Climate uncertainties and the problems communicating them

The journal <em>Nature</em> has used a series of editorials to point out the areas of climatology that are the least understood, and considers why the public remains fixated on the basics instead.<BR><BR><a href='http://meincmagazine.com/science/news/2010/01/climate-uncertainties-and-the-problems-communicating-them.ars'>Read the whole story</a>

 

[JPan]

the problem is that lots of scientists are doing the natural thing. Fighting for the good cause by exaggerating and hyping up Climate change panic. I mean its natural with a sensational paper on how the seas will boil in 2050 or that all Himalaya glaciers will be gone by 2035 people pay you much more attention than with the truth:<BR><BR>Which is that temperatures will probably change by 1.1 -> 6 degrees by 2100. Which means that climate change can be anything from a mild annoyance to absolutely cataclysmic but nobody knows for sure.<BR><BR>That's the truth but its something that is not exactly enticing people to do something.<BR><BR>Nevertheless its the truth, which is what science needs to fight for. Scientists are not here to save the world. They are needed to provide the information and means to enable politicians and all other people to save the world. <BR><BR>So what I would like to see would be more focus on weeding out wrong and sensationalist papers and statements of both sides. Please leave the world saving to someone else.

 

[JPan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As to how great an effect you would have to analyse all the data but an affect is beyond denial, it is logical. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>LOL ok this is the kind of statement that makes me really despise our ecological minded sandal wearing Greenpeace guys.<BR><BR>Yes an effect might be beyond denial (as is for pretty much FREAKING EVERYTHING MAN OR ANY LIVING ORGANISM does) An algae is using photosynthesis? woohoo we have an affect, its beyond denial. <BR><BR>See Jiffy the only important question is: How big is the effect. This is a really really important question and I think its fair to ask for solid scientific evidence that the damage man-made Global Warming does is probable more expensive to humankind than the billions of dollars (which translate into an equal number of dollars less spent for social security, wellfare, hospitals, food for the poor whatever) we need to spend to get it under control.<BR><BR>Now for the record: I think if done in an intelligent and fair way, the consensus seems to be that reducing CO2 emissions is probably a worthy investment. But this is the kind of qualified answer I want from a scientist. Not some all or nothing spiel.

 

[JPan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">s any AGW skeptic ever tried to explain why CO2 would not cause global warming? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>The general assumption is that it simply doesn't significantly contribute since CO2 is only a minuscule part of the greenhouse effect (which is mostly done by water vapour). So there is never a yes/no question. More a how much. Which is the really tricky question. In the end you have to trust hideously complex computer models (do you trust the weather report for the next week? How about the climate report for the next century?) to make billion dollar decisions. I can understand some scepticism. <BR><BR>But I think the fact that we had the warmest decade in memories should gradually convince many people that its cheaper to do something against some of the possible scenarios.

 

[JPan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There's a sort of tacit - agree with me on the problem and you have to agree with me on the solution - argument out there that drives more people away then brings in. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>This!!!<BR><BR>But apart from having people who are barely literate (but can paint a sad ice bear on a transparent) telling us what is the best technology to create electricity there is a second thing:<BR><BR>Thy misanthropic and progress hating nature of Global Warming proponents. Its like every hippy who always wanted people to live in huts and eat tree bark had found a new meaning in life.<BR><BR>Unless Global Warming proponents get rid of those guys people will not hear about their solutions. The only things that can possibly help mankind to get out of this (if it turns out to be such a bad problem) without killing 50% of earths population (which seems to be the preferred solution of some of these people) are growth, progress and technological innovation.<BR><BR>So if you want less CO2 to be emitted then lobby for a tax on CO2 emmission, or a open, simple and loophole free Carbon-market. <BR><BR>But stop whining if people get the CO2 reduction job done by using natural gas instead of coal or nuclear power. Don't tell us to use totally idiotic solar panels in a country like Germany where the sun never shines.<BR><BR>If you want CO2 reduction and everybody to use a bicycle, wear hemp and hate ourselves to be more like you than be honest and make this your mission statement. <BR><BR>rant off

 

[JPan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What do you hear on the microphone? “Mess on Aisle 9. Please avoid looking at Aisle 9.” or, “Cleanup on Aisle 9.” ... It makes no sense to simply identify a problem and just go about your day ignoring it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Exactly there is a mess in Aisle 9 and the guy who has no idea on how to cleanup such a mess makes this call. Then the guy or girl who actually has an idea how such a mess is cleaned comes and uses a mop, water, some cleaning solution. He knows how to find these utensils and he cleans the Aisle.<BR><BR>The supervisor doesn't call out on the microphone: Mess on Aisle 9, go fetch the brush from the closet in floor 1, add some water and soap in a bucket and go to Aisle 9 to scrup the mess up. <BR><BR>What you brought up is a pretty good analogy to climate change. People who have no idea on how to create electricity for example try to impose stuff like solar panels on electricity companies. Its like the supervisor in the supermarket telling the cleaning person to use a toothbrush and some dirtwater to clean the Aisle.<BR><BR>If you think that the CO2 output is too high add a tax or a carbon market limit on CO2. And leave the rest to people who know what they are doing. Ideally this is a global thing of course. Otherwise mobile high-energy industries like Aluminium smelters will simply wander to areas with lower carbon tax. But this is still a much cheaper solution than having some braindead nitwit impose costs of billions on German electricity customers for the use of solar panels in the most cloudy country ever.

 

[JPan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">…and another common misconception that shows your ignorance. Germany gets lots of sun </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>LOL, sure. because of that the indirect subsidy for solar power was set at 56 Cent per KWH. A bit higher than the 2-3Cent gas, coal or nuclear power take. Or even the 8 Cent wind power needs. Of course wind and sun have the additional problems that they are not continuous which means you need additional expensive electricity storage or backup plants which are coal, gas or nuclear.<BR><BR>So yes Germany gets plenty of sun and sun electricity is just 30 times more expensive at minimum than other electricity sources. GREAT stuff.<BR><BR>[quoteThere is also that pesky little fact that any “green community” of decent size will probably require many different forms of energy generation –natural gas, solar, wind, thermal, hydro, hydrogen, bio, etc.. (Gosh there are so many to choose from!)[/quote]<BR><BR>And what do you want to say with that. I am totally d'accord that we probably will need a mix of different technologies. But that doesn't make sun power any more efficient. And because world savers like you do not understand this you shouldn't be allowed to have a say in what technology is used to achieve the CO2 goals.

 

[JPan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It's easy to show that the direct effect of CO2 will be about 1 degC/CO2 doubling for the planetary mean surface temperature. That's NOT minor, the complex models predict a consensus around 2.5 decC/CO2 doubling. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I agree that most of the anti global warming guys are talking out of their ass. But if you say that the results of CO2 increase are "easy to show" you are talking out of your ass as well. Sorry. That's not better than what Anti Global Warming guys are doing. Even the official UNO report gives you a range between 1.1 and 6.4 ° until 2100. So what is it. Slight increase in summer temperatures or fiery inferno?

 

[JPan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That depends upon what we do. You quote the lower bound of the likely range for the lowest emission scenario looked at and the upper bound of the likely range for the highest emission scenario looked at. See here for the breakdown. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>hehe hoped nobody would see that ;-). Nonetheless even the worst case scenario has a spread between 2.4 – 6.4. And that's only if you assume that the computer models computing this spread are correct. Even with this official spread its ridiculous to argue that its easy to predict how increased CO2 will influence the planet.

 

[JPan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No, I'm not. "Easy to show" does NOT mean "easy for the average citizen with no math beyond high school, no preparation in modern physics, etc." </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Instead of writing a two pages monologue you should have perhaps read my post and tried to answer that instead of something completely different. Again:Even the official IPCC report has spreads of 2.4->6.4° in their forecast for 2100 for the worst case emission scenario. And thats only true if the model is working correctly.<BR><BR>I simply take this as proof that it is NOT easy to predict what additional CO2 in the atmosphere will mean to climate. Oh and you can try this pseudo-scientific talk with someone else ;-) As if you had more idea about math than the "average citizen".