The IPCC: "All About Modelling, Not About Protecting the Earth"

I've waited awhile to let the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) hype die down a bit. Man, it sure was loud! But I'm not sure which was worse: the deniers saying that the report "proved" (huh?) that global warming has stopped or the enviros claiming that the report says "we face a global climate emergency" when it doesn't say that at all (but should).

Both groups are wrong. But for different reasons. 

The deniers? Well, we've been pumping 90 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every DAY for ages (almost half of which has been absorbed by the oceans). Where do they think all the heat radiated by those extra greenhouse gas molecules has gone? (The answer, by the way, is that the oceans have been warmed and ice sheets and sea ice have been melted. It takes some heat to accomplish that!)

The enviro groups? Well, the mistake they've been making is not noticing how much the IPCC has left out — namely all positive (that is, amplifying) carbon and climate feedbacks. So the IPCC's new ("RCP") scenarios are actually underestimates of the dangers we are unleashing in the climate system. In other words, the situation is much worse, and much more urgent, than the IPCC's Working Group I (Physical Science Basis) report.

It's all very complicated and complex, and clearly the media have to simplify it for the public. But how can we rely on the IPCC's assessments when they don't include all possible sources of warming in their computer models (due to "carbon cycle uncertainties")? How can we trust the IPCC assessments when they offer a range, but then only speak to the "mean warming projections" (what they call "most likely")? 

Should not climate scientists use the upper end of the temperature range when talking of risk? Especially since risk equals probability multiplied by magnitude (and the upper range of possible temperature increases is the potential magnitude)? Yet we're not just risking the mean warming projections, are we? We're also risking the upper ranges. And we're not just risking the upper ranges, we're risking those upper ranges with several degrees caused by carbon feedbacks tacked on.

Unfortunately (and perhaps ironically), the IPCC does not "do" risk. This intergovernmental panel that synthesizes the science of climate change has a code of silence on dangerous, disastrous, or catastrophic climate change. They claim that they cannot define "dangerous" climate change because that is a "value judgement" that science cannot make. (Gee, last time I checked, doctors were scientifically trained and they can tell you what's dangerous and deadly to human life.)

I'm not sure why the IPCC hobbles its scientific contributors and their discussions this way. But perhaps if each country's general public asked for more scientific honesty and a scientific assessment of how dangerous climate change could become, they'd be able to change their terms of reference.

If human beings (and our food/agriculture systems) have never experienced the temperatures that we're heading for, doesn't that at least imply danger ahead? Not "Ooh, it's not looking good," but "Holy flying %$#!, we're heading into a dangerous climate change emergency!"

Worth writing a letter or two, anyone? After all, changing political will is about the only transformative action (beyond individual reductions in carbon emissions) the public still has the power to take.

So, with apologies to the great Welsh bard, I'll leave you with a Dylan Thomas rendition by my husband that reminds us what our response to the AR5 ought to be. 

Do not go gentle into this unnatural night.
Real people burn and rave at Mother Earth's deplorable plight.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Rage, rage, rage with all your might.
— Peter Carter 

p.s. That quote in the title is also from my hubby, someone who spends many, many hours every day reading and synthesizing research on climate change.

"Selfish &%$#@!" Theme Week: Tuesday

My husband suggested that I choose a different name for my theme week. Something like "Climate Change Wimps Week." As in, what's driving the denialists and their denialist campaign is their fear; they are afraid to face what we're doing to the atmosphere and hence the biosphere. 

I actually like the sound of "climate change wussies" but I'm going to stick with "selfish %$#@!" anyway. 
However, the idea must have been rolling around in my head last night, because I woke up with this thought:

People who are working to slow global warming and to mitigate the climate change emergency are people who know that any "costs" involved in doing this will be miniscule compared to what it will cost if we don't stave off climate catastrophe. We've looked at Pascal's Wager, and we've made our decision. (See the video below.)

Our fear is grounded in deep care and concern for our children and their future. But where is the fear of climate change wussies grounded? I'm afraid it might now simply be a deep-seated fear of being wrong.

As I stated earlier this week, I would LOVE it if we climate change activists were wrong. The BEST NEWS IN THE WORLD would be finding out that the denialists were right. I would gladly trade my years of learning all this stuff, writing about all this stuff, crying about all this stuff for the news that it was all unnecessary.

Tragically, risk assessment won't let me give up. (Nor will my love for life.)

Risk = Probability x Magnitude.

Probability? It's already happening. Northern British Columbia's forests are orange, not green. Hells bells, even the cedars in my front yard are dying! University of British Columbia professor, Lori Daniels, says the death rate of cedars corresponds with the rise in average temperatures in the past few decades [pdf], and the ensuing longer dry periods and drought stress.

Scientists have been loathe to blame climate change for any one specific weather event — until now. According to a new computational approach, there's an 80% chance that climate change was responsible for the Russian heat wave of July 2010, which killed 700 people* and was unprecedented since record keeping began in the 19th century. "While the influence of climate trends on weather is recognized as 'loading the dice,' making extreme events more likely, individual events are still described in general terms of fitting patterns."

And magnitude? Oh my gosh. This is where I get really upset. I can see denialists not looking out the window, not following the news, not giving a damn about the more vulnerable populations in the world who are already suffering from climate change-related disasters. But I cannot fathom them being unable or unwilling to look to their own (grand)children's future. Why do they not want the best for them? And by "best" I mean food and water security. Why are they willing to gamble with their (grand)children's future for the sake of giving up some creature comforts today?

Our generation (at least in EuroAmerican cultures) has had it the best of any generation in human history. Hands down, no argument. And that has turned us selfish and lazy — but do we truly not give a damn about the future? Are we just lacking in imagination, and can only picture more of the same for them (which belies complete ecological illiteracy, sorry)?

Or are most of us afraid? Afraid of the monster our culture has created. Afraid to admit to it, to face up to it. And afraid of the consequences of not facing up to it, but afraid to admit they've been wrong?

Alas, maybe I'm overstating my case. Perhaps they're all just selfish %$#@!, and this has nothing to do with fear.

Time for some soul searching on the part of climate change denialists. Some heavy-duty, what-do-I-truly-value soul searching. Some "what do I want my legacy to be" soul searching. Some "my parents don't control me anymore so why am I still afraid of being wrong" soul searching. Some "do I believe in heaven or karma" soul searching. Some Pascal's Wager soul searching.

And if, after all that soul searching, the denialists still want to deny, may they please do it over a beer at the pub, instead of in forums where they're going to look selfish and mean-spirited. Cuz don't forget, we're trying to safeguard the future for your (grand)kids, too.

p.s. Here's one flaw I see in Greg Craven's version of Pascal's Wager. Costs. How come building new coal-fired plants and digging new oil wells (and cleaning up after them) and putting in new highways is never considered "costs" — but doing stuff to protect the children's health and future is "costs." That just doesn't make sense.

* The heat wave in Russia in 2010 didn't kill 700 -- I really don't know where I got that number from. It's estimated to have killed 55,000!

Good Grief, Why Aren't More People Talking About the Risk of Catastrophe?

When Peter presented at the climate change conference this past week, he talked about how we have to do everything we can to eliminate all risk of climate catastrophe. (We've already got climate change impacts happening all over the world, killing or otherwise ruining the lives of millions of people we don't seem to care about as we sit in our comfortable EuroAmerican homes and communities.)

A well known Canadian IPCC climate scientist — an afternoon speaker — who had snuck quietly into the back of the audience was the first to pose a "question." He said (in front of a roomful of university-aged young people) that he doesn't think we should ever use the word "catastrophe" in front of young people. It's too overwhelming, he suggested. He also said that people who use the word "catastrophic" are being alarmist.

Peter (my first and best climate hero!) responded that it would be irresponsible not to articulate the risk of catastrophic climate change. Risk, he explained, is determined by the formula "Probability x Magnitude," and so even if there is low probability of reaching the upper end of projected increases in global temperature (according to scientists using computer models that don't include Arctic carbon feedbacks, and which have quite consistently been shown to be underestimating impacts and/or overestimating timelines), if this does occur, the magnitude of impacts could be off the scales. So, do we want to risk ANY possibility of catastrophic climate change occurring?

Peter also pointed out (as I have here in the past) that being alarmed about something alarming is not the same as being alarmist. I was so proud of his respect for the right of young people to know the state of their planet and their climate.

At lunchtime, we talked with this climate scientist. His students, he told us, are all depressed and throw up their hands. He spoke of our young friend who committed suicide (though she struggled with an anxiety disorder), and another young man who is fasting until our government passes a climate action bill it promised not to delay when it prorogued the parliament. In a sense, perhaps these young people are not unlike the martyrs of social movements in the past. But also, don't the reactions of these young adults make sense? Aren't they actually logical responses to the global situation?

But there's something else happening here. Many climate scientists who demand proof and evidence and replicability and peer review within their own disciplines have quite readily latched on to this notion that climate change "doom and gloom" cause depression, despair, hopelessness, giving up and a sense of being overwhelmed in all who hear it. But where is the proof? Where's the evidence?

First, I would question how many people are indeed actually depressed, despairing, feeling hopeless and overwhelmed, and have actually "given up." Most people in our society just don't give a flying leap about the fate of the planet and future generations. Those who work with data should demand some data, not a nebulous "sense" about what's happening from some environmental NGOs.

The point I'm trying to make is that any depression, despair, hopelessness, giving up and feeling overwhelmed could be due to several variables, such as:

• a generation that is malnourished (raised on junk food, eating foods with depleted levels of nutrients)
• hearing how bad the situation is and then not seeing an appropriate response from leaders
• getting confused by (or sick and tired of) the bogus claims of the denial machine
• feeling guilty about knowing the truth of the situation and not making any effort to change things
• hearing how bad the situation is and not seeing us older folks getting on with implementing solutions (or not believing that we even can)
• and psychological projection on the part of the scientists (who don't want to face their own fears about climate change)

Unless and until you have evidence, verification, corroboration, authentication, documentation, validation, substantiation and replication of this unproven hypothesis, Dr. Climate Scientist Dude, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong ... and start doing the right thing by telling young people the truth about the potential risk of catastrophic climate change we're all facing.