The global warming dilemma

Posted by David Roberts at 4:49 PM on 24 Apr 2006

I've read three separate things in the past couple days that issue similar warnings:

First, a much-discussed BBC Radio 4 show on "overselling climate change." Before your hackles rise: there were no "skeptics" interviewed for the piece, only experienced climate scientists.
Second, an also-much-discussed piece by Andy Revkin in the NYT Week in Review, called "Yelling 'Fire' on a Hot Planet."
Third, a conference call with climate scientist James Hansen, along with some Democratic staffers, environmental groups, and journalists, hosted by the National Environmental Trust. The only place I can find it covered is this execrable piece on the execrable CNS News, but it's got the quote I want.

Hansen was asked about the recent upsurge in media coverage of climate change:

I am a little concerned about this, in the sense that we are still at a point where the natural fluctuations of climate are still large -- at least, the natural fluctuations of weather compared to long-term climate change ... So we don't want the public to hang their hat on a recent storm, recent hurricanes for example, because those will fluctuate from year to year.

Here's Revkin:

Projections of how patterns of drought, deluges, heat and cold might change are among the most difficult, and will remain laden with huge uncertainties for a long time to come ...

...

... While scientists say they lack firm evidence to connect recent weather to the human influence on climate, environmental campaigners still push the notion.

Here's the BBC:

Dr Hans Von Storch, a leading German climate scientist and fervent believer in global warming, is convinced the effect of climate change is being exaggerated.

"The alarmists think that climate change is something extremely dangerous, extremely bad and that overselling a little bit, if it serves a good purpose, is not that bad."

Enviros (and, hell, anyone who's concerned about global warming) are in a bind. Pushing quasi-apocalyptic talk about the current effects of climate change -- for instance, citing Hurricane Katrina -- goes well beyond the available science. If enviros tie public concern about global warming to current weather events, and there are a few years of calm weather, they will look like tools. It could backfire.

There's no getting around it: It's a bitch of a problem. It's slow, long-term, uncertain, global ... everything we are evolutionarily designed to screen out.

What to do? On his blog (yes, literally everybody has one), Revkin frames it this way:

[Advocates] can try to frame global warming in a way that makes it seem like the kind of "here and now" crisis we are familiar with, or they can do the much harder work of reframing value systems so that we do something rare for our species: act now to limit risks facing our children and their children.

Fudge the science or change human nature. What an unappealing choice!

It's late, so I won't try to cut the Gordian knot here. I'd only suggest one thing: I wish enviros would do a lot more to sell their ideas -- renewable energy, local food systems, bright green cities, etc. -- on their own merits, rather than as a way to dodge an oncoming train.

Enacting those ideas would produce a better, safer, cleaner, more equitable, more enjoyable world. That's worth doing totally irrespective of climate change. Don't you think?

For story: The global warming dilemma
14 Comments | Post a Comment

Exactly right

The key to motivating the country to combat global warming might not lie with global warming at all--it might instead lie with selling the idea in a much different way. Ending our reliance on oil not because Greenland is melting, but because gas prices are high and oil is running out. Moving towards a new way of powering our vehicles not because polar bears will disappear, but because growing asthma rates are keeping our kids out of school. These are the sorts of arguments we should be employing, at least along side those of global warming (if not in the forefront).

by zaea at 10:46 PM on 24 Apr 2006

Motivation

What do people want? The immediate drama of the global-warming debate (YEAH! Everyone's talking about it!) or an intelligently prepared future for their children (YUCK! That's too much work)?
Human nature is a bitch. Altruism rarely impedes those who are supposed to know better from selling back their textbooks. Especially that yuckky (BLECH! BLECH!) physics (BLECH!) textbook. I remember helping out an engineering honors student who sold hers back because it was too heavy. If the best and brightest only care about what they can get next month, then what chance do we have?
The real question is: do you care enough to revisit the fundamentals and open your old textbooks?
Your right. It's more fun to just blame everyone else.

by DrWark at 8:34 AM on 25 Apr 2006

Faites vos jeux

Denial about the severity of global warming is like saying drowning is a painless way to die. According to scientists, global warming is the most serious problem faced by human civilization. We are at the crossroads between heaven and hell. The science is clear. How bad it gets depends on what we do for the next generation.

The young need jobs. They could be employed making gas from coal or hydrogen from sunlight. The young want to do the work. Should they engineer war machines or solar machines? Adult supervision has a role to play here. Faites vos jeux.

by sunflower at 10:32 AM on 25 Apr 2006

French discipline

sunflower
I guess you didn't read my previous post.
Anybody who cares and pays attention to the science of global warming knows that the science is NOT clear. Anyone who claims to be a scientist and says it IS clear is a fraud. I know. I have bothered to go through the exercise of reducing all the historical raw data collected before 1950. There's not much and it is readily available for anyone who CARES about global warming. Where a real scientist is needed is where you run into such questions as why the temperature increase came to a screeching halt during the 1940's and 50's when everyone was burning oil as fast as possible.
'Gas from coal' and 'hydrogen from sunlight'? NO. Getting gas from coal is OK but it's dirty and expensive. Hydrogen from sunlight is science fiction.
You're right, the young need some adult supervision. Lead by example and open a physics book. Otherwise you are part of the problem.

by DrWark at 12:25 PM on 25 Apr 2006

40s oil burn rate fast as possible? Plonk.

Oil and other fossil hydrocarbons are being burned, of course, at a much greater rate now, and the effect of CO2 is cumulative, not tied to instantaneous rate. "Dr." Wark is an anonymous piece of -- well, I can't use vulgarity here. But everyone should plonk him.

--- G.R.L. Cowan, former hydrogen fan
B: internal combustion, nuclear cachet

by GRLCowan at 12:48 PM on 25 Apr 2006

a new book

Have you read Professor Eric Freyfogle's new book Why Conservation is Failing and How It Can Regain Ground? I heard him talk about it on the radio. He takes the big view -- the top 100 or so environmental groups should form a few think tanks so that they all know how to respond to challenges to their ideas (e.g. "property rights" issues) and so that the fighting and working at cross purposes is kept to a minimum. It could also help with the energy changes we will have to face, and by extension, social changes.

As to Revkin's choices, could they both be the right choice? Of course values should change, but whether you say effects of climate change are irreversible in 10 years or 30 years, that's a short time in which to restructure energy sources for millions of people.

by AE at 1:16 PM on 25 Apr 2006

Lighten up Graham

OF COURSE CO2 concentration is cumulative and the resulting temperature rise is not instantaneous! That's my point!

But since it is NOT instantaneous, what is the correlation between change in CO2 production and change in mean global temperature (dT/dC)? And the time delay (constant = 1 yr, 2 yrs, or 10 yrs?). And why does a 5-year average temperature slope deviate from the CO2 slope ONLY during those decades? Could it be that CO2 isn't the only culprit? If there are other significant global warming culprits, what are they and at what rate do they contribute? Or were we simply not measuring any of this accurately 50 or 150 years ago?

Answer these questions with some real scientific rigor, then pop off.

BTW, I'm pretty easy to google.

Ignorance is bliss. Happy plonking.

by DrWark at 4:17 PM on 25 Apr 2006
[ Parent ]

"fudging the science"

Is it "fudging the science" to link climate change and Katrina?

Greg Holland, a division director at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, doesn't think so. On Monday he told a conference that "the hurricanes we are seeing are indeed a direct result of climate change and it's no longer something we'll see in the future, it's happening now."

(http://today.reuters.com/News/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=N24341281)

Not all scientists will agree, of course, and to assert the value of a wilderness of ice at the North Pole is indeed worthwhile, but given the historical record of huge climate swings discovered in recent years, it's quite possible that we are underestimating the risks of climate change.

I don't see the either/or in this issue. I don't see traditional greens on one side, and climate change "alarmists" on the other. I see a consensus forming among enviros and duck hunters and many many citizens that we need to take action to preserve our lovely climate. With this consensus can come many different opportunties and solutions, some of them technological, some of them governmental, some of them profitable, some of them adaptive, some of them conservative.

Revkin and a few others fear overselling the risk, but I think people understand that one Katrina or one forty-year Southwestern drought or one massive Super El Nino is plenty enough reason to worry. If we do nothing and the ice at the North pole melts and we commit to extinction most mountain-dwelling species and lose a good percentage of our coral reefs for at least a few decades and nothing else awful happens, is that not enough? Will environmentalists be humiliated because total catastrophe has not ensued? I doubt it.

I think Revkin is right when he says that no one study is going to forever change the debate, but I think he's wrong to assume that people won't see the risks of blindly pulling at the levels of climactic power. The ground assumption is that people don't want to act, but in my experience, people do want to act to reduce the risks, but they don't know how. This is especially true with young people, I think. I send people to this site for ideas, and enjoyment. More power to you.

The rest is tactics...

by Kit Stolz at 4:42 PM on 25 Apr 2006

knowing what to do...

You raise a critical theme, which is the need to articulate a clear suite of strategies that -- once someone has crossed the threshold to action -- provides a sense she/he can wake up in the morning and make a greenhouse difference. Much more focus could be switched from ringing scary alarm bells to showing folks real-world escape routes. The Times is pursuing a series of stories this year on that side of the issue.

- Andy Revkin nytimes.com/revkin

by Andy Revkin at 8:51 PM on 25 Apr 2006
[ Parent ]

CO2 not the only culprit

There are numerous natural and increasingly human variables that can influence global average temperature. This is one of my favorite papers on the subject. The graphs show the comparison of observed temperature change with the changes that would result from just human activities, just natural flucuations, and with the human and natural combined. As you can see the one that fits the observed temperature the best is humans + nature. Work has now been done on the observed ocean warming, with similar results. So maybe we humans aren't soley responsible but our fingerprints are at the crime scene too.

by Ana Unruh Cohen at 9:25 PM on 25 Apr 2006

good points

First off, I was having trouble finding Dr. Wark on-line, there are way too many of those and none with those specific qualifications (go figure). The closest I found was Candace Wark, who does fluid mechanics research.

Second of all, the effects of increased greenhouse gases are unlikely by themselves to have a DRASTIC effect on climate change. The question for all the marbles really is how severe will the GHGs effects be on positive feedback loops and masked long-term effects. By that I mean increased decomposition and output of methane from boreal peatlands, decreased albedo due to melting snow and three century long ocean turnover (with the current co2 resurfacing three centuries from now).

I don't think that there is a climate change scientist out there that does not agree that global warming is not a legitimate occurence. The question is what are the effects and the severity of effects.

by atreyger at 9:30 PM on 25 Apr 2006

60 Minutes

James Hansen mentioned on his 60 minutes piece that the Democrats were trying to get him to speak on Global Warming and make the situation seem worse than it really was. The Republicans, on the other hand were trying to cover it up. As a scientist, he stood by his science and wouldn't go either way, but stuck by his guns. There is variation among the science, yes, but we can't doubt it.

If you go to the state of the planet website, there are some great video logs on scientists from around the world talking about climate change. There are some great pieces putting the issues in terms for the "everyman." Highly suggested!

The strategies I think are clear, but should be clearer. We need governmental mandates to curb the emissions. This is the first time in history that we are seeing anthropogenic change in both Carbon and Nitrogen cycles.

by Redoute at 9:58 PM on 25 Apr 2006

Don't Inject People with Doubt

I urge everyone to realize how hard it has been to get Americans to take climate change seriously and I don't think now is the time to slow down our efforts to hail its urgency. I am afraid at the suggestion to emphasize the "uncertainty" of the science because this has been the specific strategy pushed forward by notorious Republican pollster, Frank Luntz. Big oil and the Right have done a great job of exxagerating the level of uncertainty in the science and the lack of consensus among scientists. Do we really want to continue this?

The point is don't waste your breath explaining the nuances of the science. People will get bored and you will sow doubt in them. The point is to make people take it personally and get emotional. Nothing else is better for action.

Furthermore, I don't think people's acceptance of the science is necesarily tied to believing Katrina was a direct effect of climate change. We should stress it may very well be strongly related, and may be a sign of what is to come.

And please also express other related issues that people care about: pollution, asthma, war, gas prices.

My message to people is: Bottom line, the possible effects of climate change are much too destructive to delay action. If it ends up being nothing to worry about, at least we are left with the added bonuses of energy independence, and cleaner, more peaceful world.

by debonis at 3:10 PM on 26 Apr 2006

Environmentalists need to frame AND organize

Mother Mary Jones once said, "Don't mourn, organize." It seems to me that trying to figure out how best to communicate with the non-environmentalist world cannot be decided away from it.

By this I mean, that the effective ways to frame the message will come from going out and talking to people, and listening to what they say.

Arise from behind your computers and hit the streets, the factories, the schools and churches (office buildings too, of course). As we try to organize people, the message will "shake out". We will find the best ways through experience.

One of the weaknesses of the environmental movement is that it functions more like a committe of experts (i said this another way elsewhere (grin)) and less like a mass based political movement.

As to Eric Freyfogle's idea of new foundations, let me guess. They would be composed of people professors, like him, right? All of whom would such up large sums of money and resources to produce .... reports!!

We are out organized by the right because we are not out organizing!

patrick

by bookerly at 7:44 PM on 27 Apr 2006

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.