Author Stokes Climate Change Debate

San Diego Union-Tribune ^ | April 5, 2006 | Staff Writer

[cogitator]

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.

How do you respond to those who say it's too expensive to fix?

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.

Does the American populace, in your estimation, still need convincing?

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.

What can and should the average citizen do to fight global warming?

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.

[Steve Van Doorn]

On this site is a petition signed by some 18,000 REAL scientists who question "global warming." This is many times more signers than the Left/Greens have mustered for their war on Civilization, and many of their signers have nothing to do with science. On the Left, politics trumps science.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p41.htm

[Steve Van Doorn]

"mainly just the corrupt minority of scientists"

There are a few good articles on the origins of Global warming. It was Margaret Thatcher that first got it started politically back in the 70 and 80’s which helped her get pushed into prim minister.

There was a very good article a couple years back that was dealing with Enron and how they jumped started the global warming scare. Should be able to do a web search to find it.

[edsheppa]

Your comment about positive feedback loops makes sense in the absolute but I think it's a bit more complicated.

You mean the reality is more complicated than cogitator's claim that "most of the feedback loops are positive?" I agree, it is much more complicated.

For my own part I'm not too worried about it. Within this century we'll have the technical ability to feasibly control the Earth's energy budget.

[ditto5]

18,000 REAL scientists According to whom? Anybody can fill out the form and send in that petition. I can do it if I want to, and I could send in one hundred copies. It's right there on their website. Again, if a "scientist" has found something flawed in the climate research, all they would have to do is publish it in a scientific journal. If they really had found that the existing research was built on faulty premises or logic they would be famous and it would put the issue to rest.

[ditto5]

I do think it's complicated, but I'd also agree with him that it's looking like the near term cycles that we need to worry about are positive feedbacks.

Loss of Ice and Snow = darker surfaces = more warming = more loss of ice and snow

Thawed tundra = release of stored methane = more warming = more thawing tundra

Hotter temperatures = more forest fires = release of carbon = hotter temperatures

etc.

As for controlling the energy budget, now that would really be something. But, given that we can't even balance our national budget, I don't know if we should hold our breath on that one :{)

[Steve Van Doorn]

"Anybody can fill out the form and send in that petition. I can do it if I want to"

If you think their screening process is that poor then I would ask you to please put your name on it. Show it to me when your name is placed on the registry.

[edsheppa]

I agree that those are positive feedbacks, but they're exactly the kind I was talking about before. They've been operative for hundreds of millions of years. If they were going to cause runaway warming, they would have done so by now. They haven't. I conclude that they do not dominate climate change.

[Steve Van Doorn]

"Loss of Ice"

The ice caps are thicker today then we have ever seen them. I am not going to try and prove this to you, all I will say is look it up for yourself.

As I said at the very beginning there is climate change that is taking effect but it isn’t ‘warming.’ It is cooling and it could be very dangerous. One of many theories and the one I believe might be correct is that volcanism taking place as we speak is at an all time high.

Looks like Global warming don’t it?

This is the chart that bothers me.

here is a good article by a school teacher, I thought was very well done

[ditto5]

Sure thing - if I get some time I will do this with a fake name and made up credentials. If they're still keeping it up, then I bet it will be on there.

[ditto5]

The second one would bother me to, if I thought that I was going to live to be 100,000 years old. But seeing how I'm probably not going to make it that far, I think the one that is measured in decades is of a bit more relevant.

[Steve Van Doorn]

"The second one would bother me to, if I thought that I was going to live to be 100,000 years old."

100K years? your not reading the graph correctly. You are being very argumenitive with no substance, I am done.

[palmer]

Your article is unbalanced and biased. Although coral dies off at higher temperatures, those temperatures (about 90) have generally not been reached. Coral suffers much more from colder temperatures (70 or less) and natural coral deaths occur all the time. Under water chicken-little articles are easy since the public knows so little about it.

[Ditto]

If I've got a large number of mechanics that say my car needs a new alternator, then I'd buy one. If I have a large number of surgeons that say I need surgery, then I would do it.

What we have in reality is mechanics telling us we need surgery.

But, an overwhelming majority of climate scientists tell us that we are at an extemely high chance of some pretty bad consequences from climate effects induced by our actions, during our lifetime, and we do nothing.

Not true.

[ditto5]

Your article is unbalanced and biased. Although coral dies off at higher temperatures, those temperatures (about 90) have generally not been reached.

Coral bleaches at temperatures approaching 90 degrees, and this has been happening in the great barrier reef and Idian Ocean in repeated episodes.

Under water chicken-little articles are easy since the public knows so little about it.

So, you'd suggest the public should avoid the popular media, and get there news directly from the scientists? Fine, here is the early report from NOAA that came out last fall:

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2526.htm

[ditto5]

What we have in reality is mechanics telling us we need surgery

How do you figure? Climate scientists should talk about baking, instead? And who should we trust to describe climate for us? Firemen? Neurosurgeons? Janitors?

[palmer]

Not much there in your article. So "80-95 percent of coral colonies were bleached in some reef areas". So what? Did the warm ocean cause it? Are the oceans warmer than past events? Unlikely since these are strictly local phenomena, and the satellite monitoring started in 1997. From the NOAA link in your article: The bleaching events reported prior to the 1980s were generally attributed to localized phenomena such as major storm events, severe tidal exposures, sedimentation, rapid salinity changes, pollution, or thermal shock. The events since 1980 have not been so easily explained. http://www.coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/satellite/index.html

IOW, before the 1990's it wasn't fashionable to blame everything on man-made global warming and now it is. Here's a more balanced perspective: Fears fade on Barrier Reef bleaching disaster

[ditto5]

And the article you link to concludes:

Numerous laboratory studies have shown a direct relationship between bleaching and water temperature stress. Elevated water temperatures have been implicated in the majority of the major bleaching events of the 1980s and 1990s.

[palmer]

Actually that came from your NOAA link. The point is that the "hockey stick" stick pronouncements of coral dieoffs are about as sound as the temperature hockey sticks. It's obvious from even a cursory study of temperature proxies that we have experienced warmer decades and much warmer years in the recent past (500 years). Likewise corals have undoubtedly waxed and waned particularly in local areas over centuries and millenia due primarily to local factors. Ocean temperatures have warmed about 1F over the last century (a continuation of a 500 year trend) but a lot of the warming took place in the arctic.

Before we jump on some corals-are-dying-humans-must-stop-CO2 bandwagon, we need to consider whether there is really any crisis and whether we can actually do anything about it.

[ditto5]

Well, part of the problem is that by the time we really know for sure, it's probably too late to prevent massive damage. Oceans are slow to warm and also slow to cool. We have early warning signals (slight warming oceans leading to die-offs). We know that carbon dioxide, methane, and other gases trap heat in the atosphere. We know we are releasing these gases in prodigious quantities. And we know that temperatures are warming. It doesn't take much to connect the dots.

You skeptically say that it's been warming for the last 500 years, which is a convenient timeshot that cuts right out of the little ice age. But it's warming much more rapidly during the past 50-100 years, since industrialization occurred, and a natural trend doesn't explain this.

We can't say with absolute certainity what is going to happen until after the fact, so you're saying this argues for no action? I'd disagree. If you think there is 1 in 100 chance that an earthquake is going to occur, then you consider earthquake insurance. Based on the accumulated evidence the odds of global warming occurring are much higher. So, why wouldn't we take some precautions?

So, what would insurance be? We'd have to cut our fossil fuel consumption, probably drastically in the long run, but we could start moderately. This means we'd be developing energy sources within our country, building new jobs, rather than shipping our money to places like Saudia Arabia and Venezuela where it is probably going to be used against us. It won't happen now until oil really starts to run out because we subsidize fossil fuels. But with some economic incentives, we could have a homegrown energy economy, could worry less about the middle east, and would be building ourselves some breathing room on climate change at the same time. What is the downside to that?

[palmer]

We have early warning signals (slight warming oceans leading to die-offs)

There is slight overall warming, but it's the uneven warming that has led to some dieoffs. The rest of the dieoffs are due to other factors as they always have been. Even uneven warming has always been around and always will be irregardless of overall temperature.

But it's warming much more rapidly during the past 50-100 years, since industrialization occurred, and a natural trend doesn't explain this.

The warming in the first half of last century was followed by cooling until the 70's, then more warming. The warming is indeed part of the exit from the last ice age and the link from human-caused CO2 to warming is only a theory.

But with some economic incentives, we could have a homegrown energy economy, could worry less about the middle east, and would be building ourselves some breathing room on climate change at the same time. What is the downside to that?

It's a decent question and I'm not opposed to incentives. But I see hybrid cars that take more energy to build and maintain. They use more energy than a car with the same gas engine in many cases like open highway travel. I see ethanol that takes more energy to produce than it yields. There are other better alternatives, I don't see any downside to subsidizing solar in Arizona for example.