Climate Change and Clean Energy

Global food prices have broken yet another record. February prices were 2.2% higher than January, the previous all-time high. February's high was well above the 2008 average when food prices led to riots and hording. Much of this has to do with climate related events - floods in Pakistan and wildfires in Russia. Add to this the recent rise in the price of US oil, which is currently hovering at around $100 a barrel while global prices are closer to the $120 range.

So is now a good time to talk about climate change and clean energy? Unfortunately, a number of people want to avoid the conversation. In doing so we expose ourselves to ever increasing levels of risk and greater instability, both in markets and in countries. The transition to low carbon is happening but not at the scale necessary to meet the challenge. We have to ramp up our efforts if we hope to minimize some of the impacts we're already seeing.

Canary in the Moulin?

This is a fascinating, but fairly long, report from the Daily Mail's science editor (a self-described climate skeptic as you will read). It focuses on the research being conducted by British scientists in Greenland who are studying the dramatic increase in summer melt waters over the past decade.

Aside from his play-by-play of what's happening in Greenland, he writes the following:

For many people, what I am looking at is the beginning of the end; the first concrete sign that the stability upon which our civilisation depends is about to crumble into an overheated future.

The key message is "the stability upon which our civilisation depends is about to crumble." Some people will argue that the earth has gone through climate shifts in the past and therefore this one is nothing to worry about. But that is misguided to say the least. Our world's population and economy have grown at remarkable rates based on a generally stable and livable environment. Climate change directly threatens that stability and therefore threatens our economic prosperity and national security.

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.

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.