"Alarmism" is a term that gets bandied about a lot. It is often said that one should not call out "fire" in a crowded building. But it really depends, one might say, on whether the "calling out" is done in such a way as to simultaneously prevent a stampede and prevent anyone getting burned.

This riddle was very much on my mind as I sat down to write my thoughts on Mark Lynas's book, Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet (London: Fourth Estate, 2007). I don't read much popular science literature, and I doubt I would have read this book if I hadn't made the mistake of referring to it (in a negative manner) in the comments section of a RealClimate post. I don't think my error was very grave. What I actually said was that if what I had heard about the book from the press materials were true, then the book was probably alarmist and not worth reading. But I don't blame the author for asking me to read the book and see for myself. He said that the press (in this case Sunday Times (London)) had misconstrued what he says in the book, and he assured me that is was all based on very careful review of the scientific literature. I was thus both curious and obligated to read the book.

Mark Lynas will no doubt be pleased that I very much like the book. To be sure, it is alarming, but the question of whether it is alarmist is a more difficult one, and I don't think the answer lies in debating the book. Rather, it lies in looking closely at the underlying science the book builds on. I don't intend to do that here, but I do think that all climate scientists (particularly those that talk to the public) ought to read this book, and ask themselves a question. I'll get to that question at the end, after saying a bit more about the book.

Six Degrees, as the title suggests, is comprised of six main chapters (plus an introduction and a conclusion). Each of the main chapters examine what the earth might look like as we raise the planet's temperature by 1^o, 2^o, etc. degrees Celsius, based on what the scientific literature has to say about it. Laying out the book this way makes for a good logical progression of ideas, and a fair bit of suspense. Very few people, Lynas says, have got "the slightest idea what two, four or six degrees of average warming actually means in reality, and I'm sure he is right.

In Chapter 1, at 1^o, we have predictions of, for example, an annually ice free Arctic ocean. Yes, quite plausible and supported by the literature, and perhaps occurring a little sooner than expected. At 2^o, we have, "so whilst southern China can expect more flooding as the two-degree line is approached, the oceanic time lag means that it may take much longer for the rain-bearing summer monsoon to reach the drought-stricken north." Yes, certainly plausible based on the studies Lynas cites. At 4^o, we have "with global sea levels half a meter or more above current levels, [the Egyptian city of] Alexandria's long lifespan will be drawing to a close. Even in today's climate, a substantial part of the city lies below sea level, and by the latter part of this century a terminal inundation will have begun. … a rise in sea levels of 50 cm would displace 1.5 million people and cause $35 billion of damage." Alarmist? Hardly. A 50 cm rise in sea level, is well within the conservative IPCC projections, even for temperature rises less than four degrees.

At 5^o and 6^o, the book really does start to sound alarmist, with the analogy to Dante's Inferno – used to good literary effect throughout the book – coming very much to the fore. At five degrees, we have "an entirely new planet is coming into being – one largely unrecognizable from the Earth we know today. At six degrees, "… the pump is primed … not for flourishing palm trees in Alaska, but for the worst of all earthly outcomes: mass extinction."

Aha, say the skeptics! It is alarmist after all. But is it? Lynas's reference to the "entirely different planet" actually refers to the fact that at five degrees, the "remaining ice sheets are eventually eliminated from both poles." That's entirely true. And unlike in Gore's discussion of sea level in Inconvenient Truth Lynas does emphasize the long timescales (thousands of years) in this case. Furthermore, there is published research that raises the likelihood of the significant loss of ice sheets at lower temperatures, and Lynas could have claimed certainty of a disappearing Greenland ice sheet in an earlier chapter. That he doesn't do that is characteristic of the book: it doesn't tend to go beyond the published literature. This is what Lynas claims at the outset — "all of the material in the book comes from the peer-reviewed scientific literature" – and I think he does an admirable job.

And that brings us back to the question I promised to raise at the beginning, which is this:

If a reading of the published scientific literature paints such a frightening picture of the future as Six Degrees suggests – even while it honestly represents that literature – then are we being too provocative in the way we write our scientific papers? Or are we being too cautious in the way we talk about the implications of the results?

If you are a RealClimate regular, you are undoubtedly aware of our ongoing interest in the developments in the scientific understanding of potential hurricane-climate change linkages. This is an area of the science where a substantial body of significant new research has emerged even since RealClimate's inception in late 2004. The scientific research in this area, and the media frenzy and political theatrics that have inescapably followed it, are thoughtfully placed in a broader historical context in a fascinating new book by Chris Mooney entitled Storm World: Hurricanes, Politics, and the Battle over Global Warming. Anyone who is at all interested in the scientific history that has led to our current understanding of Hurricanes and their potential linkages with climate change, will find this book a page turner. The book is a nice complement to Kerry Emanuel's recent book Divine Wind: The History and Science of Hurricanes (which too is so readable that it lies on our coffee table). Mooney in a sense picks up where Emanuel's left off. Like Emanuel, he explores the history of the science. But he uses this historical context, and his studies of the personalities of key actors, to explore how the current scientific debate can be traced back to a rift that has emerged over many decades between distinct communities of atmospheric scientists.
(more…)

By William and Gavin

On Thursday March 8th, the UK TV Channel 4 aired a programme titled "The Great Global Warming Swindle". We were hoping for important revelations and final proof that we have all been hornswoggled by the climate Illuminati, but it just repeated the usual specious claims we hear all the time. We feel swindled. Indeed we are not the only ones: Carl Wunsch (who was a surprise addition to the cast) was apparently misled into thinking this was going to be a balanced look at the issues (the producers have a history of doing this), but who found himself put into a very different context indeed [Update: a full letter from Wunsch appears as comment 109 on this post]

So what did they have to say for themselves?
(more…)

New addition: Download an annotated pdf of the Fraser report. An interactive pdf file, to be read on the screen, is here, and a printable version is here. Suggestions for further commenting are welcome. Additions to the pdf have to be short, and tied to particular pieces of text or figures. And of course we will only incorporate comments that we deem to be scientifically sound and cogent.

*****************

While most of the world's climate scientists were following the IPCC fest last week, a few contrarians left out in the cold were trying to to organize their own party.

An unofficial, "Independent Summary for Policymakers" (ISPM) of the IPCC Fourth Assessment report has been delivered by the Fraser Institute. It's a long, imposing-looking document, resembling, come to think of it, the formatting of the real Summary for Policymakers (SPM) document that was released on Friday after final negotiations of the IPCC in Paris last week. The Fraser Institute has assembled an awesome team of 10 authors, including such RC favorites as tilter-against-windmills-and-hockey-sticks Ross McKitrick, and other luminaries such as William Kininmonth, MSc, M.Admin — whose most recent paper is "Don't be Gored into Going Along" in the Oct-Nov issue of Power Engineer. To be fair, he did publish a paper on weather forecasting, back in 1973. According to the press release, the London kickoff event will be graced by the presence of "noted environmentalist" David Bellamy. It's true he's "noted," but what he's noted for is his blatant fabrication of numbers purporting to show that the world's glaciers are advancing rather retreating, as reported here.

(more…)

Halldór Björnsson, William Connolley e Gavin Schmidt (traduzido por F. M. Ramos e I. B. T. Lima)

No fim do ano passado, o Tesouro britânico publicou o Relatório Stern sobre as conseqüências econômicas das mudanças climáticas, que foi recebido com entusiasmo pelo conjunto da classe política do Reino Unido, isto é a esquerda e a direita. Depois, ele foi objeto de inúmeros debates e críticas (ver a lista que preparou Rabbett Run). O essencial da discussão realizou-se em torno dos problemas econômicos (e éticos) associados à “atualização” (isto é, como medir o bem-estar futuro em comparação ao bem-estar atual) – particularmente o Relatório Nordhaus. Nós não estamos qualificados para comentar estes assuntos, assim como não comentamos no passado.

No entanto, como ilustram as entrevistas concedidas durante um recente programa de Radio
4 (das quais uma com William Connolley), certas questões diziam respeito à ciência que sustenta os cálculos econômicos. Vamos tentar abordá-las a seguir. Ao contrário de um relatório mais antigo da Câmara dos Lordes, Stern não perde tempo tentando trapacear, e essencialmente busca a ciência no relatório do IPCC, com algumas atualizações de trabalhos mais recentes. A maior parte da ciência está resumida no capítulo um, e um leitor casual familiarizado com o relatório IPCC encontrará poucas surpresas em seções que incluem afirmações como “Uma massa esmagadora de evidências científicas indica que o clima da Terra está mudando rapidamente, predominantemente pelo efeito do crescimento dos gases de efeito estufa causado pelas atividades humanas” etc. Entretanto, as possibilidades científicas em Stern são ponderadas de maneira levemente diferente que nos relatórios do IPCC uma vez que, como ele afirma, “os tomadores de decisão devem levar em conta os riscos extremos, além das previsões médias, por que seria muito grave se estes riscos viessem a se materializar” (Stern reply to Byatt et al).

Há três componentes científicas no relatório Stern: a sensibilidade climática, as emissões futuras dos gases de efeito estufa, e os impactos de uma dada mudança, expressas na forma de anomalia de temperatura global por razões de comodidade.

A sensibilidade climática (já discutida aqui anteriormente) foi considerada como provavelmente estando no intervalo de 1.5 a 4.5 C do IPCC TAR, e no intervalo de 2 a 5 C nos modelos utilizados no relatório Stern. No entanto, a probabilidade de valores maiores tem um papel importante no relatório. Especificamente, Meinshausen* (2006) [estabelece] que há “entre 2% a 20% de probabilidade que o aquecimento possa ser maior que 5 C”. Isto é verdade, mas o relatório esquece de mencionar que outros novos estudos (Annan and Hargreaves; Hegerl et al) sugerem que é insignificante a probabilidade que a sensibilidade climática seja superior a 5 C.

A incerteza sobre o aquecimento futuro não se reduz à incerteza sobre a sensibilidade, mas depende também daquela relacionada aos níveis futuros dos gases de efeito estufa (GEE). Existe uma ampla gama de cenários e de estimativas sobre níveis futuros de GEE que são utilizados nos relatórios do IPCC. O cenário utilizado pelo Relatório Stern é o A2, mas neste cenário, os níveis de GEE na segunda metade do século XXI são superiores àqueles do cenário A1b, por exemplo. A questão não é se o cenário A2 é menos sólido que o A1, mas simplesmente que o Relatório Stern escolheu trabalhar com um dos cenários de “fortes emissões”. Além disso, o relatório reconhece também a grande incerteza (mas não claramente quantificável) de feedbacks positivos nas emissões de CO2 e CH4 de origem natural.

Com relação aos impactos das mudanças climáticas, a estória é semelhante: a maior parte dos impactos são declarados mas sua probabilidade de ocorrência é sujeita à debate. Por exemplo: o enfraquecimento da corrente termohalina sob 1 grau de aquecimento, risco de colapso em 3 graus, risco de derretimento irreversível da calota de gelo da Groenlândia para um aquecimento de 2 graus, a elevação dos mares de 5 a 12 metros durante muitos séculos, - estas eventualidades são questionáveis, e deveriam ser consideradas como “o cenário adverso” dentre os possíveis impactos.

Em conclusão: Stern de um modo geral utiliza bem a ciência do clima, mas desvia-se para o lado das estimativas mais impactantes e as utiliza em seu sumário. Este viés altista faz com que o relatório seja vulnerável a acusações de “alarmismo”. O relatório é justo em apontar que os danos e seus custos crescem de maneira desproporcional com o aumento da mudança de temperatura e portanto, dada esta assimetria, os tomadores de decisão têm razão de levá-los em conta. Entretanto, parece que a maior crítica deste relatório será atribuída (em outros foros) à parte econômica.

NB: De modo previsível, alguns dos “céticos” habituais atacaram igualmente a ciência do relatório Stern. No entanto, uma indicação de sua falta fundamental de seriedade é que, quando há realmente importantes incertezas (por exemplo, a probabilidade de que a sensibilidade seja superior àquela geralmente estimada), eles as ignoram para fazer as mesmas repetitivas, desinteressantes e incorretas afirmações que sempre fazem.

*Meinshausen, M. (2006): 'What does a 2C target mean for greenhouse gas concentrations? A brief analysis based on multi-gas emission pathways and several climate sensitivity uncertainty estimates' ("O que significa um alvo de +2°C em termos de concentração de gás de efeito estufa? Uma rápida análise fundamentada em caminhos de emissão multi-gás e várias estimativas de incerteza da sensibilidade climática"), Avoiding dangerous climate change (Evitando uma perigosa mudança climática), in H.J. Schellnhuber et al. (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 265 a 280.

Last week I attended a talk by Dennis Avery, author with Fred Singer of Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years (there is a summary here). The talk (and tasty lunch) was sponsored by the Heartland Institute, and was apparently enthusiastically received by its audience. Still whoozy from a bit of contention during the question period, a perplexed member of the audience told me privately that he thought a Point/CounterPoint discussion might be useful (he didn't know I wrote for realclimate; it was just a hypothetical thought). But here’s my attempt to accommodate. (more…)

The long-awaited NAS synthesis report on surface temperature reconstructions over the last few millennia is being released today. It's a long (155 page) report and will take a while to digest, but we applaud the committee for having tried to master a dense thicket of publications and materials on the subject over a relatively short time.

It is probably expecting too much for one report might to put to rest all the outstanding issues in a still-developing field. And given the considerable length of the report, we have little doubt that keen contrarians will be able to mine the report for skeptical-sounding sentences and cherry-pick the findings. However, it is the big picture conclusions that have the most relevance for the lay public and policymakers, and it is re-assuring (and unsurprising) to see that the panel has found reason to support the key mainstream findings of past research, including points that we have highlighted previously:
(more…)

by Eric Steig

Along with various Seattle business and community leaders, city planners and politicians, a large group of scientists from the University of Washington got a chance to preview the new film, An Inconvenient Truth, last week. The film is about Al Gore's efforts to educate the public about global warming, with the goal of creating the political will necessary for the United States to take the lead in efforts to lower global carbon emissions. It is an inspiring film, and is decidedly non-partisan in its outlook (though there are a few subtle references to the Bush administration's lack of leadership on this and other environmental issues).

Since Gore is rumored to be a fan of RealClimate, we thought it appropriate to give our first impressions.

(more…)

I've finally got round to reading a number of the many climate change-related books that have been published in recent months. These books seem to have caught the public imagination in ways that are different than in the past, and so it's worth examining how they do. The three I've read are; Eugene Linden's The Winds of Change, Elizabeth Kolbert's Field Notes from a Catastrophe and Tim Flannery's The Weather Makers. The first two writers are journalists, while the third is a scientist by background, and while there is some overlap in contents all of them, they are clearly distinct works in quite different styles. I'll mostly stick to commenting on the science though… (more…)

In a departure from normal practice on this site, this post is a commentary on a piece of out-and-out fiction (unlike most of the other posts which deal with a more subtle kind). Michael Crichton's new novel "State of Fear" is about a self-important NGO hyping the science of the global warming to further the ends of evil eco-terrorists. The inevitable conclusion of the book is that global warming is a non-problem. A lesson for our times maybe? Unfortunately, I think not.

(more…)