The Cost of Business As Usual
Part 1
The climate change debate has been increasing in intensity over the last 10 years. If we were to graph the number of articles versus temperature increase we could probably show a correlation between the energy expended on this issue and the increasing global mean temperature. That of course would not stand up to the rigors of proper scientific inquiry, but serves to frame the essence of the debate.
Large amounts of money and time have been thrown at the issue. The centerpiece of the dispute involves our own hand in the plot; that is whether or not we are part of the problem and if so, by how much. This is not to say that the debate has always followed this line of questioning. Early on, the issue involved global cooling. When that phase ended we wondered if the globe was warming. Finally we arrive at the question of our hand in the global climate and if the changes we see are part of a natural equilibrium.
The Science
Central to the issue is the science. The natural world is brimming with complex relationships. It is through our understanding of the basic laws of the Universe that we are able to identify the mechanisms and build models to represent these complex systems. Ironically it is our manipulation of these laws and the subsequent technological feats that are front and center and very likely the cause of global warming.
As the science has progressed, a number of fundamental questions have been answered. Some of these questions include: 1) Are the greenhouse gases increasing in concentration? The answer is yes. 2) Is the greenhouse effect a valid theory? The answer is yes. 3) Has global warming been observed? The answer is yes. 4) Are climate models reliable when we can’t even predict the weather? The answer is yes.
Those are just some of the questions that have been conclusively proven. The answers to these questions demand further investigation. For now, lets focus on the climate models, as they are the tools by which the climate hypotheses are proven by comparing to observed data.
The models work because once you have determined the climate sensitivity through calculations based on observed data, we can use these inputs to predict the change to temperature. These models can then be used to determine what the temperature will look like when we change variables. This is important for predicting how changes in both natural and anthropogenic forcings will affect the temperature.
To illustrate how the models have progressed, the IPCC models have gone from a 66% probability in the 2001 report, to 90% in the current 2007 report. The importance of these models is highlighted by the fact that without the human component, the trends in temperature cannot be explained. Given the statistical significance of the models, this essentially negates the notion of
business as usual.
The sheer volume of studies and investigations which, have been completed since the 2001 IPCC report, give the models a very large arsenal to work with. In fact the models have been strengthened so much that the paleoclimate reconstructions have been extended from 1000 years to 1300 years, again with an increase in probability to 90%. With these new reconstructions, the report can conclude that the recent large-scale warming very likely (that’s the IPCC lingo for 90% probability) exceeds the normal range over the past 1300 years.
Coming soon, Part 2 and the discussion of the contrarian doctrine.
