Global Warming (should be Climate Change?) does not mean no snow

"Global warming" does not mean no snow no matter what Philip Stott or any other non-specialist might prefer to believe. I'd suggest it's a tad premature to gloat that 'Global warming' is on hold folks.

I am no expert. But Robert B. Gagosian of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution is one and he offers these remarks on Abrupt Climate Change

It is important to clarify that we are not contemplating a situation of either abrupt cooling or global warming. Rather, abrupt regional cooling and gradual global warming can unfold simultaneously. Indeed, greenhouse warming is a destabilizing factor that makes abrupt climate change more probable. (bold added -- DS)

I have no opinion one way or another; this is a complex scientific matter way beyond my knowledge. I am skeptical of any non-specialist who has a strongly-held belief on such a scientific question -- on what basis could they have a strong opinion on something about which they have so little knowledge? And I get especially nervous when I hear people imply that because there is a cold snap in the US northeast then global warming is just a ha-ha to be dismissed as hysteria.

(It's fine for amateurs to offer an opinion about the public policies which might/should flow from certain scientific conclusions, but it seems a bit out-of-our league for us to opine on the facts themselves unless we have some sort of scientific credentials in the area.)

Download PDF on Abrupt Climate Change from Woods Hole here.

UPDATE: It seems to me that the legitimate thing for amateurs to think about and discuss is decisionmaking under conditions of unlear information. I am quite puzzled why so many non-scientists can have such firm opinions on the science --- one way or another, I should make clear. Perhaps they think that faith can substitute for facts.

In any case, the puzzle for me is determining the wise/prudent thing to do when we can't be really sure what is happening. Of course that's all the more argument for intensive scientific research. I can't see how anyone can argue against lots of research.

UPDATE 2: A balanced and un-hysterical post on the general subject: Never Mind That Boiling Kettle....

UPDATE 3: One of the comments at Quark Soup also seemed right on:

Gore's mistake is in talking about global warming instead of climate change. If he were really in touch with science as much as he says he is, he'd talk about climate change. "Global warming" has become a touchstone phrase, a shibboleth, like saying "ancient forests" when you could be saying "old-growth forests." Gore could be leading the conversation a bit better, keeping the Drudges off guard.

UPDATE 4: Ironically, Philip Stott responds. Honestly, I had no idea that he was joking in the post to which I link, above. Now I am wondering if he means his whole blog to be humorous? Hitherto I had taken him seriously, even when I disagreed with his reasoning. Now I am not sure what to think.

Comments

[Alan Sullivan]

The haha is Al Gore, who is so dogmatic, being handed his hat by Ma Nature.

Earth's climate is variable by nature. Whatever humans do or don't do, they will have to live with that reality. This issue, more than any other, shows how the left is reactionary at heart, fearing change, and seeking to enforce stasis with state power.

[TM Lutas]

Actually, the Gore speech was likely a test. The global warming skeptics noted that global warming announcements and conferences were predominantly held during warm times of the year. With everybody sweltering, it was claimed, they used the warm weather to hype their conclusions beyond what the evidence demonstrated. If they held a global warming conference in winter, they'd be laughed out of the room. Well, they held a global warming conference in winter and the mockery and laughter is fairly loud.

The serious pro-action figures on global warming seem to be saying that we don't know for sure what's going on but the consequences could be so dire that we should take action right now anyway. The non-serious pro-action figures are saying we know what's going to happen and we should take action. I say that they're non-serious because their predictions keep turning up wrong without any change in their hype and fear levels.

So the choice for the adults in the room is between taking huge action on a complex, mostly unknown, and probably unknowable (think chaos theory) system versus researching the heck out of the question to push back the chaos created veil as far as we can and only take action within the area where we know what we're doing.

It's this 2nd approach which attracts me and focuses on mitigation (which can be done during our prediction time horizon) instead of prevention (which goes so far out that we really don't know if huge expenditures will actually have any real world practical effect decades down the line). Pay for iron filings to be dumped into the ocean to increase oxygen production at 1/10th the TCO of equivalent fancy carbon dioxide production prevention technology.

There are a great many things to learn on the question of climate. What non-technical people can insist on is that science follow standard methods of evidence and reliability and that advocates who bend those rules stop being paid attention by the rest of the scientific community, the media, and the public at large.

The amount of backtracking that has already had to be done by global warming advocates is pretty large. A winter conference on global warming exposes the hype machine further.

[Alan Sullivan]

I'm a "non-specialist," David, but I've studied weather intensively all my life, and I'm familiar with some technical aspects of the subject. There are genuine differences of opinion among climatologists, but "more research" is not necessarily going to produce meaningful answers when the funding is politically driven.

I notice, David, that you quote someone who wants to change the terms (though not the substance) of the debate, saying such a ruse would "keep the Drudges off guard." That's a typically ignorant partisan aside, from someone who obviously never reads Drudge. The fact is, Drudge seems very skittish about climate change, and he links alarmist articles on warming all the time, though he couldn't resist a chance to snicker at Gore.

[Ian]

I'm glad you have picked up on this, preempting my own version. Philip Stott is I am afraid becoming as guilty as those he criticises, of jumping to conclusions from minimal premises. To argue that because it has been extra cold in the US the last couple of winters there is no such thing as climate change is nonsense on stilts - and highly unscientific.

[Ian]

I should have added that regardless of whether climate change is human in origin, where we have the capacity to reduce emissions, and we pretty much do in any industry, we should do it. It does no harm and potentially a lot of good to reduce emissions of CFCs, CO2, even water vapour from industrial processes.

[Alan Sullivan]

"It does no harm..."

That's not true, if it drives up prices. What seems like a marginal inconvenience to you, in a rich country, can be the difference between life and death in a poor one.

[TomD]

As if the poorest countries have contributed any significant amount to the massive increase in CO2 emissions over the past 50 years. The average American is the cause of HUNDREDS OF TIMES the emissions of a sub-Saharan African. I think it is possible to put the screws on the former while not affecting the latter.

More than that: excessive emissions go hand in hand with economic growth (e.g. China). If we penalize emissions we run no risk whatever of penalizing the poorest.

If governments give incentives to companies and households with smaller emissions and tax those with larger emissions, in an overall revenue-neutral way, the price of living will not go up on average; the poorest may even find themselves better off.

A separate argument is whether penalizing emissions would stunt economic growth. If everyone and everything were currently operating at the peak of efficiency, it surely would.

But many industries and household appliances are notoriously inefficient. Huge efficiency savings are possible such that the same level of output can coexist with significantly reduced emissions.

Of course, if government does start subsidizing efficiency and taxing emissions, some jobs will shift from old industries into the sector of efficiency-improving technology. This might produce temporary disruption. But I don't see efficiency as a long-term barrier to prosperity.

[Waiting for Warmth]

Tom D's taxing proposal could only be imposed by levying a tax on energy supply (electricity, petrol, fuel oil, coal, gas, peat, wood, etc.) as it is purchased by the consuming entity (business, individual, or household). Surely he does not suggest having government CO2 auditors inspecting everyone's appliances, furnaces, production machines, autos, etc. to determine their "efficiency."

His idea also contains a fatal flaw: If the tax is going to be "revenue neutral," net energy use (and CO2 production) remains unchanged. If the goal is to reduce production of CO2 emissions through taxation, there must be an overall penalty for producing at the current level.

Energy consumers will either pay higher taxes to the government or incur the indirect "tax" of spending on effiency-enhancing technology (if available). Either way, costs will rise, depressing Western economies and paralyzing growth in developing nations. Is sub-Saharan Africa more likely to obtain the infrastructure necessary to lift it out of poverty if it costs more to build it?

Even in developed countries the results would be devastating. Assume you run a business and it costs you 20% more to pay your electricity bill. If you're not a monopoly you can't simply raise your prices any more than a worker can simply increase his wage. You have to make up for those extra costs somehow. How many workers might you have to lay off to keep your costs level?

TM Lutas's post presents the most balanced, rational view of this issue I have seen in a long time. To his/her cogent reasoning I might also add that it is by no means clear that warming would even be harmful (the Medieval Warm Period, when temperatures were considerably higher than they are now, used to be called the "Medieval Optimum" before global warming became a cause celebre). Let's dispense with the hubris, admit what we don't know, and implement expensive government mandates only when their need and effectiveness are both beyond any reasonable doubt.

[back40]

"Now I am wondering if he means his whole blog to be humorous?"

He often illustrates the absurdity of climate change hysteria by pointing out contrary indicators using the same breathless tone. His more thoughtful pieces emphasize how little we know and how tenuous our grasp is of what we think we know. His jokes are sometimes subtle, insider's jokes, and his humor can be sharp to the point of cruelty, but I think this is just the Brit way. It may be an acquired taste. I've been told that they think we colonists are dour and humorless, serious to a fault.

[Alan Sullivan]

Maybe I'm a bit late for a riposte to TomD.

The best forcer of efficiency is market pricing. All those fancy schemes just get in the way. If you distort prices by fiat, unintended effects at the margins can get amazingly nasty. Read some non-Marxist economic theory.

[Jenna Foster]

Climate. Global Warm. Stop it.