Fact or Fiction Tuesday!

Folks, I know you've missed me. Especially Steve. Apologies for the big gap between this and my last post. Last week was brutal and this week I'm on vacation, but feeling the insatiable desire to blog out like it's 1999.

Let's get back in the swing of things with a Fact or Fiction Friday, even though it's Tuesday. Are you ready? Take a deep breath and read this important disclaimer before you enter the abyss.

Fact or fiction: climate models are unreliable. Shall we rock out to the Jeopardy theme song while you're pondering this one? Wow, my kingdom for a synthesizer.

But I digress. The answer is . . . FICTION! "While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations."

There are really three critical issues highlighted in SkepticalScience on this point. The first is fairly straightforward and that is, no one has created a model that can explain climate's behavior over the past century without factoring in CO2 warming. The second is the distinction between weather and climate. I'll let SkepticalScience do all the talking on this one.

A common argument heard is "scientists can't even predict the weather next week - how can they predict the climate years from now". This betrays a misunderstanding of the difference between weather, which is chaotic and unpredictable, and climate which is weather averaged out over time. While you can't predict with certainty whether a coin will land heads or tails, you can predict the statistical results of a large number of coin tosses. In weather terms, you can't predict the exact route a storm will take but the average temperature and precipitation will result the same for the region over a period of time.

The last point is one I hope will stick with you if nothing else does. It deals with uncertainty. Do we know enough to act? Yes, we do. We will never have 100% certainty but no one in their right mind waits to act until they do. Many of the impacts highlighted in the 2007 report conducted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have a 95% chance of happening. Do we really need 96%, 99%, or 100% to take action? If 95 doctors said you were sick, would you believe the 5 who said you weren't?

As always, please check out SkepticalScience to learn more about this and other arguments regularly touted by those who reject the science of climate change.

Communicating risk and uncertainty

Excellent op-ed in today's Guardian. Key quote comes at the end:

. . . despite the climate scientists' best efforts at scepticism, it simply has not been possible to rule out the risk of the sort of climate changes discussed above.

Handling uncertainty is key to the scientific method, but, conversely, the existence of uncertainty is not itself cause for inaction.

This is a critical point. There is no way we can have 100% certainty about what the world will look like in 2050. But there is an enormous body of evidence, reinforced by a recent Met Office study, that suggests the need to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is more urgent than ever. By the time we have 100% certainty, it'll likely be too late.

Another study debunks "global cooling"

Here is a great, if slightly long/technical, article discussing a draft study debunking the theory of "global cooling". You avid GreenMachine readers will have seen my "Fact or Fiction Friday" post two days ago on the subject.

Like I've said before, having a reasonable debate about the science is one thing. But peddling the same tired arguments day in and day out is only delaying the implementation of policies needed to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and avoid dangerous climate change. Hopefully this latest study will put the kibosh on these misguided tactics.

Fact or Fiction Friday

Welcome back to the regularly scheduled Fact or Fiction Friday. This week's installment is what I like to refer to as the "doozy whopper" of all arguments that reject the science underpinning climate change.

Before we get started, please take a look at the standard disclaimer. Lastly, in the spirit of March Madness, let's have a good, clean game and no eye gouging.

Fact or Fiction: Global warming has stopped and cooling is beginning.

And the answer is . . . FICTION. "Empirical measurements of the Earth's heat content show the planet is still accumulating heat and global warming is still happening." For those of you who got this one right, pat yourselves on the back, maybe do a chest bump with a friend or colleague, and sing "One Shining Moment" as loud as you can.

For those of you who got this wrong, it's alright, that's why Fact or Fiction Friday is here. Check out SkepticalScience to learn more about the fallacy of "global cooling" and other arguments climate science skeptics turn to regularly.

Also, take a look at a couple of great articles from this week's Economist, one short and one pretty long. I don't agree with every line, but both reflect fairly well reasoned views on climate science, the latest dust ups, and why action to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is necessary.

More on climate change and national security

Here is a great blog post by Rear Admiral Neil Morisetti that follows on his recent interview with the National Journal.

Morisetti's post clearly frames the challenges ahead and the steps required to address the problem. Expect more from him in the coming months.

Why the Science Matters

There's been an enormous amount of chatter recently about climate change science. It started last year when computer hackers stole thousands of emails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) and has continued in light of recent revelations that a small number of projections in the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were inaccurate or not properly peer reviewed.

But neither event should take away from the fact that, despite all of the media coverage, and all of the sceptical arguments used in the aftermath of the UEA and IPCC developments, the overwhelming fundamentals have not changed - that climate change is happening and “man-made greenhouse gas emissions are very likely to be the cause”.

We are changing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere at an unprecedented rate. This significant shift is leading to changes taking place right now (e.g., Arctic sea ice melt, Greenland glacial melt, and increased ocean acidity). These are not potential impacts 20, 50, or 100 years from now, but changes happening in real time.

The latest review published by the Met Office Hadley Centre and other UK and international climate experts lends further support to these assertions. It shows the evidence for man-made climate change is even stronger now than when the IPCC carried out its last assessment in 2007.

So, do we just stand idly by and wait to see what happens? Or do we take concrete, pragmatic steps to fix the problem? If you haven't guessed by now, I say we choose the latter. Over the next few weeks, GreenMachine2050 will focus on what specific steps can be taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), improve energy security, and create new low carbon economic future.

I know. It's going to be awesome. So stay tuned.

Adaptation, the Other Climate Change Policy

The Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force has published its progress report today. It's fairly short and has some pretty strong lines. It opens with "[t]he impacts of climate change already are being felt across the United States and the entire world."

The Task Force is made up of five workgroups - science, agency process, water resource management, insurance, and international assistance. The focus is primarily on the need for a cross-government, cross-society approach in adapting to climate impacts.

The goals of the interagency work include:
- forming recommendations toward a national adaptation strategy
- integrating climate change resilience and adaptive capacity into Federal government operations
- broadening the understanding of vulnerability to climate impacts

The Progress Report highlights the work already being done within a number of agencies. However, there are still significant gaps. The final report, due in October 2010, is expected to address these challenges in much greater detail.

Climate Change and National Security

Here is an interesting interview with Rear Admiral Neil Morisetti, the UK's Special Envoy on Energy and Climate Security, by the National Journal. The UK is exploring the links between climate change and national security. Here's a quote from the interview:

[T]his is an issue that is not going to go away. It's an issue that we need to address, we need to understand more about. We need to develop the capability to monitor and see how this is happening. And we need to take action. And action is a mixture of adaptation to ensure we have the military capabilities in order to deliver the national security, and it is about mitigation and playing our part in the armed forces to reduce the future threat.

The basic premise is the natural link between a shifting climate and the resulting stresses on nations/regions already struggling to cope with existing pressures. Morisetti referenced this in his interview as well.

I would fully support the view that was expressed in the CNA think tank... report in 2007: that it is unlikely that climate change on its is going to start a conflict, but it could be the tipping point or the catalyst of conflict, because you're just heaping more stress on top of people who are already suffering from stress.

The UK isn't alone in its thinking. In addition to CNA, other groups including the Center for New American Security and the Woodrow Wilson Center have done a great deal of work on this front. I highly recommend checking out their reports and analysis.

Also take a look at what the US Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) says about climate change and the National Intelligence Assessment (NIA) which is focused entirely on climate change. The original NIA is classified but you can access an unclassified version here.

Climate Science Fact or Fiction . . . Thursday?

I'm feeling a little under the weather so not sure I'm going to be able to do the usual Fact or Fiction Friday post. So lucky you, I've decided to move it up a day. Don't get too excited, it'll go back to it's regularly scheduled Friday once I kick this cold.

As ever, please review my disclaimer before proceeding.

This is a great time of year for competition given the proximity of March Madness. Let's get stuck in.

Fact or Fiction: There is no scientific consensus on global warming.

Drum roll please . . . . Fiction! Truth is, 97% of climate scientists actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.

Good game, good game.

To find out more, you can go to SkepticalScience and learn all about what's fact and what's fiction.

In case you missed it . . .

. . . there is still a debate on climate and energy legislation going on in the Senate. I know it's hard to make it passed all the other headlines but the New York times has this to offer.

Climate Science Fact or Fiction Friday

Welcome to the second installment of Fact or Fiction Friday. This is an opportunity to set the record straight on some of the regular arguments used by sceptics. See my first Fact or Fiction post for the usual disclaimer.

Get your game faces on because it's about to get ugly.

Fact or Fiction: Earth's climate has changed long before we were pouring CO2 into the atmosphere.

Wait for it. Wait for it. Fact but if the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect and therefore capturing more heat in the atmosphere.

To find out more, you can go to http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm.

Also wanted to draw your attention to this latest study on the links between human activity and climate change.

Stay tuned for next week's installment of Fact or Fiction Friday. I also hope to put out a piece that explains the science of climate change in greater detail beforehand. You can't wait, can you?

New Report from the Center for American Progress

The Center for American Progress (CAP) released a report yesterday titled Out of the Running. Key message - the US needs to start making long-term investments in clean energy development or risk being shut out of a $2.3 trillion industry. CAP compares the US to what's happening in Germany, Spain, and China. The report finds that these countries are early winners and the US, lacking strong domestic clean energy policies, may be left behind.

For those who are interested, check out this December New Yorker article about China. It supports the CAP report's main message that the US needs to go all in on clean energy R&D, or end up losing the new Great Game.

I have a need . . . a need for speed

In May 1986, arguably one of the greatest movies of all time arrived in theaters across the US. It was a movie that taught generations of young Americans about courage, overcoming adversity, and how to execute a proper flyby in spite of a full pattern. It introduced us to great American heroes like Maverick, Goose, Iceman, and Slider.

But Top Gun was more than just a testosterone filled joyride. It was trying to fix America's gaze on a looming threat on the horizon. What was that threat? The USSR? A rogue state in the Middle East? Or was Maverick trying to warn us about something else?

I think he was, because that's just how he rolled. I argue here that Top Gun, and it's main character Maverick, were trying to warn us about the dangers of global climate change. I've just blown your mind haven't I? I'll pause here to let this sink in.

Think about it. The theme song alone, "Highway to the Danger Zone" by Kenny "Kellogg" Loggins, alludes to the dangers of runaway greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs). But the movie delves deeper into the challenges we face.

In the opening scene Maverick goes into a high speed inverted dive with a MiG which, for those of you who are connoisseurs of the movie will recall, Iceman suggests is impossible. He of course represents the vested interests in our economy who hold on to the status quo with every last ounce of strength and suggest a transition to a low carbon energy future is a fantasy. The name itself, "Iceman", identifies a relic of the past.

Maverick challenges that status quo, but not without some loss. Goose's untimely death, which brings a tear to my eye every time I watch the movie, shows us that leaving behind what we know and cherish can be hugely difficult and painful. This reflects the "creative destruction" that will come with a shift to a new energy future. Mav questions himself and his motives after Goose dies. He almost gives up and yet, deep down, he knows that would just be un-American. So what does he do? He answers the call and saves Iceman.

Why would he save a relic? Because Mav knows, in all his mighty wisdom, that a transition to a new energy age doesn't happen overnight. He knows that 20th Century technology will still be needed to make a smooth shift into what needs to become the status quo of the 21st Century - increased use of renewables, nuclear power, and energy efficient products.

After Maverick has saved the day, we witness him throwing Goose's dog tags off the carrier which solidifies his break with the past. Something we all need to do if we hope to make a rapid transition to a low carbon 21st Century economy.