Climate Science has repeatedly written on the the need to focus on the assessment of the vulnerability of important social and environmental resources to threats of all types, including human climate forcings. See, for example,
Will Climate Effects Trump Health Effects In Air Quality Regulations?
Wood Burning As A CO2 Emission Reduction Concept! Is This A Serious Proposal?
A Win-Win Solution to Environmental Problems
This theme is also emphasized in our new book
Cotton, W.R. and R.A. Pielke, 2007: Human impacts on weather and climate, Cambridge University Press, 330 pp.
The narrow focus of the IPCC on CO2 as the dominate environmental threat and the use of multi-decadal global climate model predictions for policymakers, is, therefore, an inappropriately too narrow perspective. Indeed, the unintended consequences of the narrowly focused IPCC reports, and the naive acceptance of the reports by many policymakers, has unleashed a mulitifaceted risk to society and the environment.
Now, even environmental groups who have bought into the IPCC conclusions are beginning to recognize the threat that such a narrow view creates (and thanks to Benny Peiser for alerting us to the news release below).
The news release (reproduced below without its footnotes) from the News Center of CommonDreams.org is entitled
“IPCC Assessment report: Environmental Groups Condemn IPCC Call For Large Scale Biofuels as a Climate Disaster In The Making”
reads
“The IPCC Assessment Report Four has made a compelling case on what global warming means to the planet this century. It is the IPCC´s strongest warning yet that drastic cuts in carbon emissions are vital if we are to avoid a catastrophic acceleration of climate change. Environmental groups are, however, deeply concerned that the IPCC’s Summary for Policy Makers on climate mitigation, released earlier today, includes a recommendation for large- scale expansion of biofuels from monocultures, including from GM crops, even though monoculture expansion is a driving force behind the destruction of rainforests and other carbon sinks and reservoirs, thus accelerating climate change. The IPCC also recommend the expansion of large-scale agroforestry monoculture plantations. These plantations, which will include GM trees, are similarly linked to ecosystem destruction. Monoculture expansion is a major threat to the livelihoods and food sovereignty of communities many of which are already bearing the brunt of climate change disasters caused largely by the fossil fuel emissions of industrialised countries.
Almuth Ernsting of Biofuelwatch stated: “It is already clear that the burgeoning demand for biofuels that has been created to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is actually increasing them by deforestation in the tropics and accelerating climate change. So far, only 1% of global transport fuel comes from biofuels, yet already biofuels cause steep rises in grain and vegetable oil prices, threatening the food security of poor people and spurring agricultural expansion into forests and grasslands, on which we depend for a stable climate”.
The IPCC recommend second generation GM biofuels, which are widely believed to be at least 10-15 years away from commercialisation. There are serious concerns about the risks involved in technologies which will rely heavily on GM microbes and fungi for the refining process, as well as GM crops and trees.
Mayer Hillman, senior fellow emeritus at Policy Studies Institute said: “There is an inherent and acutely serious problem within the report. On the one hand, it leaves us in no doubt to how vital conservation of the planet´s ecosystems and carbon sinks are to averting the worst predictions made in the previous sections of the report. On the other, it proposes the large scale use of the biosphere to satisfy demand in the transport and energy sectors.” Simone Lovera, managing coordinator of the Global Forest Coalition, a worldwide coalition of NGOs and Indigenous Peoples Organizations added: “It is difficult to see how an emphasis on protecting rainforests and curbing deforestation is compatible with using biofuels as a solution to climate change when there are no policy instruments that guarantee biofuel expansion without accelerating deforestation.”
The IPCC report would appear to suggest that the climate can be stabilised at a safe level without reducing growth. The signatories to the press release believe that only large-scale reductions in energy use in the industrial nations, together with investment in sustainable forms of renewable energy, such as wind and solar power, can avoid the worst impacts of climate change.”
This press release by several environmental groups emphasizes why we need to reconsider the consequences of accepting the human input of CO2 as the most significant threat we face. The IPCC, as a result of its very limited approach of not even adequately considering the diversity of other human climate forcings, as well as the consequences for its recommendations, has itself created threats to society and to the environmental.
To counter the IPCC what is needed is an update of the Oregon Initiative and Liepzig Declaration. These are now a decade old and are no longer mentioned in the media. If a significant number of the 2500 IPCC scientists sign on to an anti-alarmist declaration it will counter the so-called consensus.
I am also thinking of the possibility of having 2 declarations. One that expresses anti-alarmism and one that expresses outright disagreement that anthropogenic CO2 emissions significantly effect the climate.
Comment by Reid — May 7, 2007 @ 8:20 am
Reid - Thank you for your comments.
I suggest we also need an inclusive climate assessment that addresses the many science issues that the IPCC ignored and/or was in error on.
Comment by Roger Pielke Sr. — May 7, 2007 @ 10:47 am
The Precautionary Principle, in one form or another, is often the argument of last resort for the defense of the CO2 centric view of climate change. One can point out a lot of solid arguments why CO2 is not the primary threat to Earth and humanity, but the defenders always respond with: “But what if you are wrong and the world’s leading climate scientists are right? Can we really afford to take that risk?”
The article above demonstrates what has been obvious to many for a very long time. The Precautionary Principle is neither precautionary nor a principle, as its use often causes greater harm than it was intended to avoid, and the arbitrary way it is applied, hardly qualifies it as a ‘principle’. Use of the PP is not a logical argument, because it is self-contradictory.
Yet, the idea that we should damn the torpedoes and go full speed ahead on the mitigation of carbon emissions is not based on solid scientific reasoning, but on the oft unspoken Precautionary Principle. This is a recipe for disaster far greater than the climate change forecasts!
Comment by Jim Clarke — May 7, 2007 @ 6:58 pm
The appropriate use of the Precautionary Principle, anyway, is that we should not waste the base of the food chain.
Comment by Harry Haymuss — May 7, 2007 @ 9:55 pm
#1: Reid; I don’t think the ‘Oregon petition’ is a suitable precedent for what you are suggesting, though I get your point. There are plenty of climate scientist who are already trying to get the public to understand that the problems that are projected as a result of climate change are not of the sort popularly promoted in the mass media - Mike Hulme and Carl Wunsch spring to mind as recent examples, as well as Roger, of course!
#2: Roger; did I miss a post? I know about your concerns about where the IPCC has omitted important climate forcings, or not taken them seriously enough, but I was not aware of there being many science issues that the report gets ‘wrong’; can you expand on this observation, please, or refer me to the bit I missed.
#3: Jim: I think the precautionary principle is vanishing from the debate these days (for better or worse). We now seem to be at a stage where future problems are treated as ‘givens’, not ‘what-ifs?’ I don’t think anyone will argue that the current ‘balance of evidence’ favours CO2 emissions as principle culprit in recent and future projections of warming, the question is whether this evidence is truly, properly ‘balanced’, or whether the weight of evidence is in part a function of the machinery which generates it. I understand Roger’s stance to be that the entire machinery of climate assessment is ’skewed’ towards a single component of a complex system, to the detriment of a proper scientific understanding of all of the other components. I agree with Roger that too many uncertainties persist in climate science, which is, after all, still a very ‘young’ discipline, to be comfortable with the idea that research (and funding) is focussed as narrowly as it often appears to be.
As an aside, I am getting a broad impression, in my informal contact with climate scientists via the web, that the community is a lot less comfortable with the WGII and WHIII output than the WGI. It is too early to say for certain, but I suspect that we may see some distancing within the community from some of the more tenuous material in these policy-oriented sections of the AR4.
Regards,
Comment by Fergus Brown — May 8, 2007 @ 6:26 am
In my estimate, IPCC does not focus on climate change, but on world governance. I agree that globalization of environmental rules and regulations might reduce the negative impacts of unrestrained commercial globalization. I can imagine all kinds of green NGO’s and green bureaucrats becoming starry-eyed about creating countervailing powers. They did succeed in Europe, after all. Why not aim higher?
If one looks at IPCC from this perspective, one can see why they are dismissive of local and regional climate-change concerns. They don’t care, because local problems do not support their ultimate objective. And they have no mechanism available to them other than aiming for a global bureaucracy. In climate and environment, the usual mechanisms of a market economy won’t work. I wish I knew a way out of this quandary. I suspect there isn’t any, short of permanent world-wide economic warfare.
Please don’t construe these remarks as a defense for laissez-faire policies at local, regional, and global levels. All I am doing is try to understand why IPCC behaves the way it does. For them, science is but a means toward a political goal. Hydra? They don’t mind making victims along the way. Why should they bother? They appear to have the machinery of democratic process on their side.
Comment by Henk Tennekes — May 8, 2007 @ 6:40 am
Climate Science has been asked what is meant by a “Hydra”.
The meaning is captured by the text from http://www.pantheon.org/articles/h/hydra.html
” The Hydra which lived in the swamps near to the ancient city of Lerna in Argolis, was a terrifying monster which like the Nemean lion was the offspring of Echidna (half maiden - half serpent), and Typhon (had 100 heads), other versions think that the Hydra was the offspring of Styx and the Titan Pallas. The Hydra had the body of a serpent and many heads (the number of heads deviates from five up to one hundred there are many versions but generally nine is accepted as standard), of which one could never be harmed by any weapon, and if any of the other heads were severed another would grow in its place (in some versions two would grow). Also the stench
from the Hydra’s breath was enough to kill man or beast(in other versions it was a deadly venom). When it emerged from the swamp it would attack herds of cattle and local villagers, devouring them with its numerous heads. It totally terrorized the vicinity for many years.”
Comment by Roger Pielke Sr. — May 8, 2007 @ 6:54 am
Fergus - Thank you as usual for your excellent comments.
With respect to your question, the IPCC WG1 report has several clear errors. I have weblogged on these;
Scitizen Column Published Entitled “Scientific Errors With the IPCC Statement for Policymakers�
An Error In The 2007 IPCC Statement For Policymakers On The 2005 Global-Average Radiative Forcing
Several Science Errors (Or, At Best Cherrypicking) In the 2007 IPCC Statement For Policymakers
We are also working on documenting the exclusion of peer reviewed papers in the WG1 report which differ from their conclusions. Our analysis so far indicates that they failed to be inclusive on the citation of important climate change science.
There are also only a relatively few climate scientists who actually wrote the WG1 report; see
How Many Climate Scientists Were Involved With Writing the 2007 IPCC Statement For Policymakers?
Comment by Roger Pielke Sr. — May 8, 2007 @ 7:24 am
Re #5 Fergus comments “I don’t think anyone will argue that the current ‘balance of evidence’ favours CO2 emissions as principle culprit in recent and future projections of warming”
I argue that the balance of evidence indicates CO2 is a minor to insignificant secondary climate driver in recent warming. I also argue future projections of warming are mathematical wizard-of-Oz conjuring not science. Since I am just a semi-scientist (BS in Physics) my opinion doesn’t carry weight but there are dozens of Ph.D. climate scientists who have the same opinion. Many have commented on this and other climate science weblogs.
Comment by Reid — May 8, 2007 @ 8:57 am
Re #5,
Is the reason scientists are less comfortable with WGII and WGIII due to the fact those governmental agencies wanting control of energy as Henk illustrates in #6 are pulling the results away from the scientists, who realize there is more work to be done, with too much uncertainty?
Comment by Harry Haymuss — May 8, 2007 @ 9:51 am
I can see no urgency in combating climate change by cutting CO2 emissions. The effects we have seen so far does not warrant urgent cuts in CO2, even if the whole of the rise in temperature after WWII would be ascribed to CO2. In fact, on current trends on price per kwh for renewables they will have replaced fossile fuel for many appplications in a few decades, and for all in some 50 years (meaning a complete halt on CO2 emissions). This is clearly enough to avoid such dangers from climate change that would be worse than the negative impact of a fast reduction of CO2.
(And here I am assuming that not much “latent heat” remains, as indicated by temperature trends and ARGO data.)
Comment by Lars Berg — May 8, 2007 @ 12:58 pm
For much of its existence, the UN has been largely ineffectual. Until the advent of the IPCC. The whole issue of anthropogenic climate change presents an opportunity to the UN to play a role that is probably quite unprecedented in history.
The UN is of course not a monolithic organization. Based on my personal experience with international organizations, it is likely to be highly fragmented. So the question is, which interest groups stand to benefit from the UN’s new found role. The following possibilities spring to mind:
1. NGOs - however tiny and insignificant they may be in their host country, they gain legitimacy and a voice in the UN by virtue of their status as an NGO, and credibility in the larger community by virtue their association with the UN - this is strange is it not. NGOs have much to gain as the UN becomes more powerful.
2. Slow growing economies - suppose you have an economy that is unable to keep up with other fast growing economies, one way to play the game would be to change the rules of the game so that all economies have to slow down.
3. Small economies - the UN gives all its members a voice, and the opportunity to influence world affairs.
4. Bureacracy - more work, more visibility and more prestige - and legitimacy.
This probably adds up to a large proportion of the organization (member states and staff). I have no research to back this up - so you could classify all of this as guesswork.
How anyone can assume that the IPCC (being UN sponsored) can be completely apolitical is a complete puzzle to me.
Comment by KJ — May 8, 2007 @ 1:40 pm
… continuation of my earlier post ….
As the IPCC goes beyond ‘warning’ about the climate, to make specific recommendations such as those on biofuels, I would anticipate the ‘coalition’ to begin to show cracks. At that point, there are going to be ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ within that coalition.
Comment by KJ — May 8, 2007 @ 1:48 pm
Here is the UN’s initiative on NGOs
http://www.unpan.org/NGO.asp
Comment by KJ — May 8, 2007 @ 1:53 pm
[Sorry in advance if this is a dumb question: I am neither a scientist nor a climate modeler, and this question is not directly related to the topic at hand.]
My understanding of climate models is that they start from the absolute simplest “zero-dimensional” models (where the earth is a single blob and the radiation budget is simulated) to “three-dimensional” models with finite elements of lat, lon and altitude with ocean and atmospheric circulation.
If you look at the IPCC reports, they post graphs of the climate models for the next hundred years. They all, essentially, show a straight line where temperature approximately correlates with CO2 concentration. The slope of the line is a little different in each, but they are essentially the same multiplied by a constant. I would think, with a zero-dimensional model, you’d get a similar graph.
The problem with the climate is that it is so complex, you can’t expect to accurately predict the minor fluctuations any further out than small time scales. (The same as weather models that fall down a few days out).
My question, in a nutshell, is: Do you think that the big complicated climate models are any more accurate than the zero-dimensional ones once you get to the time scale of a hundred years?
Thanks,
tim
Comment by Tim G — May 8, 2007 @ 6:02 pm
Tim - Your question is actually an excellent one!
What have we learned from the 3-D global climate models with respect to the effect of added CO2 on the climate system on time scales of 100 years, that we would not also obtain from simplier models (such a zonally symmetric global model)? Since the 3-D global models have not even been able to accurately simulate the linear trend in the tropical zonal averaged tropospheric temperatures for the last several decades (as reported in the first CCSP report), we should not have any confidence in them for the coming decades.
Comment by Roger Pielke Sr. — May 8, 2007 @ 6:41 pm
IPCC logic? Were some ambitious soul to introduce all IPCC generated figures into a model, what would the trend show? Could the trend be blamed on increasing co2? If more co2 = more moderation in prediction, then this is surely the most convincing argument to pump more co2 into the air!
Humour apart, thanks for this most excellent site.
My question. Is satellite produced data regarding measurement of incoming and outgoing radiation available?
Comment by Ian — May 9, 2007 @ 3:51 am
Ian - Thank you for your comment.
On the satellite measurement of incoming and outgoing radiation, these certainly are monitored, although we still need better accuracy. There is a summary of research on the topic of incoming (solar) fluxes from the 2006 SORCE meeting (e.g. see ). For outgoing longwave radiation, for example, see.
Comment by Roger Pielke Sr. — May 9, 2007 @ 6:47 am
Prof. Pielke, thanks for the help.
The first link in the article referenced by ’see’ seems to be dead.
Comment by Ian — May 9, 2007 @ 10:30 am
Ian - It was working for me. Please check again, and if you still have problem, please e-mail dallas@cires.colorado.edu.
Comment by Roger Pielke Sr. — May 9, 2007 @ 11:15 am
THE GREATEST SCIENTIFIC SCANDAL OF OUR TIME > pdf
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf
Comment by Barry Day — May 18, 2007 @ 3:04 am