make a larger contribution towards addressing the issue. Hence his book Melting Point: New Zealand and the Climate Change Crisis, published last September.

The book is not long, and is written in a relaxed style accessible to the general reader.  He begins with a brief overview of the global science, centring particularly on carbon sinks, carbon pumps and feedback loops as keys to understanding climate change. Debating whether climate change is real is senseless. Credible scientific opinion is unequivocal.  The risk of doing nothing in the face of the predicted consequences is foolhardy, and the problem is not beyond us.

Turning his focus to New Zealand he begins with the climate, pointing out that unlike Europe which is experiencing unprecedented weather patterns we are likely to see an intensification of the weather patterns we already have, much of it driven by an an intensification of the pattern of westerly winds and warmer sea surface temperatures.  He considers the effects of rising sea levels and details some of them; even one metre will cause an enormous and costly mess for the country – farmland around Invercargill inundated, salt water intrusion in many agricultural areas, water seep on to Wellington airport, Tamaki Drive under water, and much more.

He ranges through several aspects of New Zealand life explaining how they may be affected by the coming changes.  Primary production, human health, natural ecosystems and socio-economic impacts are the main areas considered. He offers something of a plug for organic farming as a goal, and has an intriguing look at farm animal alternatives such as beefalo, ostriches and emus, and angora goats. He explains the habitat constraints likely to be experienced by species both on land and in the sea, and the extinctions which may result. Human health is also likely to be affected, though less severely than in developing countries. Mosquito-borne and water-borne diseases are surveyed and psychological health considered. Likely impacts on the economy conclude with a positive reference to the previous government’s stance on carbon neutrality and emissions control.

Comparatively speaking we will fare better than most countries, though this is scant reassurance in a world mostly worse affected. For instance, Dorfman asks at one point how NZ will react to the arrival of most or all of the populations of small Pacific Islands such as Tuvalu as rising sea levels make their islands uninhabitable. A chapter on choices covers a familiar range from making personal emission reductions to engaging in political pressure.

The book is a reasonable and relatively gentle discussion around what may already lie ahead for New Zealand in the uncertain future into which climate change is launching us. That very uncertainty makes it difficult to be precise or trenchant, but it is important to be thinking ahead and realising that we are preparing a different world by our greenhouse gas emissions. Hopefully Dorfman represents a wide group of people who are doing just that.  Not that he is happy for us to continue along our present path.  Far from it. He rests what hope he can muster for the future on the decisions of international forums and the actions of superpowers and the author sees an important lobbying function for New Zealand in these arenas. One hopes he is not being too optimistic about New Zealand’s readiness to lobby.  We are getting mixed messages from government at present