It’s one of the most talked about issues, but views remain
polarised. On one hand the vast bulk of scientists in the field are said to think
that greenhouse gas emissions from past, current and proposed human activities
in energy production and use (as well as from farming and land use), threaten
to constrain future human and ecosystem health and even survival. So we have to
stop adding carbon dioxide (and methane) to the atmosphere- which for example,
centrally, means no more fossil fuel burning.
On the other hand, there are those who say that it’s all phoney and
alarmist, or at least marginal, based on dubious computer models and/or
misinterpreted or spurious data. Even worse are the ‘green’ remedies that are
proposed- they wont work and will undermine global economies.
Let’s take the science first. Here is a useful summary of
the IPCC’s agreed position- actually produced by the usually climate-contrarian
Energy Matters group:
Although the IPCC is careful to stress the uncertainties, it
does offers some pretty solid
conclusions, and in general they seem to he hardening as more data is collected and more analysis is carried out
and debated: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es501998e
Indeed, while some say the climate models are not reliable,
it seems even early ones were in fact quite good: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044035
although Hanson’s (then at NASA) was a bit high:
https://moyhu.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/hansens-1988-predictions-revisited.html
and http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction.htm
Even so temperatures all go the same way- up: https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/847095273889312768?s=09
Certainly the warming pattern seems clear and strong: see
this neat animated chart: http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/files/2016/05/spiral_optimized.gif
However, there remain disagreements about how confident we
can be about the conclusions and the overall approach used- though these days we
hear less overall climate change denial, or rival explanations for it- nicely
seen off by this Bloomberg assessment: www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
Nevertheless, some contrarians (and in this case the US
Energy Secretary) still sometimes say that, while warming may exist, we’re not
looking in the right place for an explanation: www.voanews.com/a/energy-chief-carbon-dioxide-not-prime-driver-of-warming-/3906947.html
Other says that, while there may be climate effects, they
vary and have recently slowed- the so called ‘warming pause’. While explanations
for that vary, a majority view seems to be that warming has continued but mainly
in the oceans:https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-017-3751-5
and http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jun/26/new-study-confirms-the-oceans-are-warming-rapidly
Certainly the data looks quite convincing:
The point being that an air temperature rise pause or slow
down does not necessarily undermine the central overall warming case: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v545/n7652/full/nature22315.html
Indeed some say the pause was never real: http://www.sonnenseite.com/en/science/whats-left-of-the-warming-pause.html
Certainly, the effects of warming
continue e.g. the ice cap data seems ever more dire: http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum and https://insideclimatenews.org/news/08052017/arctic-permafrost-thawing-alaska-temperatures-co2-emissions
The battle nevertheless goes on, with polarised views and
inverse interpretations still emerging: http://www.thegwpf.com/new-study-confirms-the-warming-pause-is-real-and-revealing/
and http://www.thegwpf.com/despite-denial-global-temperatures-are-dropping-fast/
Given the evident solidity of the science, some scientists
have tired of the endless debates and have gone for bold, essentially political
and emotional, statements: ‘We are close to the tipping point where global
warming becomes irreversible, Trump’s actions could push the earth over the
brink, to become like Venus, with a temperature of 250 degrees, and raining
sulfuric acid. Climate change is one of the great dangers we face, and it’s one
we can prevent if we act now. By denying the evidence of climate change &
pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement, Donald Trump will cause avoidable environmental
damage to our beautiful planet, endangering the natural world for us and our
children’.Prof. Stephen Hawking: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-40461726
That didn’t go down well in some circles: ‘Venus has about
220,000 times as much CO2 in its atmosphere as does Earth’ and we’ve only seen
a 50% rise here so far. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/07/stephen-hawking-flies-off-the-scientific-reservation
However, as the debate has polarized, some scientists in the
USA especially, evidently feel desperate: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/07/05/im-a-climate-scientist-and-im-not-letting-trickle-down-ignorance-win
and perhaps it is not surprising that the claims about possible out- comes have
become more extreme: e.g.: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html
with the media running increasingly
apocalyptic reports: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/climate-change-game-over-global-warming-climate-sensitivity-seven-degrees-a7407881.html
Some see this sort of thing as counterproductive:
And it may be unnecessary: the data suggests that climate
change is accepted as reality by many people- even in the USA: http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us-2016/
Though the views of the current US leadership may be a different matter!
While clearly there are bitter political feuds going on in
the USA and elsewhere over the wider climate science issues, at the practical
level the main disagreements are often more about what to do in response to
climate change, when proposals for change begin to hit vested interest groups
and communities. The US under Trump is digging in on coal! Most of the rest of
the world want renewables, and that is happening. There are some technical and strategic
arguments which can muddy the water. In the short term some say cleaned-up coal
and gas (with CCS) is the only realistic option. That’s seen by some opponents
as mainly a delaying tactic, although some do have hopes for CCS. Similarly for
nuclear, either fission (increasingly dubious) or longer term fusion (still
very uncertain). Others think that things are so bad that we will have to accept
what look like potentially dangerous geo-engineering ideas: http://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/18/magazine/is-it-ok-to-engineer-the-environment-to-fight-climate-change.html
and http://www.boell.de/en/2017/03/16/climate-geoengineering-experimenting-global-thermostat
There is a debate about what can be achieved given the
current political situation:
http://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/3/23/15028480/roadmap-paris-climate-goals
But most progressives think that we need to move as fast as possible with
renewables and energy efficiency - and that this can work to save the planet to
everyone’s benefit long term. We just need the political will to do that.
Given this view, the climate debate may seem tiresome, and to
get in the way of ameliorative technological and policy progress. However, it
can’t be ignored. Indeed, that could be a bad idea. After all, if nothing else,
it is wise to always check out deviant views- that’s how good science works,
through challenges. Some may see the climate science as now ‘done’ and
irrefutable, but it’s just conceivable that some new interpretation of the
data, or new data, will emerge from the debate, or there may be unexpected
changes in climate and Greenhouse Gas interactions, which will mean that a
rethink is needed. Indeed, some adjustments have already been proposed: http://www.nature.com/news/limiting-global-warming-to-1-5-c-may-still-be-possible-1.22627
But that’s just about timing – we may have a bit more time
than we thought.
There will be more challenges, although the technical
quality and credibility of some of them can vary, as can the politics behind
them: http://bit.ly/2ciEPpV and
However, although we can probably ignore some crazy views,
like Trumps assertion that climate change was invented by China, we should not
be not about shutting down debates- even if they seem overly political or
unscientific. The reality is that science (or interpretations of it) and political
views do interact, and not always productively.
And it is probably impossible to stop that and indeed trying to do so
may be undesirable- it is how dogmas get established, but it is also how they
get challenged- we always need dissent.
Of course there have to be limits. We need the best science
we can get, open to challenge and constantly tested, but we can’t keep arguing
over the basics for ever. Given the overall apparently mostly consistent upward
trend in temperatures and the weight of evidence on impacts, arguably we can’t afford
to ignore the potential implications. Or delay attempts to respond. The latter
is clearly what some contrarians want- they seem implacably opposed to change. Willful
obstructionism may persist even in the case of response options which could
beneficial even if climate change turns out to be less of a threat that most
think. For example, most of the responses to climate change will also deal with
the air pollution crisis hitting some newly industrializing countries.
Responses to that are getting urgent.
The Global Warming Policy Forum recently portrayed the climate
debate as a reflecting ‘Manichean paranoia,’ a term used by the late US
statesman Zbigniew Brzezinski to describe a worldview in which your
opponent is considered to be malign and willfully ignorant, whereas your
own side is noble and uniquely enlightened. Well maybe, but the deeper reality
may be that the climate debate is really just a front or a proxy for more
fundamental disagreements about which way to go- centralised corporate
fossil-based energy technology, and perhaps nuclear, versus decentralized/green
energy. That’s certainly a recognisable battle and one that looks like it’s being
won by the latter in many situations, as pollution worries grow and renewables
get cheaper and boom globally. No wonder the GWPF and its ilk now spend so much
of their time trying to undermine renewables.
Although the Trump regime seems to be taking it well beyond
that: www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/07/usda-climate-change-language-censorship-emails and some arguably remain beyond the pale in
their denial: http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2017/07/Clive-James.pdf
Perhaps the best that can be done in the circumstances is to
continue to publish the science results: http://www.ametsoc.net/sotc2016/StateoftheClimate2016_lowres.pdf
And to challenge nonsense when it appears: http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/07/26/heartlands-6-reasons-to-be-a-climate-change-skeptic-are-six-demonstrable-lies/
- 723d43856189 While getting on with renewables. And hoping for
changed views from the likes of Trump: http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-administration-wont-withdraw-from-paris-climate-deal-1505593922
