New West Environmental Grok
Dire Global Warming Forecast Sugarcoated?
By Brodie Farquhar, 1-31-07
 | |
|
Anyone interested in the global warming issue (is it caused by Man or not?) is waiting for a Friday report from Paris – the first of four major global warming reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, sponsored by the United Nations.
The Associated Press has a preview on the report that acknowledges it will be full of dire forecasts, but may be sugarcoated at the same time. Critics charge the report doesn’t account enough for the melting icecaps of Greenland and Antarctica.
Those ice sheets are melting at a rate that has taken may scientists by surprise, raising the specter of sea levels rising faster and higher than predicted before. (Hint: this might be a good time to unload Florida real estate.)
Yet the IPCC is a cautious group, which tends to make its forecasts all the more dire and alarming. The IPCC is predicting an average temperature increase of 3 Centigrade by 2050, which the British Meteorological Office judged last year as capable of triggering “dangerous” climate change. That’s “dangerous” as in more extreme droughts, flooding and variability in weather. Reuters reports that Indonesia could lose 2,000 islands by 2030.
Of course, critics around the world are doing their best to either cast doubt on the scientific consensus behind global warming warnings, or actually saying it might be a good thing.
Meanwhile, hundreds of climate scientists in the United States are saying they’ve been pressured by the Bush administration to delete or tone down their findings. Every administration is guilty – to one degree or another – of trying to downplay, create doubt or discredit science that conflicts with policy positions. Todd Wilkinson’s “Science Under Siege””>“Science Under Siege” is an excellent primer on this topic, while Rep. Henry Waxman’s minority report on the Bush assault on science brings matters up to date. (Waxman’s investigative hearings are sure to make quite a few people squirm in the coming months.)
Turning to Monday’s wolf delisting announcement from the Interior Department, it is interesting what wasn’t said by officials, under questioning from the nation’s press. Asked about Idaho’s plans to shoot 80 percent of that state’s wolves, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director H. Dale Hall danced right on by to focus on Idaho’s wolf management plan, which vague though it is, is acceptable to the Service for delisting the wolf in Idaho. Somehow, the stated intent by Governor Otter to kill hundreds of wolves, isn’t formally considered.
Hall was also asked what was going to happen to the total number of Wyoming wolves if they continue to be managed by the feds. Again, Hall focused on continuing past management practices (kill wolves that kill livestock) without directly addressing the issue of how many wolves will there be under Service management. Under past Service management, Wyoming wolf numbers have grown dramatically, much to the consternation of livestock interests, the Legislature and Governor Freudenthal. Mike Jimenez, the federal wolf recovery leader for Wyoming, has said that the 20 percent growth rate for wolves is kept in check, because that’s about the same number that are removed due to livestock conflicts.
Speaking of the governor and legislative leaders, they seem to be convinced that wolves are wreaking havoc on state elk herds, although the evidence seems to be spotty at best and even contradictory. Wolves do change elk behavior (they’re harder to find), but declines in cow/calf ratios can not be pinned solely on wolves – there are other predators to consider, hunting impacts, disease and drought impacts on forage.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/
A teaser:
"My main point today is that politics and science cannot in practice be separated. Consequently, policies for the production, promotion, and use of information in decision making should be based on the realities of science in politics, and not on the mistaken impression that they can somehow be kept separate. Efforts to separate them will in most case only contribute to the pathological politicization of science."
"An example of how easy it is to misrepresent science in a political setting, consider the memorandum prepared last week by the majority staff of this Committee to provide background information on this hearing. The memorandum states, quite correctly, that "a consensus has emerged on the basic science of global warming." It then goes on to assert that:
". . . recently published studies have suggested that the impacts [of global warming] include increases in the intensity of hurricanes and tropical storms . . .."
It supports this claim by citing three papers. But what the memorandum does not relate is that authors of each of the three cited studies recently participated with about 120 experts from around the world to prepare a consensus statement under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) which concluded that "no consensus has been reached on this issue."
The WMO Statement was subsequently endorsed by the Executive Council of the American Meteorological Society. Thus, the science cited in the Committee memo is incomplete and misleading. Such cherry picking and misrepresentations of science are endemic in political discussions involving science."
As I understand the political linkage of hurricanes to climate change led to Dr. Landsea's resignation from the IPCC when he believed such linkage was unsupported by the science.
I think spending a few days thawing waterlines might give them a little more rounded perspective on things.
Regarding climate change, the chaotic process difference between moving from warming to cooling and back again, here is a little different take. Think of where we are as point A and where the climate is going as point B. Now imagine that the car we are traveling in is part Ford (greenhouse gases) and part Chevy (solar radiation). For the sake of discussion let’s just say that it’s 50-50. We now have a Fauxchev. That vehicle can easily travel between 30 to 60 mph towards point B. We can easily argue over the percentages but it takes both to complete the vehicle for the journey… and we can argue over whether the destination will be warmer or cooler but the destination will still be a changed climate. All of this has happened before and I expect to happen again. So why isn’t the debate more focused on adapting, surviving, and building resiliency for the inevitable arrival at point B?
Here is an interesting take from Dr. Nir Shaviv as he argues the Fauxchev: http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar
As for Marion's comments on current winter conditions, it isn't even worth the effort for me to challenge, but I do have one question for him. This summer, should we experience a month of triple digit temperatures, will that lead you to say that "gee, its been hot outside for a while...maybe that global warming thingy has some merit?" You're applying Ann Coulter logic, which, in itself, is an oxymoron. The effects of global warming on local, diurnal weather conditions leads to more extreme highs and lows and not to making the temperature at any one locale consistently higher.
"PARIS Feb 4, 2007 (AP)— Forty-five nations answered France's call for a new environmental body to slow inevitable global warming and protect the planet, perhaps with policing powers to punish violators."
Like the statement in the AP article my opinion is that the destination is certain. All we have is the power to influence the speed (your "C") at which we arrive at B. When has climate ever been in stasis? All of the rhetoric that somehow humankind can stop climate change by restricting carbon emmissions and never arrive at B is something I just cannot agree with. Hillary Clinton made the unqualified statment a couple of days ago that we can stop global warming. Reminded me of that reckless "Mission Accomplished" sign on the aircraft carrier.
I do agree that Sen. Clinton's statement is silly, we can't stop climate change, we can only hope to take steps to limit the overall impact. Your attempt to argue that the issue is whether or not the Earth undergoes climate change is irrelevant. That isn't the point. It does undergo change. The only issue to address is can we alter the magnitude of that change by altering our behavior?
Craig, my youngest son and grandson love to ice fish. I don't understand, I did my best!
Global warming doesn't address daily temperatures in specific locales. It looks at the big picture (the whole Earth). Arguing that global warming is a fallacy because we are experiencing a period of cold temperatures in the US this winter shows a lack of understanding of the phenomenon (ie: Ann Coulter logic). I could just as easily argue about extreme weather conditions presently occuring in Australia, as they are experiencing record heat there this summer. It too would be as relevant as your observations about our weather (and as irrelevant to the discussion about global warming).
BTW, the forecast this week for the Boise area is for high temperatures in the upper 40s to low 50s, which seems a bit warm to me for February (see, I can make an irrelevant argument just like you). In fact, I just checked that the average temperature here is in the mid-30s at this time of year.
Iwin, I guarantee you if there are 3 months worth of triple digit temps here in Wyoming, I'll take another look at global warming! It doesn't apply if those temps are in Death Valley or the Sahara.
Dr. Pielke writes:
"Whatever one thinks about the science of climate change, one should have concern about scientific advisory positions being determined by purely political criteria, as described in the interview with Oregon's governor. Imagine if George Bush said what the Oregon governor said above in regards to James Hansen -- "I just think there has to be somebody that says, 'this is the U.S. position on this.'" We saw exactly this sort of treatment of intelligence expertise with the Bush Administration's shenanigans leading to the Iraq War.
One should also be concerned about double standards among observers. Both Hansen and Taylor are admittedly outside the IPCC's scientific consensus on climate change and both are inconvenient for the elected officials for whom they serve. Do we really want to go down a path where politicians are able to manipulate governmental advisors to suit their policy preferences? Do the rest of us need any semblance of intellectual coherence on this issue? Or should we instead have of scientific advice simply reflect a convenient political litmus test?"
On his Prometheus blog you will find a column of his entitled, "Lifting the Taboo on Adaptation." In that column you will find a PDF link to his paper that appears in Nature. He points out the importance of adaption planning along with mitigation.
The Denver post also has a article about his paper: http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_5180364
From the DP article:
>>>>>>
"Climate change is unavoidable," Pielke said. "We need to invest in adaptation."
Many climate models project a hot, dry future for Colorado and the rest of the U.S. West, for example.
For people living in Colorado today and their children, population growth will have a much greater impact on water use and availability than droughts decades in the future, Pielke said.
"Here, it would make very little sense to link our water resources policy to energy policy," he said.
Energy policy is important long-term, to cut down the levels of greenhouse warming gases in the atmosphere, Pielke said.
"But we should be able to do those things - adaptation and mitigation - at the same time, without forcing them to be trade-offs," Pielke said.
Michael Glantz, a social scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, said that while Pielke is right about adaptation, "it's not rocket science. I've been saying this for 35 years."
It makes little sense, for example, to rebuild in the same spots following a major flood, Glantz said.
An "adaptive" policy would limit rebuilding to areas where people and homes are less likely to be lost, he said.
<<<<<<
>>>>>>
Adaptation to global climate change is an essential response to a warming planet
Author: Arizona State University
Published on Feb 8, 2007, 07:22
Temperatures are rising on Earth, which is heating up the debate over global warming and the future of our planet, but what may be needed most to combat global warming is a greater focus on adapting to our changing planet, says a team of science policy experts writing in this week's Nature magazine.
While many consider it taboo, adaptation to global climate change needs to be recognized as just as important as "mitigation," or cutting back, of greenhouse gases humans pump into Earth's atmosphere. The science policy experts, writing in the Feb. 8, 2007 issue of Nature, say adapting to the changing climate by building resilient societies and fostering sustainable development would go further in securing a future for humans on a warming planet than just cutting gas emissions.
"New ways of thinking about, talking about and acting on climate change are necessary if a changing society is to adapt to a changing climate," the researchers state in "Lifting the Taboo on Adaptation."
The policy experts include Daniel Sarewitz, director of Arizona State University's Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes; Roger Pielke Jr., University of Colorado, Boulder; Gwyn Prins, London School of Economics, London, England, and Columbia University, New York; and Steve Rayner of the James Martin Institute at Oxford University, Oxford, England.
Sarewitz and his colleagues argue that the time to elevate adaptation to the same level of attention and effort as the more popular mitigation of greenhouse gases is now, and that the future of the planet demands realistic actions to help the survival of humans.
"The obsession with researching and reducing the human effects on climate has obscured the more important problems of how to build more resilient and sustainable societies, especially in poor regions and countries," Sarewitz said.
"Adaptation has been portrayed as a sort of selling out because it accepts that the future will be different from the present," Sarewitz added. "Our point is the future will be different from the present no matter what, so to not adapt is to consign millions to death and disruption."
Adaptation is the process by which societies prepare for and minimize the negative effects of a variety of future environmental stresses on society, Sarewitz said. Mitigation is the effort to slow and reduce the negative impacts of climate change by slowing the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
"The key difference is that adaptation is the process by which societies make themselves better able to cope with an uncertain future, whereas mitigation is an effort to control just one aspect of that future by controlling the behavior of the climate," Sarewitz said...(goes on)
<<<<<<<<<<