Chu, China, and the need for progress

Great article from Wired earlier this week on Energy Secretary Steven Chu's perspective on US-China climate change policy. A bit long but well worth the read. And you may want to have a look at The Climate Desk, which is where I came across the article. I'm all about the one stop shop for finding information.

Here are some of the key messages from the article if you're short on time:
- China is spending $100 billion (that's with a "b") on clean energy every year
- The US should view China as a partner in this arena as opposed to an adversary
- The size of China's market could provide US companies an opportunity to test their clean tech products at scale, especially in the building sector

In keeping with the one stop shop theme, I highly recommend checking out the ChinaFAQs website to learn more about what China is doing on climate change and energy policy. Some of the content can be pretty techy but it's broken down into manageable bites for the casual reader. For those one of you who are avid readers of the GreenMachine, you'll remember that my very first post was on ChinaFAQs. Ahh, the memories. I'm getting misty eyed.

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.