Three debunkings of climate change ‘scepticism’

Reading Andrew Weaver’s new book on climate change, I came across three recommendations for journalistic sources that do a good job of examining the so-called ‘climate sceptic’ movement. Each is worth a look:

As discussed previously, there is nothing ‘sceptical’ about refusing to accept the overwhelming evidence that human beings are dangerously warming the planet. There is a universe of difference between the kind of vigorous and intellectually honest debate that refines theories and deepens understanding and the cynical and strategic efforts of those who oppose action on climate change to discredit real science and create the artificial impression that a debate about the fundamentals of climatic science continues to exist.

The book also cites two websites I frequent as good sources of information: RealClimate.org, written by five climate scientists, and DeSmogBlog.com, written by a a Canadian public relations professional.

Plants and carbon feedback cycles

This site has generally paid a fair bit of attention to positive feedback effects associated with climate change. These are akin to when a microphone gets too close to an amplified speaker to which it is connected: the sound gets louder and louder until the maximum possible output is reached. Climatic equivalents include how melted ice exposes more dark sea water which absorbs more sunlight which melts more ice, as well as how melting permafrost releases methane which causes more warming and thus more melting. Another kind of feedback worth considering is the negative sort: essentially phenomena that are self-limiting. A non-climate example is price and the quantity of something demanded in a properly functioning market; the feedback between rising prices and fewer buyers has a self-limiting effect, preventing prices from rising infinitely. A possible negative feedback associated with climate change is that rising concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) might spur additional growth of plants, which would incorporate the carbon into their own bodies, thus partially offsetting the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere.

A study published recently in Nature examined how 3 square metre chunks of grassland would respond to 4˚C of additional temperature, compared with a control group in otherwise identical circumstances. The grasses reduced the aperture of the stomata (pores on their leaves) to limit water loss. One result was 30% less CO2 absorption, both in the year where the heat was applied and in the year following. The editor’s summary concludes:

These findings suggest that more frequent anomalously warm years, a possible consequence of rising anthropogenic CO2 levels, could lead to a sustained decrease in CO2 uptake by terrestrial ecosystems.

Climate change will bring hotter and drier conditions in some parts of the world, making an understanding of what effect that will have on biomass rather important.

A French study of Europe’s 2003 heatwave – where temperatures sometimes reached 6˚C above normal in some areas – came to a similar conclusion about heat and dryness limiting CO2 uptake. Overall, they concluded that Europe’s plant matter went from being a net sink of CO2 (accumulating it in tissue) to a net emitter (yielding it back to the atmosphere). As such, there may well be general thresholds above which ecosystems switch from having a negative feedback effect on the climate to having a positive one.

In the end, the amount of climate change that will occur for any level of human emissions is determined by the direct effects, across several timescales, coupled with all relevant positive and negative feedbacks. Learning more about all elements of that system – through the investigation of ancient climates, experiments like this one, and careful observations – should allow for more robust and accurate climatic modeling.

Price stability and energy investments

It is frequently argued that ever-rising oil prices will encourage good climatic outcomes. They make people cut back on flying and buying SUVs, and thus reduce emissions through destroyed demand. One counter-argument highlights how consistently high prices encourage the use of fuels even filthier than oil: such as coal and hydrocarbons produced from the oil sands. Arguably, uncertainty and instability actually produce the best climatic outcomes, since they leave the profitability of huge hydrocarbon investments uncertain.

This piece in The Globe and Mail argues that the recent fall in oil prices, combined with constrained access to credit due to the financial turmoil in the United States, is threatening the development of the oil sands.

Of course, uncertainty about future energy prices and restricted access to capital are also likely to hurt the development of renewable sources of power, such as concentrating solar plants in the American southwest that retain enough thermal energy overnight to produce electricity continuously. The ideal option is a predictable, ever-increasing price for carbon emissions. That would give clean sources of energy the confidence to invest, while simultaneously discouraging the development of amply available yet climatically disastrous sources of energy – at least until such a time (if ever) when effective carbon sequestration emerges.

2008 Arctic sea ice minimum

It seems that the Arctic sea ice has reached its minimum area for the year. The record for reduction from last year has not been broken, but the situation is nonetheless disturbing. Whereas last year provided optimal conditions for melting, the unusually cold winter last year – arising from La Nina conditions – meant that this year’s melt should have been quite a bit less significant. As it happened, it was within 10% of last year’s record.

Walt Meier, a scientist at the American National Snow and Ice Data Center explained the situation:

I think this summer has been more remarkable than last year, in fact, because last year we had really optimal conditions to melt a lot of ice. We had clear skies with the Sun blazing down, we had warm temperatures, and winds that pushed the ice edge northwards. We didn’t have any of this this year, and yet we still came within 10% of the record; so people might be tempted to call it a recovery, but I don’t think that’s a good term, we’re still on a downwards trend towards ice-free Arctic summers.

In short, the Arctic ice is probably already locked into a death spiral. Here’s hoping that doesn’t lead to widespread melting of the permafrost, since the results of that would be catastrophic for humanity.

Naomi Oreskes, climate science, and the JASON group

The JASON Defense Advisory Group consists of top-notch American scientists who carry out requested research on behalf of the American government during the summer months. Past areas of research have included adaptive optics of the kind used to remove atmospheric distortions from telescope images, a system for communicating with submarines using very long radio waves, missile defence, and more.

Back in 1979, the JASONs looked into the issue of climate change – concluding that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide could double by 2035, causing an increase in the mean temperature of the oceans and atmosphere. Despite not having any climatological background, they constructed their own mathematical model to approximate the relationships between greenhouse gas emissions, atmospheric concentrations, temperature changes, sea level rise, and other phenomena. Unlike many of their other non-classified reports, “The Long Term Impact of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Climate” doesn’t seem to be readily available online. Nonetheless, some information on both the report and the JASONs is included in this Times article by Naomi Oreskes: the woman most famous for her 2004 Science article “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” in which she demonstrated that disagreement about the fundamentals of climate change existed in the media, not within the scientific literature.

The Times article, the Science paper, and the available JASON reports all make for informative reading.

Carbon emissions worse than criminal damage

In a fairly surprising precedent, a jury in the United Kingdom aquitted six Greenpeace activists of criminal damage to a coal plant. In their defence, they argued that their scaling of the smokestack and attempt to paint “Gordon [Brown], bin it” on the side was justified because of the greenhouse gas emissions being produced by the plant:

Jurors accepted defence arguments that the six had a “lawful excuse” to damage property at Kingsnorth power station in Kent to prevent even greater damage caused by climate change. The defence of “lawful excuse” under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 allows damage to be caused to property to prevent even greater damage – such as breaking down the door of a burning house to tackle a fire.

The not-guilty verdict, delivered after two days and greeted with cheers in the courtroom, raises the stakes for the most pressing issue on Britain’s green agenda and could encourage further direct action.

NASA climatic scientist James Hansen testified in defence of the activists.

It is virtually certain that the Crown will appeal the decision, and highly likely that the appeal will succeed. That being said, the situation may be indicative of the British public gaining an appreciation for the gravity of the threat posed by climate change, and the intolerability of coal power in a forward-looking, carbon-reducing economy. The fact that the UK is mulling the approval of new coal plants is definitely a major blot on its record as a fairly progressive state, where climate change is concerned.

Permafrost and climatic precariousness

When I look at the numbers involved, I sometimes wonder whether concerns about climate change adaptation in northern community are missing the main point. As discussed before, the Arctic permafrost contains 36 trillion tonnes (teratonnes) of carbon dioxide equivalent. By comparison, annual human emissions are in the neighbourhood of 29 billion tonnes (gigatonnes) of CO2 equivalent. That means that the permafrost as a whole contains as much greenhouse gas as over 1,200 years of human emissions at the present rate. Thought about another way, that means that annual melting of 0.08% of the permafrost would have as much impact on climate change as every vehicle, power plant, farm, and burned forest around the world.

It is as though the permafrost is a frozen block of fuel that we are holding a match to. If it starts generating enough heat to melt on its own accord, we will be in for a truly wild ride. The loss of seasonal road access for northern communities may end up being the least significant problem associated with melting permafrost.

Fungi are surprisingly compelling

On the basis of a recommendation from a friend of mine who works on environmentally-friendly gardening and landscaping in North Vancouver, I am reading Paul Stamets’s Mycelium Running: a book that details ways in which human beings can achieve ecological outcomes through the intelligent use of fungus. They can be used to increase the rate of forest recovery after logging, clean up contaminated sites, and so forth. I will post a review of the whole book when I finish it.

One aspect of the book I found surprising and interesting are the ways in which the similarities of animals and fungi are emphasized. Both ecologically and genetically, the two are apparently more closely linked than any other two kingdoms. Both breathe oxygen (fungi can be suffocated), both sometimes attack and kill plants or animals. Representatives of both kingdoms sustain themselves on dead organic matter, while others live inside other live organisms and extract nutrition from them parasitically.

Some species of animals extrude their digestive organs when eating. Fungi might be considered an extreme elaboration of this. Instead of having a stomach inside the body, filled with digestive enzymes, the mycelium leaches them out into surrounding matter, then draws in the liberated and partially processed nutrients therein.

In any case, fungi are quite fascinating. For one final example, consider the genus Pleurotus. While their culinary properties are their major claim to fame, their ability to metabolize crude oil is also rather remarkable. You can start with a bucket of crude spilled on a beach somewhere, introduce some spores, and eventually wind up with material that is entirely safe for the natural environment in general.

May being excluded from leaders’ debates

I think it’s a shame that Green Party leader Elizabeth May is being excluded from the leaders’ debates for this election. The longstanding isolation of the Green Party is largely the product of Canada’s first-past-the-post system and, given that they are so severely hampered by the technicalities of Canada’s electoral system, it seems fair that meeting the technicality of having a sitting Member of Parliament is sufficient procedural justification for their inclusion.

More substantively, there is major focus on the environment in this campaign. As such, having a candidate present whose party is focused explicitly on environmental issues would probably add to the caliber and intelligence of the discussions that result.

Two American cap-and-trade plans

While both John McCain and Barack Obama have endorsed a national cap-and-trade system as the centerpiece of their climate policies, the two proposals differ on several highly important grounds. The most important by far is the mechanism of permit allocation. Under the McCain system, permits to emit carbon would be granted for free to those with existing records of emissions; under the Obama system, all those wishing to emit will be required to buy permits at auction. The practical differences between the approaches are massive. Under the auction system, those who wish to pollute are made to pay. Under the free allocation system, those who have polluted in the past are granted valuable credits that they can either use to pollute or sell for cash.

As described before, consumers experience price rises in either scenario. What differs is where the windfall accrues. Under an auctioning system, it ends up in the hands of government, which can use it to fund low-carbon investments or refund it to the population as a hole (as in a cap-and-dividend system). Under a free allocation system, it simply goes into the coffers of the biggest polluters.

Even with a Democratically-controlled Congress and Senate, getting a plan based on 100% auctioning approved would be very challenging. Democrats from areas where extractive industries and automobile manufacture are economically important and politically powerful will resist policies that will be costly to dirty industries. That being said, it is arguably wiser to start with a policy position that is stronger than can probably be enacted and then compromise, rather than starting with a position that is weaker than necessary to get the job done.