Into combat!

Click to enlarge. Source: Brian McFadden in NYT

The differences between those who accept the mainstream science on climate change versus those who don't is most often characterised as a battle or war.

Michael Mann's latest book, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Despatches from the Front Lines gives a clear outline of the opposition he has met. The force of opposition, the dirty tricks and personal attacks certainly fit the metaphor of war.

A 2010 editorial in Nature famously acknowledged the 'no holds barred' nature of the attacks on scientists.

The integrity of climate research has taken a very public battering in recent months. Scientists must now emphasize the science, while acknowledging that they are in a street fight.

Both sides attack and defend as though their lives depended on it. And of course, they do.

The difference is that one side thinks everyone's life depends on it, while the other side seems to be looking after itself at the expense of others.

Jigsaw puzzle

You open your new 1,000 piece jigsaw puzzle and tip the pieces onto the table making a messy pile of colours and shapes. One by one, you fit them together and the picture begins to emerge. Way before the end, you can see the big picture, but it is not until the last piece goes in that all the details are evident.

Scientists describe climate change as a jigsaw puzzle with thousands of pieces.

Climate scientist Michael Mann says:

... the evidence for human-caused climate change is more like a vast puzzle, a few pieces of which come from paleoclimate data like what my colleagues and I studied in our hockey-stick paper.

Michael Mann in The Mark News

Meteorologist Paul Douglas says:

The changes we’re seeing, far more than I can list here, seem like an accumulation of coincidences. Pieced together, reveal the full puzzle: There’s more heat and moisture in the atmosphere, and our emissions are largely responsible for keeping it there.

 Paul Douglas in Bloomberg News

Climate Bites  contrasts the jig saw approach with the house of cards approach to science. House-of-cardists busily attack a single element believing it will bring the whole house down. Jig-sawists point out that climate science is not like that. 

In testimony before Congress in 2010, Nobel-lauriate Mario Molina described his jigsaw analogy this way (via Dot Earth, Andy Revkin). 

There appears to be a gross misunderstanding of the nature of climate change science among those that have attempted to discredit it. They convey the idea that the science in question behaves like a house of cards: if you remove just one of them, the whole structure falls apart.

However, this is certainly not the way the science of complex systems has evolved. A much better analogy is a jigsaw puzzle: many pieces are missing, and some might even be in the wrong place, but there is little doubt that the overall image is clear, namely that climate change is a serious threat that needs to be urgently addressed.

It is also clear that modest amounts of warming will have both positive and negative impacts, but above about 4 or 5 degrees Fahrenheit most impacts turn negative for many ecological systems, and for most nations.

Climate change deniers like to pretend that the climate science rests on one or two pieces of evidence and they keep attacking the same one or two things. They're looking at a kindergarten puzzle with only two or three pieces, but the vast complexity of atmospheric physics and planetary climate systems are more like those 1,000 piece jigsaw puzzles with no straight edges.

Connect the dots

A good Connect the Dots puzzle is one where you don't see the picture until you have done the work of joining the dots. If you don't do the work, you don't see the picture.

Climate scientists connected the dots on changing weather patterns decades ago. They warned that the planet was warming and the consequences would be catastrophic. Many governments paid attention and began to implement policies to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Then vested industry groups began campaigns of misinformation and doubt that obscured the picture and prevented many from connecting the dots. 

Right now, the extreme weather events of the past 12 months are causing more people to connect the dots between record-breaking weather events and the long term trend of climate change. For many, the picture is emerging more clearly.

This new awareness will be leveraged by 350.org's Connect the Dots campaign that encourages grassroots events on 5 May 2012 around the world.

Climate Impacts Day is a global day of action taking place on May 5, 2012. On that day, we will issue a wake-up call, and connect the dots between climate change and extreme weather. We will educate, protest, create, document, and volunteer along with thousands of people around the world.

You can use their event finder to locate an event near you, or to start your own event.

See Bill McKibben's articulate 'Connect the Dots' piece in the Washington Post. 

Triage in the planetary ER

In the planetary ER, the walking wounded and stretcher cases are trickling in. The trickle is likely to turn into a flood as the planet continues to warm. Which problems need our immediate attention? Let's ask the triage nurse.

Here are the coral reefs damaged by the increasing PH of oceans as they absorb more CO2. And here are the small island states that are affected by rising sea levels. Coming through the door are the millions affected by extreme weather events (12 extreme weather events in the US in 2010 had an estimated $57bn damage while 70,000 people died in the 2003 heatwave in Europe). Here are the threatened species and here is the compromised maple syrup industry. And here is the thawing permafrost that is releasing methane into the atmosphere making matters worse.

The ER nurse would probably ask the maple syrup industry to take a seat while the doctors attend to poor old permafrost who needs to lie down in a cool dark room, or extreme events who is having a temper fit and needs restraint. 

Given limited resources, we are going to have to decide which problems are important and absolutely MUST be addressed immediately, which problems can be handled a bit later, and which problems will never be addressed, instead they'll be accepted as collateral damage.

It's likely that maple syrup producers in zones that become too warm will be collateral damage. Maybe they can close up shop and then sue the government for damages for failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions decades ago.

Erika Spanger-Siegfried, a senior analyst in the Climate & Energy program at UCS, used the triage metaphor in this blog post.

Like a baseball player on steroids

Steroids won't guarantee that a baseball player hits a home run every time, but the drugs increase the chances of hitting more home runs across the whole playing season.

The greenhouse gases that are warming the atmosphere and oceans won't guarantee that we will get more extreme weather events EVERY year, but they will increase the chances of more extreme weather events over longer periods. It's already happening.

NCAR/UCAR has a great resource page framed around the baseball on steroids metaphor. Among the goodies, they offer this two minute cartoon video explanation.



Jeff Masters, a meteorologist and cofounder of the Weather Underground, describes global warming as like putting the atmosphere on steroids.

He uses this analogy in this PBS interview in the broadcast  “How 2011 Became a ‘Mind-Boggling’ Year of Extreme Weather” that aired on on 28 December 2011.

Watch How 2011 Became a 'Mind-Boggling' Year of Extreme Weather on PBS. See more from PBS NewsHour.

And for those who think climate change has nothing to do with baseball, take a look at this graph of globabl temperatures and home run rates. Correlation is not causation, but...  The graph is discussed in this Washington Post article where climatologist Michael Mann is quoted as saying that the carbon emissions behind climate change may lower home runs. “If anything, anthropogenic carbon emissions and global warming should make the atmosphere slightly heavier, because we’re taking carbon that was trapped in the solid earth and releasing to the atmosphere (in the form of CO2), and a warmer atmosphere will hold more water vapor. Both CO2 and water vapor contribute (slightly) to the mass of the atmosphere.”

Temperatures compared to a 1951-1980 baseline since 1880 and the average home runs per team per game since 1880. (Temperature data from NASA GISS; home run data from Baseball-Reference.com ) [Click to enlarge]

We need to start taking the steroids out of the system by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Safe driving

It is difficult to know whether the car in front of you is going to slam on its brakes. Once it does, you are in crisis mode and your options are limited.

It is far better to practise safe driving and pay attention to what's up ahead. That way you can take evasive action in time to avoid it altogether, or to minimise the damage.

All the best scientists agree that there is a big problem ahead – the planet is warming and the consequences will be catastrophic for human society.

James Hansen, NASA climatologist, warns us, here,  of the dangers of exploiting Canada's tar sands.

Canada’s tar sands, deposits of sand saturated with bitumen, contain twice the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by global oil use in our entire history. If we were to fully exploit this new oil source, and continue to burn our conventional oil, gas and coal supplies, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere eventually would reach levels higher than in the Pliocene era, more than 2.5 million years ago, when sea level was at least 50 feet higher than it is now.

Matthew Huber, a Purdue climatologist, says that a 10°C temperature rise is definitely too hot for humans. He also thinks that 2°C  is a lost cause.

What happens if we ignore the problem that lies ahead and we're forced to cope in crisis mode? How can humans and animals adapt to catastrophic high temperatures? 

Burrow. Be active at night. Stay near bodies of water. Reduce activities to a minimum. Lower birth weight.

 Matthew Huber

Matthew Huber used this analogy in this interview.
Image is of a Volvo XC60 with sensor system to prevent rear impact collisions at city speeds.

Good news story

What's the good news story about climate change? For me, it is the exciting transition to a low-carbon economy.

The new low-carbon world will benefit billions of people by:

• Reducing prices/costs – reducing the cost of energy as fossil fuel prices soar. California wind and solar generators have signed contracts to deliver electricity for less than the cost of gas generators. Solar PV is cheaper than diesel in places as sunny as Spain.

• Providing jobs  – job creation in clean energy outdoes fossil fuels by a margin of 3-to-1. In Europe there are 1.1 million people are employed in renewable energy.

• Security – homegrown renewable energy gives certainty of supply that can't be provided by importing fossil fuels.

And of course the switch to a low carbon economy will prevent the worst excesses of 'business as usual' climate change.

Right now I can add to my rooftop solar PV for about $4,000 and eliminate electricity bills. Forever. It will take four years to recoup the $4,000 investment, after that I get free electricity.

I look forward to the first plug-in hybrid cars. They will eliminate my petrol bills except for occasional long trips. My current Prius saves me $1,000 a year in fuel bills, compared with my previous car.

I also want to see solar and wind power in the poorest countries – funded by carbon offset programs. A quarter of the world's population does not have electricity at all. I want them to get clean power.

What's YOUR good news story?