The Climate Surprise

Recommendations

Info

usual mantras of “ percent,” “everyone knows,” etc. With increases in funding by over an order of magnitude, there is lile incenve for those in the first narrave to complain, and this third narrave clearly dominates the public discourse. Indeed, those associated with the first narrave have ample incenve to keep the third narrave in play. While it is clear that the third narrave consists in a story line divorced from actual science, it is less clear why this is the case for the first two narraves, both of which are nominally closer to the actual science. First, both of these narraves assume that we are dealing with a problem. In point of fact, as others at this meeng have pointed out, increasing levels of CO per se are beneficial to all plant life on earth, and realiscally modest levels of warming are beneficial as well. That most people prefer the sunbelt to the Northwest Territories is perfectly obvious. So too is the fact that warming will substanally extend growing seasons. Indeed, polling results consistently show that most people assign minimal priority to “fighting” global warming, but the concern permeates “elite” opinion. As Orwell sagely noted, “Some Figure 4.1: Cover page of a 1955 conference dealing with climate dynamics and involving virtually all the leading figures in meteorology. The portrait on the le is of John von Neumann. ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them.” However, one hesitates to include the media and Hollywood as “intellectual.” The second (and far more subtle) point wherein the first two narraves deviate from reality is in their focus on a zero dimensional picture of climate (i.e., greenhouse warming of the global mean temperature). This leads to a view of climate sensivity that bears lile resemblance to past climate change. A standard part of these narraves is that the greenhouse effect has been known since the work of John Tyndall in the nineteenth century, with addi- onal references to Svante Arrhenius and Guy Stewart Callendar. The clear implicaon is that the zero-dimensional approach had always been accepted as the fundamental approach to climate, and, more importantly, to climate change. This is, however, far from true. While we don’t wish to minimize the role of the greenhouse effect, it has long been recognized that other processes are likely to have played a more important role in the Earth’s climate history. Moreover, the relave stability of the tropical temperature points to a strong negave radiave feedback that stabilizes climate with respect to radiave perturbaons. Figure . is the cover page of an important volume from .The portrait is of John von Neumann. As the head of the Instute for Advanced Study in Princeton, he formed the first group to undertake the numerical predicon of weather. The contributors to this volume included Charney, Phillips, Lorenz, Smagorinsky, Starr, Bjerknes, Mintz, Kaplan, Eliassen, among others (with an introducon by J. Robert Oppenheimer). Only one arcle dealt with radiave transfer, and it did not focus on the greenhouse effect, though increasing CO was briefly menoned. The contributors were 20
the leading figures in atmospheric physics from the mid-s unl at least the early s, and they clearly did not emphasize greenhouse warming. The main reason for this was probably the recognion that major climate changes were characterized by large changes in the temperature difference between the tropics and the poles, with very lile change at the equator. The following are rough values for this difference at different periods in earth history: Today:∆T≈K; Major glacial periods: ∆T≈K; Eocene (fiy million years ago): ∆T≈K. Such changes imply changes in heat flow between low and high latudes. (It is probably worth nong that during the ’s and ’s when global cooling was the focus of climate alarm, the popular climate model was the Budyko-Sellers model that emphasized the role of equator-topole heat transport in enabling the possibility of an ice-covered earth.) Given the rather small changes in tropical temperatures, the changes in global mean temperature were regarded as simply the residues of the changes in ∆T. The following admiedly naïve analogy illustrates the problem with much current thinking about climate. Few of us would queson Figure . for determining P, pressure (subject to forcing, F, acng on a piston). By focusing on P as the determinant of everything else, however, we are implicitly assuming that mean pressure rather than ∆P determines flow, which is patently absurd (see Figure .). In the present discourse, this absurdity is subsumed under the need to explain “polar amplificaon.” The above illustrates the insidious power of a narrave to corrupt raonal assessment. Misunderstanding the nature of past climate change, has, for example, led paleoclimatologists to exaggerate grossly climate sensivity. As we have seen, past climate change was primarily characterized by changes in the equator-to-pole temperature difference, accompanied by only small changes in equatorial temperature. Although the changes in equator-to-pole temperature difference need not be ed causally to changes in greenhouse forcing, they do lead to changes in the mean temperature, and aribung these changes in mean temperature to greenhouse forcing can lead to greatly exaggerated esmates of sensivity to greenhouse forcing. Indeed, for climate change in the absence of greenhouse forcing, this can lead to the absurd conclusion that sensivity is infinite. In brief, even those of us associated with the second narrave (including me) have focused on the greenhouse picture despite the fact that this is probably not the major factor in climate change. That is to say, we have accepted the basic premise of the first narrave. Mea culpa. Figure 4.2 (le): Illustraon of the force on a piston determining the pressure in a cylinder. Figure 4.3 (right: Illustraon of the pressure difference across a pipe determining the flow through the pipe. 21
Page 1 and 2: The Climate Surprise Why CO2 is goo
Page 3: The Climate Surprise Why CO2 is goo
Page 6 and 7: as the climate hysterics claim. In
Page 8 and 9: industries and technologies—the c
Page 10 and 11: Figure 1.2: The rao, RCO2, of past
Page 12 and 13: The last report, by the Coalion mem
Page 14 and 15: Figure 2.2: The only difference in
Page 16 and 17: Figure 2.4: Higher levels of atmosp
Page 18 and 19: world with very few thermometer mea
Page 20 and 21: that the warming of the last years
Page 22 and 23: Despite these differences, the firs
Page 26 and 27: Capturing the narrave is a crucial
Page 28 and 29: ombed and sank the Rainbow Warrior
Page 30 and 31: Indonesia and the Philippines. Deep
Page 32 and 33: It does not appear as though anyone
Page 34 and 35: eaders that Germany could be a mode
Page 36 and 37: Figure 6.3: Consumer Energy Prices
Page 39: The CO2 Coalition is proud to be pa

The Climate Surprise

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?