Bishop Hill Tamsin on climate sensitivity, lukewarmers and what we risk
May 3, 2015 Climate: Sceptics Climate: WG3 Climate: sensitivity As a pearl in the dunghill of the Guardian's climate change coverage, Tamsin Edward's wise article today is going to take quite a lot of beating. It attempts to sideline the namecallers, pointing to the areas of agreement and sensible disagreement in the climate debate, particularly over climate sensitivity, and ends on these very pertinent questions.
But whether we are in denial, lukewarm or concerned about global warming, the question really boils down to how we view uncertainty. If you agree with mainstream scientists, what would you be willing to do to reduce the predicted risks of substantial warming? And if you’re a lukewarmer, confident the Earth is not very sensitive, what would be at risk if you were wrong?
For a mainstream scientist, are you confident enough in your computer simulations to argue that they support the need for the shifting of resources away from dealing with the problems of today - clean water and energy for developing countries are obvious candidates - and towards the problems of the next century?
Reader Comments (134)
I, for one, would like to have someone from the "mainstream" climate science community write down precisely what it is they believe about the science. Is the research being done by Svenarks team outside the "mainstream"? Do other scientific disciplines have a "mainstream"?
What is it exactly? C'mon Tamsin do a bit of "communicating" explain to us why a scientific activity has a mainstream and, well, something that's not "mainstream".
Good to see the Bish's more recent post citing Nisbet's call for greater diversity of thought in environmental studies courses.
This underlines the point I was making above, that a particular view on the science does not automatically imply a particular view on policy responses.
Ruth Dixon
As Kim says, governments of BRIC countries accept mainstream climate science and also naturally want to maintain their own economic development.
eg. Here's Carbon Brief's essay on India.
Ben Pile
We did tell the funders that we are uncertain about what exceeding 2C actually means, that's exactly why they are funding us to do research on it! If we already knew the answer, the research would not be needed.
Regarding your point:
I don't see why both questions cannot be pursued, especially since the first concerns mitigation policy whereas a key reason for the second is to improve understanding in order to better inform long-term adaptation policy and planning. The simplistic view of 2C as a threshold for all sorts of catastrophes could lead to wrong and expensive decisions such as, for example, over-engineering of coastal flood defences.
Three posts by Richard Betts, but still nothing on any research having been done by his "project".
Just so taxpayers can see how much this is costing:
http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/110977_en.html
Can anyone see any evidence of the "original research" upon which our money has been spent?
I suppose that, by "mainstream climate science", Betts means those who get to go on the same jollies as does he?
( I knew that an "improve understanding" was coming up soon. Maybe that could best be achieved by some of the original research being made public? Or maybe not, in the strange but lucrative world inhabited by Richard Betts. )
Otter asks
"Question to Richard Betts~ Does that fresh water come to those people for free, or are they required to give up hopes, dreams and freedoms in other areas in order to get it?"
Eli asks, does that dirty coal come to those people for free or are the required to give up. . well certainly money on a continuing basis.
The difference between coal and solar/wind/hydro, is that the former has relatively low capital costs and large operating costs, which Bjorn Lomborg, Tamsin Edwards and the good Bish, are not going to help with. Those operating costs include the costs of mining (Matt King Coal likes the export possibilities), transport (railroads and shipping), a transmission (btw 26% of central electrical power in India. . um. . .vanishes) and, oh yes, air pollution. OTOH, renewables have high capital costs but low operating costs. The sun and wind as they say are free. Water, since Ms. Thatcher, does have a cost.
So Bish, you gonna step up and help the poor electrify with renewables, or bleed them paying for Matt's Coal? Just askin.
Richard, I suspect the BRICs are suspecting low sensitivity. They're still looking for sympathy, and possible reparations, for the head start the developed West got. Some of 'em may even recognize that the gentle warming and great greening from the anthropogenic aliquot of fossil CO2 has been and will continue to be a great boon to all the biome, mere humans included. Besides, we also got a lot of energy, lest we forget that munificent benefit.
==============
Is the research being done by Svenarks team outside the "mainstream"?
Not even. If you mean the stuff at CERN they fell into every trap in atmospheric chemistry, but, once they got some competent aerosol people involved they confirmed what had been found without the zillion dollar accelerator, that the limiting step requires a bit of amines and that cosmic rays are in no sense limiting.
Richard Betts We did tell the funders that we are uncertain about what exceeding 2C actually means, that's exactly why they are funding us to do research on it! If we already knew the answer, the research would not be needed.
Curious... because the good folk of the Grantham institute seemed so very certain about 2C. Do they have the answer? If not, how do you think we should understand their confidence? If they're wrong how should we challenge them?
I don't see why both questions cannot be pursued, especially since the first concerns mitigation policy whereas a key reason for the second is to improve understanding in order to better inform long-term adaptation policy and planning.
Well one reason for not answering questions which are not understood is like the answer you gave above -- it would likely lead to pointless expensive policy. We were talking about the extent to which green ideology is presupposed. Isn't it obvious that the 2c limit is already an organisng concept, with expensive consequences? Isn't it obvious that science.... HELIX, etc... is being asked to say what 2 degrees means after the fact? It's not simply that green politics precedes the science... green policies precede it, too.
jolly farmer
The original research in HELIX is listed on the HELIX website under "Our research" in the bar at the top, and also under work packages (in the footer at the bottom)
I'm prioritising answering questions from people who are at least making the effort to be respectful and constructive. If you see me overlooking your questions in future, it's because you're being rude again.
Wow. So, once again, asking simple questions is "being rude". In other words "kiss my arse or I won't speak to you". Some people have a very inflated sense of their own importance.
Laurie Childs
If all jolly farmer did was indeed just "ask simple questions" then it would be fine. It's words like "criminal" that make it rude. And your last comment definitely is rude. I think we've reached the end of useful discussion on this thread.
"As a pearl in the dunghill of the Guardian's climate change coverage, Tamsin Edward's wise article today is going to take quite a lot of beating."
No, Mr Montford, it's just more scaremongering nonsense .
Cap and trade (needs the existence of global warming to operate) may be the biggest transfer of wealth from poor to rich in history.
http://www.scrapthetrade.com/intro
Ben
If you were tasked to answer a question the best you could, and you knew the best you could were not good enough, would you still try to answer the question?
Climate scientists do. There is a lot one could talk about professional conduct, ethics, etc.
Once again the point is that _since_ they believe the world might see a disaster because of climate change, some people naturally act as if morals didn't matter anymore.
Once you get into the mindset of climate change "risk", there is nothing beneath you. It's the same reason Dick Cheney was able to rationalise the attack against Saddam Hussein, and Blair did have to make the "infamous 20-min" speech.
Eli thanks for your response. If I may could I repeat the question for you as you appear to have either misread it or replied in SerboCroat through a poor English translator.
"Is the research being done by Svensmark outside the "mainstream"?
To help you help me, can you see anywhere in that question where I've suggested that Svensmark's work was correct/incorrect science or whether it supports or didn't support a political position. I'm merely trying to understand why there's a "mainstream" climate science and what constitutes being outside of the "mainstream' so I provided Svensmark as an example.
I didn't need you opinion on their worthlessness/stupidity as scientists I am merely trying to understand the use of "mainstream". Are there "mainstream" physics scientists? Or Chemistry. Can you point to any other branch of scientists where there are those doing research "outside the mainstream".
Thanks for you response BTW but please try to understand what I'm asking.
Tx.
omnologist: "If you were tasked to answer a question the best you could, and you knew the best you could were not good enough, would you still try to answer the question?"
They don't get a choice, I've been in that position myself, where the politicos/senior management believe you're the "go to guy" and you haven't a clue. "I don't know", is not an option in those circumstances. Well, it is, but it's not a "This job is going to feed my family for the foreseeable future", option. Personally I bluffed and got the right answer, but like everything in life it was a lesson to me. Hence as soon as the 2C came up I knew it was an unscientific guess provided to keep the kettle on the boil and satisfy the politicos simultaneous. When I eventually became the equivalent of a "politico" in my field the lesson was learned and should I have gotten the 2C answer I'd be asking, "Does that mean 2.1C is bad and 1.9C is good and making the people who gave me the answer squirm until we got to a position where we were comfortable with the number.
So here we have the current situation, the cliscis have told the politicos that 2C is some sort of turning point, which the politicos - not surprisingly given the mountain of propaganda on this stuff - accepted. So now they want to know how much of a problem it's going to be and have asked the "go to guy" Richard Betts, Head of Climate Impacts at the Met Office. Richard has the choice of running his computers through a few (let's be fair, maybe 100s of scenarios) and giving them an answer. The one answer he can't give, of course, is, "No real impacts", because his colleagues, and for, all I know, Richard himself, have hyped up the fact that there would be "consequences" and that "action" needs to be taken now.
He needn't worry of course because there appear to be a multitude of so-called scientists willing to tell the politicos there'll be hell to pay if we don't take mitigation seriously. But he is still left with the dilemma, what if his models don't show any catastrophes, or if they do, if some politician has the nous to ask him what happens "in the limit".
I come back, (as I nearly always do) to Beachcomber's "If we had some bacon (2C rise in temperature) we could have some bacon and eggs (disasters requiring mitigation) if we had some eggs (disasters)."
So give him a break. Finally you big shots calling him "Betts" give it a rest. It doesn't make you look tough, just ill mannered.
It really doesn't make sense but Richard would do well to remember Yogi Berra's, "It's always difficult to make predictions. Especially about the future."
Lets play a game. Taking 1988 as the starting point of "official" concern about climate change. Lets answer the following questions:
1. Cumulatively to date, how much money has ben spent on "climate research"?
2. What climate predictions since 1988 have been shown to be true to date?
3. Name and cost up the savings that have accrued from accurately predicting a climate event to date that we have been able to actively mitigate and compare to the cost of simply adapting to the same event. So for example, we might consider the cost of windmills and their effect on reducing CO2 emmissions and the subsequenbt cost saving that has arisen.
4. Taking all of the costs, including net savings etc from the above list, ask yourself whether if there had been no climate research at all since 1988 (no supercomputers, no IPCC meetings, no reports, no hockeystick papers etc) and all the money had instead been built on improving the lives of poor people in developing nations, including providing cheap electricity, clean drinking water, education, HIV protection, health and medicines would the world be a better place?
Frankly, if climate research had stopped in 1988 I don't think the world would have noticed anything at all. Except it would have saved an awful lot of money that could have been spent on better things. And I haven't even included climate mitigation spending in my argument either. That would trump all the costs, I suspect.
Imagine what could have been done with all that money. Instead of wasting it on "possible futures" it could have helped tackle the realities of the here and now.
Omnologos - If you were tasked to answer a question the best you could, and you knew the best you could were not good enough, would you still try to answer the question?
I'd say a certain scientist missed his vocation as a politician.
I would have thought he would be more interested in the scientific controversy that seems to exist between the Grantham Institute and HELIX on the question of the 2-degree target.
Geronimo, Svensmark's stuff in a sense is like the Iris hypothesis, where people looked and moved on.
Dr Betts, thank you for the link to the helix website. You might note, however, that I had already provided a link to the "work packages" section in an earlier email.
You provide details of model runs based upon a range of assumptions. I was hoping for information on original research.
Perhaps the most telling part of this exchange is your inability to see the difference.
I have every sympathy for you. You graduated in 1991, just at the start of the Climate Change Industry. You had an interest in meteorology, and so inevitably were led to computer modelling. You are now a very visible face of the Met Office, with an off-the-rails boss.
Instead of complaining about me being "snarky" or "rude", I would prefer you to say "Foxtrot Oscar". But please back that up with explanations of the utility to the European/British taxpayer of studies of the impact of things that have yet to happen ( despite ever rising level CO2 levels ) and, at levels of 2, 4 or 6 C above present.
Hi Eli, thanks again, I mustn't be making myself clear so I'll try again, with maybe and example for clarity. I'm trying to understand what Tamsin, and indeed others, mean when they refer to the "mainstream" climate scientists. You're responses seem to me to indicate that writing a paper that's subsequently proved to be wrong makes you not part of the "mainstream".
Feynman must be turning in his grave. In what other branch of science is it not "mainstream" to write a paper that turns out to be wrong?
So to help you, should you indeed know, I'm not interested in whether a theory, or paper, is wrong. Producing work that's wrong happens in science all the time, yet I know of no other branch of science that has a "mainstream". Nor am I interested in what they're investigating, everything should be challenged and as long as it hangs together considered, as it is in most scientific disciplines. So what constitutes not being part of the "mainstream" of climate science? Do you know?
geronimo
Why are you trying to talk sense to a rabbit?
Context : I don't think the Tamsin article made a difference. And question Tamsin & Betts perspective that science has a blockview that Climate Alarmism is right.
- People don't buy a porn mag for the serious articles,
and people don't buy THE GUARDIAN for objective climate coverage
(they buy it for alarmist climate porn)
I don't trust Tamsin, but thank her for sticking her neck out and explain in the Guardian that people should not be dismissed as "deniers".
However I wonder if few people read it the top comment gets only 19 likes and with 540 comments overall (perhaps only a100 different commenters ?)
Tamsin says of Lukewarmers "But they differ from mainstream views because they’re not convinced
1 there’s a substantial risk that future warming could be large *
2 or its impacts severe *
3 , or that strong mitigation policies are desirable. *"
Is there any other answer than "I don't know" to all 3 parts ?
I am not convinced that there is a huge "mainstream that is anti-lukewarm rather I think the vocal minority Climate-activist types are a minority as in surveys the majority of people don't show passion for climate alarmism. They never win any elections.
There is only one real world, but too me both Tamsin and Betts seems to have a false view that there is a standard "mainstream view in science"
As she says : "the scientific community is listening to lukewarmers"
Alarmist PR sources push that there is a standard science view of Climate Change.
I have never seen any evidence that this is true. To me firstly a lot of scientists are afraid to express an honest opinion and there are a huge spectrum of views from Bob Carter through to Michael Mann.
- Although I respect the time Tamsin and Betts give , I cannot respect any warmist for their science, as they fail the disingenuity test. Were I on the warmist team the first thing I would do is tackle my own side for a definition of "denier"
Secondly I'd ask them to stop using tricks like namecalling, throwing around phrases like 97% etc. But unfortunately they all seem to be defending a team instead of looking for objective truth.
Geronimo, I think there is possibly a case to be made for a differentiation between "mainstream" science and "fringe" science. I would define a fringe scientists as one who continues to pursue a theory despite it having been comprehensively shown to be wrong. For example in medicine one might, and indeed some people do, describe those pursuing homeopathy as non mainstream or fringe scientists.
However, one should not then fall into the trap of thinking that fringe science is automatically wrong, there are numerous examples of where fringe and mainstream have coalesced around the fringe ideas when they have been proved correct.
There does however seem to be a reprehensible tendency in Climate Science to denigrate any and all scientific work and scientists that do not support the cause
For the record:
Tamsin has said the headline and sub heading were written by the Guardian, not her
"Guardian: The lukewarmers don’t deny climate change. But they say the outlook’s fine"
yes Betts did a "distract rather than debate" trick
The Second thing about this post is that it became 3 pages of interaction from Dr Betts on his role as HELIX head so I thank him for that. Well the public pay his wages, so it is only right that shows some accountability.*
- However I learned almost nothing from him except that he says that they are not just wasting taxpayer money flying
to exotic meetings "(I think) 83% goes on original research" (but he cant show us evidence of this)
- I did however as usual learn a lot from other commenters like Jolly Farmer.
I tend to agree with @DodgyGeezer "They are defending a political position, and are happy to use all the propaganda tricks in the book to defend it. ...Betts is not conducting a scientific discussion. He's trying to defend a political position. The two are different."
a number of his assertions can be deconstructed
#1 "Many people argue that immediate and deep emissions cuts are not the way to go, and that we need to focus more on adaptation (at least in the near term) for precisely the reasons that some have raised above (eg. limiting opportunities in developing countries)." That's just MISREPRESENTATION no one here has a dogmatic starting position of "no CO2 cuts ever" they do have a position that justification for cuts must be supported by evidence and cost/benefit analysis.
#2 'You're confusing "climate scientists" with "greens". '
(met with the comment : "Actually I would suggest that often it is climate 'scientists ' who are mistaking the job they should be doing for running marketing and pushing policy for the Greens .
While other climate 'scientists ' have played the three wise monkeys over the poor science and worst behaviour of these people . Their inaction , other than wondering how they can get on the gravy train"
- Betts comment is asserting a false dichotomy : It's not skeptics vs "climate scientists" and "greens"
In reality there are experts of all sorts not just climate scientists, climate scientists are split into a wide range of viewpoints. The trouble is the big mouth activists get all the media time so as someone mentioned the problem is that the public only get to hear from the Greenie Climatescientists.
#3 Betts does seem to argue for shifting resources to CC issues "when a cyclone occurs and causes coastal flooding, the effects may be greater because the background sea level has already risen." ..
Context ! Context ..how flippen much, 2 mm ? I suspect at any given location we are talking the sea level in 2020 might be at a level previously expected in 2025.
#4 back to JF question on flying to exotic meetings
1. at $2m/year HELIX budget is small fry
2. There is a general issue of climate bias due to the conference jaunts it generates.
Surely it should be standard practice to have a public statement on cost waste-age saying something like "we apply standard cost wastage accounting measures, such that we do as many our meetings via teleconferencing as we can"
* Betts did seem generous with his bank holiday time, I wonder if he wan't sitting on the sofa with a beer .. baby sitting whilst answering our questions.
StewGreen. I'm not with the programme. Does referring to someone you don't know by their surname make your arguments stronger. I have profound differences with many people, including Dr. Betts, but it is a shame that so many people on this blog have taken to referring to him as "Betts".
Ah I understand from the Indoctrination article post 2 days after, there is a scheme to push a false narrative
@Geronimo No, and of course it's not an insult, nor intended to be. In the UK it is quite common to refer to people with rare surnames by just their surname. Especially if their firstname is very common, using the surname only is more practical and vice versa if their surname is common like Edwards.
..I always refer to "Laframboise" we always say Delingpole or Monbiot, or Cameron or Clegg, yet we say Boris.
(Although RB has once in the past expressed irritation for people only using his surname, I suspect that probably he has a Google Alert running on his full name so that he is alerted when people mention him on the web)
- I'd rather assumed that many commenters just use there own surnames, like perhaps Geronimo & Kim, Watts etc.
Oh I did make an ERROR, in point #1 above. The actual misrepresentation that Betts made of BHers that I was thinking of was
" It seems that people HERE don't like the particular policy outcome they think it implies, and so don't like the science."
Hey Betts is allowed to express an opinion,yet I'd expect something more scientific from a Cli-Sci Superman, cos Simple Cli-man John Cook with the simplistic activist view expresses something very similar on the Denial101x course
"The reason conservatives are more likely to reject climate science is because they don't like some of the solutions to climate change, such as regulation of polluting industries."
..Wow, cos this is just stated as fact with no proper evidence to back it up.
Hey it's an opinion but it seeks to dismiss skeptics views when I guess most would say they go with proper evidence, science and rationality, not cos they have a vested interest ...so the actual suggestion is a bit insulting.
yet Richard says "If you see me overlooking your questions in future, it's because you're being rude again."
- Of course two wrongs don't make a right' & rudeness should not be met with rudeness ..but they might say "he started it"
Geronimo, not only that Svensmark is wrong, but that he persists, nay insists in being wrong. Very Salby. Very hard of learning.
I see Betts left that discussion 20 posts from the end
\\If all jolly farmer did was indeed just "ask simple questions" then it would be fine. It's words like "criminal" that make it rude. And your last comment definitely is rude. I think we've reached the end of useful discussion on this thread.May 5, 2015 at 10:43 AM //
Jolly Farmer took the time to investigate the details of HELIX projects and had expressed an opinion "I see it as criminal waste" ..he did not namecall anyone a criminal (May 3, 2015 at 10:14 PM)
The packages are listed here
#1 The text seems propagandisatic in that refuses to acknowledge that warming could possibly be below 2C, and that the reason this project considers 2,4,6C is that is what it was allocated (hence it's title High-End cLimate Impacts and eXtremes) and some other body could be considering the below 2C scenarios
#2 What I was expecting was 10 clear projects
eg1 Sea Level Rise
eg. Glacier Risks etc
but no what you get is confusion cos
1. The language seems to need translation into clear English
and 2. projects seem to massively overlap
and 3. rather bizarrely projects often seem to be about managing the whole project itself
eg WP1 is Engagement and Communication with 30 workers including Betts
yet WP6 is Project Management led by Betts and including
item3 : Relations and communications with the European Commission (the funders)
item4 : Ensure an effective communication structure among the partners
whole list
Engagement and communication [WP1]
Pathways to Specific Warming Levels [WP2]
High Resolution Timeslices and Regional Downscaling [WP3]
Global Biophysical Impacts [WP4] Global Assessment of Socio-Economic Impacts [WP5]
Project Management [WP6]
Regional Foci : Europe [WP7] Sub-Saharan Africa (Northern Hemisphere) [WP8] South Asia [WP9]
Risk Management of Tipping Points [WP10]
Context : "HELIX receives funding of about 2.25 million Euros per year"...tht is pretty much nothing in the industrial world
hangon note how there are 2 sister projects to HELIX yet they too seem to cover other project aspects already covered by HELIX
"IMPRESSIONS (Impacts and Risks from High-End Sce- narios: Strategies for Innovative Solutions) is developing and applying a novel participatory methodology that explicitly deals with uncertainties and strong non-linear changes "
"RISES-AM addresses the economy-wide impacts of coastal systems to various types of high-end climatic scenarios"
JF tried to ascertain how much money is used for management/communication and how much is REAL ORIGINAL research
"2) What % of the money goes on original research, and where is this detailed on the helixclimate.eu site?"
he never got a real answer.
LOAN WE OFFER LOAN ALL OVER THE WORD APPLY TODAY LOW @ 3% INTEREST RATE APPLY NOW
Do you need a Loan?
Are you looking for Finance?
Are you looking for a Loan to enlarge your business?
I think you have come to the right place.
We offer Loans atlow interest rate.
Interested people should please contact us on
For immediate response to your application, Kindly
reply to this emails below only:
mohammdloanfinacialservice@gmail.com
Please, do provide us with the Following information if interested.
LOAN APPLICATION INFORMATION FORM
First name:
Middle name:
Date of birth (yyyy-mm-dd):
Gender:
Marital status:
Total Amount Needed:
Time Duration:
Address:
City:
State/province:
Zip/postal code:
Country:
Phone:
Mobile/cellular:
Monthly Income:
Occupation:
Which sites did you know about us.....
mohammdloanfinacialservice@gmail.com
WWW.mohammdloanfinacialservice@gmail.com