Action in spite of Uncertainty

This is an excellent piece from the Financial Times about the uncertainty surrounding climate change. It goes to great lengths to spotlight areas of agreement and areas where the evidence is less clear (e.g., it's pretty much a given that we'll experience a 1.5C rise in temps, but not so clear cut on 4C).

If you don't have time to read the whole article, skip to the last paragraph:

Meanwhile, concentrations of airborne carbon increase year on year. Once carbon is in the atmosphere, it can stay there for a century, continuing its warming effect. The problem is that if action is delayed until these areas of uncertainty are resolved, the world may find it is too late.

I've written about this before. The whole point of dealing with climate change is to manage our exposure to risk despite the uncertainty.

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.