Author Stokes Climate Change Debate

Tim Flannery believes no one can know the future with certainty, but the evidence is overwhelming that global warming will likely have devastating impacts. The time for debate and discussion has long since passed, he writes in his new book, “The Weather Makers: The History and Future Impact of Climate Change.”

“If . . . we wait to see if an ailment is indeed fatal, we will do nothing until we are dead.”

A noted zoologist and director of the South Australian Museum, Flannery says our fate is in our own hands – “for we are the weather makers, and we already possess all the tools required to avoid catastrophic climate change.”

We contacted Flannery, who will speak at the San Diego Zoo Monday, via e-mail while he was on tour in Barbados.

QUESTION: What are the most devastating impacts of global warming now, and what will they be in the future?

ANSWER: Many Inuit and Pacific Islanders are already suffering devastating impacts. They've lost their homes, livelihoods and familiar habitats already. The world's coral reefs are already substantially damaged, and, of course, we've already seen extinctions as a result of climate change.

In the short term, impacts will continue to be most severe at the poles and among the coral atoll nations of the Pacific and Indian oceans, but within a few decades, if we continue polluting with greenhouse gases, severe impacts will become far more widespread.

I think it's likely that the Netherlands, for example, will see severe damage from extra-tropical low pressure systems, floods and rising seas, while damage will continue to mount in hurricane zones.

Fifty years out, it may well be that all low-lying regions of the planet are under stress from rapidly rising seas. But honestly, the possible impacts are so various that when we consider where the worst damage will be in a century, it could be almost anywhere.

For a long time, the argument seemed to be that global warming either wasn't real or that it wasn't being caused by man. Has the world seen enough evidence now to move beyond that?

The argument you outline has been dictated by a small group of skeptics, many of whom are paid by those who make money from polluting and who don't wish to see changes to the way they do business. They've gone through at least three stages of denial: first that climate change doesn't exist; then that it does exist but it's not human caused; then that we are causing it, but it's too expensive to fix.

Who knows what the next state of denial will be? And of course, ever since the 1980s we've had sufficient evidence to justify gradually increasing restrictions on the polluting gases.

This is the third stage of denial, and it's the flimsiest of them all because its proponents never try to estimate the cost of letting business go on as usual. The insurance companies, however, are doing a pretty good job of keeping track of the cost, and they know that it's not only sending them broke, but is growing so swiftly as to threaten the global economy.

A few years ago, Swiss Re, the world's largest re-insurer (they take the risk from the insurers), threatened to withdraw director's liability insurance for directors of the worst polluting companies, which gives you some idea of their mood.

What do you say to global warming naysayers who say climate-change models are flawed?

The climate models all agree on one thing – the planet will warm as greenhouse gases accumulate. They disagree on how much warming will occur, but even at the lowest end of the projections, if we go about business as usual, the changes will be immense.

Some have argued that global warming is a good thing – it allows longer growing seasons, expands the range for some agriculture and could increase the area where human habitation can be comfortable.

Is global warming a good or a bad thing? To answer that, we need to know a little about the scale and rate of change, because big, fast changes are very bad for almost everything adapted to conditions prevalent before the change.

It turns out that even conservative projections of climate change to 2100 indicate a change almost as big, but 30 times faster, than that which occurred at the end of the ice age. And that, even on a geological time scale, is almost as fast and hairy as change gets.

How do you convince the potential losers to go along with a corrective program?

As we switch to the low-emissions economy required to limit climate change, there will be big winners and losers. The Danes, for example, have already monopolized wind power and are set to do the same with the enzymes needed to produce new biofuels. The Japanese have a huge head start with hybrid engines and photovoltaics.

It really scares me when I look at my own country of Australia squandering time on the idea that coal has a future, and not building up its intellectual property portfolio in the renewables. As far as I can see, the same applies to the U.S., which used to be a world leader in wind and solar in the 1970s. I think both countries need to start carving out their turf in the renewables now.

Should we fear the unknown – damaging consequences that are impossible to foresee or pick up in a climate-change model?

Yes, it's certainly the things that we don't know that are most worrying. Just consider two facts: The global climate system is full of positive feedback loops that amplify small initial changes, and we don't fully understand the system yet. That implies that our computer projections are underestimates. And indeed, that's what we're seeing in the real world. Shifts, such as increases in hurricane intensity, are progressing decades ahead of the projections.

Greg Bell, at the Climate Prediction Center, argues that the recent wave of intense hurricanes striking North America is part of a normal, multi-decade cycle. Would you agree?

Bell seems to have confused regional and global trends. There is cyclicity in regional hurricane activity, but overlain on this is a sharp global rise in the energy expended in hurricanes (60 percent over the past 30-odd years) and a big increase in the amount of that energy going to category 4 and 5 hurricanes.

Americans, like everyone else, need to educate themselves more fully about climate change, because big investment decisions, both personal and corporate, need to be made. This applies regardless of whether you are convinced climate change is real or not. I'm convinced that climate change will soon become the only issue of global importance, and among individuals, as with nations, those best informed will be the most successful in dealing with the altered world.

It's simple: Reduce your emissions as close to zero as possible, then encourage your business to do the same. And finally, never vote for anyone who you are not absolutely convinced understands the issue and will act in the national interest to combat climate change.

Having reduced my emissions substantially (with international air travel excepted – which I'm working on), and having cut my museum's emissions by 15 percent, I can tell you that it's economically sensible and fun to do. In my case, solar panels were the obvious option and a hybrid fuel car. In other parts of the world, other options may be more sensible.

Yes, it's certainly the things that we don't know that are most worrying.

ROFLOL!

This is, I believe, the very rallying cry of the fear-monger, out in the open for all to see!

There's a term for this in the computer industry, because corporations such as Intel and IBM have used it so successfully in their marketing over the years.

It's called FUD. That's an acronym which stands for Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt.

One famous use of FUD was IBM's marketing campaign: "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM." I'm sure you can think of dozens of variations on the theme.

Global Warming^TM true believers have made this style of disinformation the very centerpiece of their strategy. "We have everything to fear, especially fear itself!"

When someone comes to me, claiming to bring legitimate science, and says, "...it's certainly the things that we don't know that are most worrying." then his credibility is truly laughable. This issue is a fear campaign of large proportion, nothing more, nothing less. It is most revealing that the urgently promoted solution is so plainly in keeping with core left-wing political goals of demonizing industry and increasing governmental control.

Every day, it seems, there are more reports underscoring how little scientists understand about the complexities of the global weather system. To demand that a particular action must be taken to avert unknown damage from very uncertain causes is, indeed, the definition of foolishness.

So instead of the sun they say it is planetary specific regional situation and IMO it is the same for earth.

It is absurd if not arrogant to think we can effect the weather globally.
Sure we can seed clouds in small areas, and China has polluted half their own drinking water, but global warming by man is BS.

Storms (the big ones) are on a cycle that is well over 50 years in duration and we happen to be in the active cycle.

In fairly recent history between 1400 and the 1700s the earth had a mini ice age that for 300 years made the climate unfavorable and hard to grow crops in many more places.

This is a cycle of the planet and A-holes like Gore make an issue about this because the planet can not speak for itself to call Gore a lunatic.

...The author is an idiot.

No, He is a zoologist who figured out how to get free publicity. As an added benefit there is no downside for him in taking the sky is falling line. Remember all those guys like Paul Ehrlich (The Population Bomb), the Club of Rome, Limits to growth, etc? They are still considered experts and are still in the press and on TV pontificating on the future. History and accountability only exist for conservatives.

There's little doubt that we view this differently. However, one of the main things that I have attempted to do is to make sure that the scientific basis of the "global warming" (climate change) issue is presented accurately. I posted this under "Editorial" and not News because it's about the author's views, not so much about what's in the book, which may be more scientific in treatment. I hope to find out more in the next few days.

However, he's quite on-point when he says:

"They've gone through at least three stages of denial: first that climate change doesn't exist; then that it does exist but it's not human caused; then that we are causing it, but it's too expensive to fix."

Because I come from a perspective that global warming IS happening and IS human-caused, I evalute the "too expensive to fix" as if I had a car with significant and abnormal engine noise. I would at least spend the money to find out definitively what's causing the noise. If it's not too expensive, I'd get it fixed. If it is too expensive, I'd get a new car.

but global warming by man is BS.

A single drop of water falling from the faucet of a bathtub once every ten seconds would eventually fill the bathtub (provided the bathtub doesn't leak), right?

So would you be surprised that slow incremental changes to one of the factors influencing Earth's climate would eventually have a noticeable effect?

We were on the Australian Barrier Reef in late 2000. The coral was no different than it had been in 1975. We were in Maui last November. Different sort of coral, but it was no different than it had been in the early 1990s, when we were last there.

I have experienced years in the 1980s-1990s when the ecoloons were bleating on about coral bleaching, went to the Caribbean to several different diving locations, and saw mostly healthy coral. Some corals lose their symbiotes in any given area in any given year and often, within a year, they are repopulated and healthy. In fact, I have dived areas that were hit by massive storms/hurricanes and had regenerated in a really short period of time. The deeper areas are usually not bothered much.

Maybe they mean extinctions like the Ivory Billed Woodpecker, recently found in LA. And what about all the previously undiscovered species we keep finding?

I agree about this person's manner of speaking. His presentation is coercive. He doesn't care if he's lying or not, as long as he can manipulate the listener to agree with him, be frightened and take the action he prefers.

Both papers are interesting and I'll have to read them more. But the first one admits their analysis was for clear skies only. The second tries to estimate the effect of clouds as a single parameter. Both are radiative models, not atmospheric simulations. While a simulation of the atmosphere including smaller scale weather features could provide a single parameter for the effect of clouds I think it would be faulty because climate is not determined by radiative energy with a tweak for clouds, but by both radiation and real weather conditions. Perhaps a dozen or two dozen parameters might do it, but certainly not just one.

It is not a fair statement to say "since we can't predict the weather, we can't predict climate". I wish people wouldn't say it so you would stop jumping on it. The fact is, we predict the weather quite well although timing and placement can be off particularly the timing of vortex intensification and decay. But as you have pointed out many times, we don't need to model the weather accurately in any area to use weather models for a broader purpose such as climate prediction. It simply doesn't matter if the timing and placements are off, only that they are modeled.

Unfortunately, smaller scale features are not modeled. Convective systems are not modeled and their effects of throwing uneven moisture into the top of the troposphere is not at all adequately described by a single parameter as they have done in the first paper. The question that I have not seen the answer for so far (but I'll read some more) is what effect these smaller scale phenomena have on climate and more importantly, what effect the hypothesized climate (i.e. increased water vapor) has on weather.

However, he's quite on-point when he says: "They've gone through at least three stages of denial: first that climate change doesn't exist; then that it does exist but it's not human caused; then that we are causing it, but it's too expensive to fix."

Actually that's just his red herring (and yours now too). Most climate scientists who he claims are denial have always consistently said that climate change exists and that it is not human caused. There might have been backpedelling on CO2, but never on the link from CO2 to water vapor and from there to warming. That stalking horse, the "forcing", is not accepted science no matter what the alarmists say. It is simply a theory and your papers show what an inadequate theory it is. Clear sky water vapor indeed!

The author claims:

For a long time, the argument [has been] that [warming] wasn't being caused by man.

'Warming' exists, and it's a normal part of earths cycle, and it is extremely doubtful that we could 'fix it', even if we knew how.

cogitator wrote:

-- one of the main things that I have attempted to do is to make sure that the scientific basis of the "global warming" (climate change) issue is presented accurately.

Yet your author ignores the overwhelming evidence of cyclical climate change. Why do you?

--he's quite on-point when he says:
"They've gone through at least three stages of denial: first that climate change doesn't exist; then that it does exist but it's not human caused; then that we are causing it, but it's too expensive to fix."

Simply not true if "they" are his scientific colleagues.

Because I come from a perspective that global warming IS happening and IS human-caused,

You ignore millions of years of cyclical ice ages interspersed with warm spells. Why is that?

I evalute the "too expensive to fix" as if I had a car with significant and abnormal engine noise. I would at least spend the money to find out definitively what's causing the noise. If it's not too expensive, I'd get it fixed. If it is too expensive, I'd get a new car.

How weird. You compare a simple car to the earth/solar system. There is no 'new earth', even if we knew how to fix it.

"A single drop of water falling from the faucet of a bathtub once every ten seconds would eventually fill the bathtub (provided the bathtub doesn't leak), right?

So would you be surprised that slow incremental changes to one of the factors influencing Earth's climate would eventually have a noticeable effect?"

Yes, I would be extremely surprised if that were the case because there a more dynamic influences interacting in the atmosphere than we can model with even our most powerful and sophisticated computers and programs.

On the other hand, we can easily predict the rate of water input and evaporation interacting on said bathtub and drops of water to conclude with extreme accuracy when and if the bathtub will fill using only a pencil and piece of paper.

That's one of the most idiotic analogies I've ever heard. I say one of the most idiotic because it's typical of the feeble minded BS that comes from most global warmers.

But as you have pointed out many times, we don't need to model the weather accurately in any area to use weather models for a broader purpose such as climate prediction.

Weather models are fundamentally different from climate prediction models. Weather models are based on fluid dynamics. Climate models are based on general circulation, which is not the same as fluid dynamics. They do different things, and the results of one don't feed into the other. I say that as a non-modeler quoting what I've read about models, but when it's said, it's consistently said.

Sorry to drop off the thread for spring break activities the next two days, but I'll be back Thursday if you want to reply.

Most climate scientists who he claims are denial have always consistently said that climate change exists and that it is not human caused.

It would take a little time, but it would be very interesting to look at the statements of Roy Spencer, John Christy, and Patrick Michaels over time, starting in the late 1980s until now. I think you would detect a moderation of viewpoint similar to that described.

You ignore millions of years of cyclical ice ages interspersed with warm spells. Why is that?

I absoLUTELY do not ignore that. Here's why: we are in the middle of a stable interglacial period right now. The main factors that cause glacial/interglacial shifts are simply too slow to be operative factors now; they could not cause the observed trends, and their effect is measured over several centuries (at a minimum!) rather than a period of less than 200 years.

How weird. You compare a simple car to the earth/solar system. There is no 'new earth', even if we knew how to fix it.

I was very aware of that when I made the analogy, and I think you detected the irony.

Climate models are based on general circulation, which is not the same as fluid dynamics. They do different things, and the results of one don't feed into the other

Actually they do. The GCM models often use local results from weather models to add parameters for clouds, typically turned into percentages of types of clouds. These estimates are the only way to get semi-realistic estimates of clouds and the effect of clouds. What is lacking unfortunately, is a feedback from the GCM models and their extra water vapor back to the weather models to see what effect the extra water vapor has on weather.

Oh sure there is, it's a planet and the weather goes by it and not our lives. We had a mini-ice age between 1400 and the early 1700s, so for hundreds of years, those humans thought that crummy weather earth.
I think the earth's climatic weather cycles (which are also effected by the moon and sun) are much longer in duration that humans can even comprehend. Maybe we have 20 thousand year cycles we are clueless about.

Man lives such a short time, but somehow manages to think all life somehow revolves around them and that we are so influential to a WHOLE PLANET.

Granted we can pollute the water table, but beyond that I think we are fairly limited regarding long term possible damage or effects.

We are also good here in the USA with our manufacturing and cars. We require filters that do good jobs and our air is much cleaner than time past.

If you want to point a finger at the ones blowing unfiltered smoke everywhere, look to China as #1, many European nations and so forth.

The United States would be the jewel on this planet IMO and we sure don't need Al Gore to use nature as a way to set his leftist politics forward.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.