Monday, November 30, 2009

Trust Science

A few general truths to keep in mind in the wake of Climategate.

By John Derbyshire

The ninth commandment is: trust science. By this we mean a true science, based
on objectively established criteria and agreed foundations, with a rational
methodology and mature criteria of proof — not the multitude of pseudo-sciences
which, as we have seen, have marked characteristics which can easily be detected
and exposed. Science, properly defined, is an essential part of civilization. To
be anti-science is not the mark of a civilized human being, or of a friend of
humanity. Given the right safeguards and standards, the progress of science
constitutes our best hope for the future, and anyone who denies this proposition
is an enemy of science.

— Paul Johnson, Enemies of Society (1977)

Well, of course we all do trust science. We trust Bernoulli’s Principle every time we get on a plane; we trust celestial mechanics when we take the kids outside to watch a scheduled lunar eclipse; we trust subatomic physics when we relax with an iPod; we trust the laws of chemistry every time we strike a match; we trust the theories of Special and General Relativity when we consult a GPS gadget; we trust natural selection when we fret about drug-resistant disease strains or pesticide-resistant crop infestations; we trust molecular biology every time we pop a pill. Our trust in science is well-nigh unbounded. We hardly draw a breath without trusting science. Paul Johnson’s injunction would seem to be superfluous.

How odd, then, that some high proportion of readers bristled when reading Johnson’s words — or, very likely, just on seeing my title. Why get heated at being told to do something you have done a hundred times a day, all your life?

This is, of course, in the context of leaked e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at an English university — which is itself in the context of the climate-change panic (née the global-warming panic) that has been promoted by a subset of Western elites for a dozen or more years now. The scientists who generated those e-mails have all been helping to promote the climate-change thesis — the notion that humanity faces some great climatic catastrophe if we don’t radically change the way we use energy.

The normal thing at this point would be for the writer to declare a position on that underlying thesis. Is the earth’s climate changing to humanity’s dire detriment, or isn’t it? If it is, are the changes due to human activity, or aren’t they? In either case, is there anything we can do about it at acceptable cost and without unforeseen harm?

I have to cop out on that. As best I can judge, our planet probably is enjoying a long-term warming trend, though with much local variation and temporary lulls and reversals sometimes lasting for years. The Arctic certainly seems to have been losing ice these past 30 years, for instance (Figure 3 here). That these changes are human-made is not clear to me. The argument that they are rests largely on theories about the overall effect of changing CO2 levels, but those theories themselves are open to reasonable doubt. There is even more doubt about the consequences of any change that might be happening; and even where doubt is minimal, the consequences are counterintuitive. It is generally thought, for example, that an ice-free Arctic will leave Europe colder (by killing the Gulf Stream).

And the science is heavily polluted by politics. The climate-change legions are recruited mainly from the Western Left-intelligentsia, their kitbags stuffed with all the sub-Marxist and ethno-masochist flapdoodle of the modern academy. They hate capitalism, they hate Western civilization, and they hate their own ancestors. The kind of dramatic social engineering implicit in the phrase “combating climate change” is emotionally appealing to them.

Downstream from these ideologues are opportunist politicians (if you’ll pardon a pleonasm), too dimwitted to understand the ideology — let alone the science! — but eager to ride the climate-change wave to power and wealth. These pols find the gimcrack formulas of postmodernist Hesperophobia mighty handy for whipping up support from Bobo academy graduates and aggrieved ethnic groups. They control departments of state, which hand out grants and jobs to ideologically friendly researchers, corrupting the whole scientific process.

Nor is climate-change skepticism free of politics. There are big, rich, powerful interests hostile to the climate-change cult: Big Coal, Big Oil, and the Big BRICs. Given the stakes, it would be astonishing if they did not have their own paid shills in the game. I’d guess that there has been some busy deleting of e-mails these past few days at Mogul corporate HQ and BRIC embassies.

Now, somewhere under that political scrum is a rugby ball of scientific truth. Which side will get possession at last, is beyond my ability to figure. Hence the cop-out. I can, though, point out a number of general truths worth bearing in mind when relating this present flap to the larger business of science. My hope here is to wipe away the scowl you scowled at my title and P. J.’s opening remarks.

1. Settled vs. unsettled science. The examples in my first paragraph up there are all of settled science — theories sufficiently well-tested and robust that we can be confident they model the real world to high accuracy. These theories have no competitors. You can of course always find a contrarian, even on such thoroughly settled topics as heliocentrism or relativity, but no working scientist is losing any sleep over their arguments. Contrarianism in this zone is a social and psychological (occasionally psychiatric) phenomenon, not a scientific one.

Science is a lighted clearing in the forest. Around the well-lit central area exists a penumbra — a ring of more or less shadowed ground. Beyond that is the infinite dark domain of our ignorance. Scientists toil to enlarge the lighted area — the zone of settled science. This is the science Paul Johnson wants us to trust. This is the science that we do trust. In the penumbra, though, there is dimness enough for all kinds of malarkey. This is the preferred playground of ideologues, politicians, and crooks. This is where the climate-change battles are being fought.

2. Trust science, but don’t trust scientists. Scientists are human and subject to the same weaknesses, failings, and fixations as the rest of us. Most science research goes on in the universities of the Western world, where the dominant ideology is the leftist, anti-Western one noted above. Math and science people usually don’t care much about politics. Their subjects are too difficult, demand too much in the way of mental resources, to leave anything over for thinking deeply about politics. They breathe in the atmosphere of the academy, though, and it poisons their blood, the more easily just because they don’t think about it much.

Even without the political pressures of the climate-change game, scientists are often dishonest. The dishonesty occasionally slops over into downright crookedness, but discreet data manipulation is much more common. An important thing to remember here is that practically all of this is done to “improve” results the researcher believes to be true, not to put over something he believes false. (Gregor Mendel, the father of modern genetics, was accused of “improving” his data in this way.) As reprehensible as the behavior of the CRU e-mailers surely was, it tells us nothing about the existence or non-existence of climate change.

Science contains a core magisterium, which we can and do trust. It also contains a hinterland of more or less “open” enquiries, where you need to peer very carefully at the numbers before extending trust — where, indeed, it is wisest to withhold trust altogether until the smoke of battle has cleared. Public funds should likewise be withheld from these areas, though any particular problems arising from climate change should be dealt with if and when they show up.

3. Consensus vs. contrarians. In any region of science there is usually, at any given time, a consensus position and a contrarian position. For theories solid enough to be part of the magisterium, contrarianism is out at the social fringes, as noted. In less settled areas, the contrarians themselves are working scientists, with data they can bring forward to challenge the consensus data. This is certainly the case with climate science. Here, for example, are 31,000 scientists who think that

there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide,
methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable
future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of
the Earth’s climate.

The temptation for outsiders is to side with the underdogs, the contrarians. The temptation is especially strong for conservatives, who are suspicious of bossy technocratic elites possessed of esoteric knowledge. We are inclined to think that the shape of our light bulbs, the capacity of our toilet cisterns, and the axle weight of our automobiles should be decided between ourselves and the relevant vendors, on market principles, not dictated to us by bureaucrats.

The temptation should be resisted. Contrarians do indeed sometimes turn out to be right, but that’s not the way to bet. Consensus exists for a reason, and a consensus should put up some spirited resistance to being overthrown.

Newtonian mechanics says that the orbit of Uranus ought to look like this. In fact, it looks like this. Eeek! Newtonian mechanics must be wrong! Actually, no; it’s just that there is a hitherto-unseen planet disturbing the data. A well-established consensus doing useful work should not be blown over by a puff of breath, or by scattered cases of contradictory data. Neptune-style possibilities have to be exhausted. There should be longstanding problems defying explanation. There needs to be a coherent alternative theory available — such as the one Einstein proposed to replace Newtonian mechanics.

Contrarians should be made to fight for their victories. If they fight on fair ground, wielding superior data and arguments, they will win, and become the new consensus. There have been scientific revolutions aplenty, and there will surely be more. Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Lavoisier, Faraday, Darwin, Pasteur, Planck, Einstein, Hubble, and Wegener are not revered for their defense of a consensus. To overthrow a consensus, or force major changes on it, is the dream of every young scientist. Older scientists may settle for tenure, rank, political patronage, and a quiet life, but there will always be younger ones ready to fight from the contrarian corner.

4. Small stakes. Let me deflate that last parallel a little. While the political and financial stakes in the climate-change controversy are huge — power, jobs, money, economic transformation — the scientific stakes are small.

Climate change is not an overarching theory like Newton’s mechanics or Faraday-Maxwell electromagnetism. It’s an interpretation of some data — data fuzzy and uncertain enough to be capable of other interpretations. The intellectual stakes here are small. Dogged defense of the phlogiston theory of combustion post-Lavoisier would make you look like an idiot; dogged defense of one plausible interpretation of iffy climatological data, against another one equally plausible, just makes you look mistaken. It is correspondingly easier on the consciences of researchers.

5. The mills grind slow. You may say: “That’s all very well; but plainly we need some better method for weighing the claims of contrarians against the claims of the consensus.”

Perhaps we do, but I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for it. It takes nine months to have a baby; there’s no shortcut. Nor is there any way to shorten the process by which scientific truth emerges — a process at least as messy and painful as parturition, and lasting a great deal longer. It took 300 years (Copernicus to Bessel) to resolve the issue of stellar parallax, the last obstacle to the dispositive establishment of heliocentrism.

Paul Johnson is right: We should trust science. We have no other way to find out truths about the natural world, and the successes of science, both epistemic and practical, are tremendous.

That is to speak of science as a magisterium, though: as a core of settled knowledge, of theories — heliocentricity, the circulation of the blood, electromagnetism, natural selection, the Periodic Table, continental drift, cosmic expansion — supported by great masses of evidence, contradicted by none, fruitful in prediction, and without serious competitors.

The mills of science grind slow, too slow for political enthusiasts. They deliver the goods at last, though. And what goods they are! Compare the amenities of our lives now with those of our ancestors 350 years ago before the scientific revolution. Compare, too, the worldwide condominium of shared understandings — the de-tribalization of thought that science has brought about. Time was, not so long ago, that educated people in Beijing, Bombay, Berlin, and Bogotá had different creation myths, different explanations for natural phenomena, different treatments for bodily failings.

Now we all share the same knowledge of the natural world, the same systematic and clear understandings. Those are the accomplishments of science, Western civilization’s great gift to humanity. To turn against science is folly, a lurch back towards superstition, tribalism, and barbarism. For a person of the West to turn against science is also cultural treason, a form of ethno-masochism as shamefully deplorable as the postmodernist rejection of reason and language that has poisoned the faculties of arts and humanities in our universities. “To be anti-science is not the mark of a civilized human being, or of a friend of humanity.” I completely agree.

Peak Oil teooria ehk Nafta6htu

Võtame peak oil teema ka arutluse alla: wiki

Kindlasti peaks tutvuma, milline on elu pärast naftakrahhi:

. . the consequences would be unimaginable. Permanent fuel shortages would tip the world into a generations-long economic depression. Millions would lose their jobs as industry implodes. Farm tractors would be idled for lack of fuel, triggering massive famines. Energy wars would flare. And carless suburbanites would trudge to their nearest big box stores, not to buy Chinese made clothing transported cheaply across the globe, but to scavenge glass and copper wire from abandoned buildings.

. . . when the truth can no longer be obscured, the price will spike, the economy nosedive, and the underpinnings of our civilization will start tumbling like dominos. "The price of houses will collapse. Stock markets will crash. Within a short period, human wealth -- little more than a pile of paper at the best of times, even with the confidence about the future high among traders -- will shrivel." There will be emergency summits, diplomatic initiatives, urgent exploration efforts, but the turmoil will not subside. Thousands of companies will go bankrupt, and millions will be unemployed. "Once affluent cities with street cafés will have queues at soup kitchens and armies of beggars. The crime rate will soar. The earth has always been a dangerous place, but now it will become a tinderbox."

By 2010, predicts Leggett, democracy will be on the run . . . economic hardship will bring out the worst in people. Fascists will rise, feeding on the anger of the newly poor and whipping up support. These new rulers will find the tools of repression -- emergency laws, prison camps, a relaxed attitude toward torture -- already in place, courtesy of the war on terror.

And if that scenario isn't nightmarish enough, Leggett predicts that "Big Oversight Number One" -- climate change -- will be simultaneously making its presence felt "with a vengeance." On the heels of their rapid financial ruin, people "will now watch aghast as their food and water supplies dwindle in the face of a climate going awry." Prolonged droughts will spread, decimating harvests.

Kuidas sellesse teooriasse suhtuda? Ma lugesin teema kohta põhjalikumalt 3-4 aastat tagasi ja järeldasin, et teooria ise tundus enam-vähem pädev, aga suure tõenäosusega minu eluajal 5 miljardit inimest välja ei sure (kuna leitakse uusi naftavälju, jne,). Ainsaks päästerõngaks oleks tehnoloogia, mida hetkel veel ei ole. Viimastel aastatel pole arenguid jälginud, peaks asja üle vaatama :)

Ja veel - mida üldse fossiilkütustest arvata? Mulle tundub, et olenemata CO2 maksudest või misiganes poliitikast, see pumbatakse nagunii maast välja ja kasutatakse ära. Ja kui siis pole uut tehnoloogiat...

Sunday, November 29, 2009

Watts Up With Watts?

Et kliima liiga teaduslikuks ei muutuks ning rohkem meelelahutust otsivale lugejale ka midagi pakkuda, tuleb aegaajalt rääkida ka poliitikast.
Üks hetke aktiivsemaid skeptikuid veebiavarustes peale õlitööstuse palgal oleva nõuniku ja endise börsianalüütiku Mr. McIntryre`le, on Anthoney Watts, kes peab webilehte Wattsupwiththat?
Sellel lehel olev info on kurvalt naljakas kuid üldsusele meelepärane.

Kerge analüüs mehe taustast:

The Denial Machine

The Denial Machine - Nov. 15, 2006

David Archer - Video Lectures

Video Lectures

Chapter 1

Intro

9/30/2009

Chapter 2

Heat and Light
Blackbody Radiation and Quantum Mechanics

10/2
10/5

Chapter 3

Our First Climate Model
The Greenhouse Effect

10/7
10/9

Chapter 4

What Makes a Greenhouse Gas
Greenhouse Gases in the Atmosphere

10/12
10/14

Chapter 5

What Holds the Atmosphere Up
Why It's Colder Aloft

10/16
10/19

Chapter 6

Wind, Currents, and Heat

10/21

Chapter 7

Ice and Water Vapor Feedbacks
Clouds

10/30
11/2

Chapter 8

The Weathering CO2 Thermostat
Lungs of the Carbon Cycle

11/4
11/6

Chapter 9

The Battery of the Biosphere
Coal and Oil
Oil and Methane

11/9
11/11
11/13

Chapter 10

The Carbon Cycle Today
The Long Thaw

11/16
11/18

Chapter 11

The Smoking Gun
The Present in the Bosom of the Past

11/20
11/23

Chapter 12

Six Degrees

10/23

Chapter 13

Hot, Flat, and Crowded

11/25

Climate Modeling

— filed under: ,

Climate modeling is actually 'one' of the ways we come to understand climate on earth. That's because we don't have extra planets that are just like earth to experiment on. Some say that models can be wrong. It's a common mistake people make... the point is not that models 'can' be wrong. The point is models are 'always' wrong, that's because models are not real, they are models. But that does not mean that they are not relevant and useful for understanding how things work. The truth is that if you only use measurements and raw data, you can't even get close to the truth about climate.

Climate Modeling

NASA/GISS Climate Model Estimated Scenarios

Models are important to understand climate.


  1. In science, it is often preferable to do an experiment. But to do an experiment with global climate, we would need more planets just like earth to test. Then we could try different mixes of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and see what happens. However, since we don't have any extra planets, we need to model the climate: Experiment: Webster, Wiki
  2. The reality is that raw data is terribly misleading when measuring the earths temperature. Many aberrations need to be compensated for. That means that if you want to get a more accurate picture, you need to model the measurements and correct for aberrations. You make a model and test it. And others test it. And you refine it. And you refine it some more. It will never be perfect, and it can always be improved, especially when dealing with complex systems like climate: Model: Webster, Wiki

An Important Point

Many people falsely assume that models are not perfect therefore we don't understand climate. This is a misnomer. Models only help us understand climate in a more reasonable way, they will never be perfect but they do reasonably show us what is happening in the climate of earth.. The actual observations are clear enough at this point that modeling is not required to understand that the earth is warming. We see the ice melting, the sea level rising and other affects such as seasonal shift, prolonged forest fire seasons, regional drought trends also support the observational confirmations.

Simply put:

  1. We know the amount of GHG's mankind has produced quantitatively.
  2. We know that should produce a relatively certain amount of forcing.
  3. We see that things are heating up.

In other words, the anthropogenic signal is strong enough that we are certain this global warming is:

  • Occurring
  • Attributable to the forcings caused by human output of greenhouse gases.
Some are still "under the mistaken impression that concern about global warming is based on climate models, which in reality play little role in our understanding -- our understanding is based mainly on how the Earth responded to changes of boundary conditions in the past and on how it is responding to on-going changes."
- Dr. James Hansen

Climate System Models

General Circulation Models (GCM's)

GCM's are used to understand the forcing systems that influence climate here on earth.

By feeding data into the model simulations, scientists are able to test potentials and evaluate the various influences of the earth climate system.

Just because they are simulations does not mean that they are not useful or accurate. In fact modeling climate is the only way to estimate climate functions with any degree of accuracy.

Modern climate models are more accurate than the instruments in some cases. The models actually help identify measurement problems in the real world. And that 'is very' important, because measuring the global climate is a lot of measuring. The models are so good, they can actually help identify instrumental aberrations that can then be examined and fixed.

What has been learned?

Using the above processes, mistakes and aberrations from measurements are corrected for with models which are tested against the measurements and then refined.

Can climate modeling improve?

Absolutely. Continued investigation and testing of the measurements and the models will help refine the models and the measurements as well. Science is about discovery through testing. The scientific method is very careful and methodical. It is the best and only way to understand our climate.

Is climate modeling science?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=100

If we did not have climate models...

...it may have taken much longer to realize there was a problem in our atmospheric composition that may be dramatically affecting climate. The models allowed us to see that the temperature was rising when it should have been falling.

The models used are called Global Circulation Models (GCM's). The major forces are fairly well known. So when the global temperature started doing something other than the model, the lead hypothesis was either something is wrong with the model, or something changed in the climate system.

Upon further examination...

...it was found that indeed, human GHG output and aerosols were changing the way our climate system operated. Some effects had a cooling impact, and some had a warming impact. Both combined however still lead to further warming.

Empirical: Modeling v. Observations

An interesting twist in the argument about what can be projected regarding climate, is the idea that we can only accept the empirical. Another way to state this might be 'reality vs. modeling'. It is important to understand the difference between the observations (reality - properly modeled observed data) and the empirical models (generally: capable of being verified in the model).

Empirical:

Definition Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empirical

  • Main Entry: em·pir·i·cal
  • Pronunciation: \-i-kəl\
  • Variant(s): also em·pir·ic \-ik\
  • Function: adjective
  • Date: 1569

1 : originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>
2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory empirical basis for the theory>
3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>
4 : of or relating to empiricism

Modeling v. Observations

Some are arguing that we should not look beyond the empirical evidence. This is a serious problem because the it ignores relevant information pertaining to the known feedback mechanisms in the climate system.

There are negative and positive feedback mechanism that are natural and human influenced or caused by industrial output. When weighed together, the overall feedback is indicated positive. This means we are warming. There are currently no known mechanisms that could counter this warming in the relevant literature concerning climate.

As pointed out on this web site, climate models are always wrong. It is important to understand the difference between the observations (reality) and the relevant dynamical models (model capacity verified by testing).

As always, context is key to understanding relevance.

How could relying on models be a problem?

  1. In certain cases, observations are exceeding the modeling. But that is not the whole story. Climate feedback mechanisms such as reduced reflectivity (albedo), Arctic Amplification, changes in oceans and land biology and chemistry, etc. are indicating strong positive bias as global warming progresses. To say we should only believe empirical research is the same as saying: 'I don't believe the physics'. This would be akin to believing the earth is flat. The physics are well known in both cases and easily quantifiable.
  2. The first graph below is an update of Rahmstorf et al., Science 2007, ('Note the comparison is with IPCC TAR projections, but since AR4 projections are within 10% of the TAR models - this makes little difference.' - Gavin Schmidt). Actual sea level rise observations are riding above the upper range of the IPCC model. This is generally because IPCC does not factor in things they can't quantify and thus 'some' relevant reality is factored out (given a zero in the model). Therefore those models can not reach as far as the observations.
  3. The fact that the observations of sea level rise (SLR) and arctic ice extent loss are exceeding the models is an important factor in understanding the difference between modeled expectations, empirical evidence, and empirical evidence plus the known feedback mechanisms. Reasonable expectations must include in context, the models, the evidence and the feedbacks.

Modeling v. Observations - Sea Level Rise:

Sea Level Rise 2009 Copenhagen

Source: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/more-bubkes/

Modeling v. Observations - Arctic Ice:

Arctic September Sea Ice Extent

Source: http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2007/seaice.shtml

The fact that the ice is melting faster than established models can currently predict is another example of why we can not just trust modeling. Dynamical modeling, in certain instances, does not include feedbacks that are not understood well enough to be included, thus those relevant mechanisms are given a zero in the model. Therefore those models do not show what is really going on, but rather what is understandable from the limited view of the model.

Climate indicators are pointing toward increases in the estimated rates of change, rather than decreases. Global warming effects are therefore reasonably expected to go faster than the models indicate. Unfortunately some models are lagging behind observations, and will remain so until the maths and physics can catch up.

Although it seems contradictory from a point of view not considerate of all the available science, we need to trust the observations in certain relevant areas where we can see the evidence trends combined with current understanding of the feedback mechanisms. The current understanding is also indicative of their potentials. As long as there is attribution (known cause) and expectation (relative understanding of the feedback mechanisms) we can reasonably state that the indications are reasonably clear.

The science takes into account the cause and effect. Understanding the attribution (cause and effect relationship) is critical to establishing the basis for projections. Understanding the potentials (projections) based on the established science allows for probability to be examined. It is not unreasonable to project ramifications and impacts based on on the combined modeled and empirical data, especially when considered with the feedback mechanisms.

Summary

Since sea level rise is going faster than modeled projections are capable of, it is therefore easy to project that sea level rise will be higher than estimated. Similarly, ice extent loss will go faster than models are able to project from a strictly modeled (capable of being verified in the model) point of view. These are very good examples to show why significant emphasis on reason and common sense is needed in order to understand projections and implications.

Global warming is happening faster than models can predict at this time. This supports the basis that accelerating economic and security challenges, if not appropriately planned for will become less affordable, or likely unaffordable to achieve, unless meaningful action occurs.

The combined empirical observation, feedbacks and models gives a reasonably solid foundation upon which to begin to base policy decisions that will impact outcomes regarding projected changes.

Links

Are the Models Untestable?

Some global warming deniers assert that the global climate models (GCMs) used to analyze and predict climate change can be ignored because they are "untestable" or "have no predictive ability." In the words of "Mug Wump" on the amazon.com Science Discussion Forum "Global Warming is Nothing but a Hoax and a Scare Tactic:"

If you had any scientific evidence that human CO2 causes global warming, you would have produced it by now. Ergo, reality eludes you. Don't believe or argue with me. There are many, many scientists who once rubbed shoulders with the AGW idiots like brothers that can't take enough showers now to wash off the stink--they've come clean and have acknowledged that global warming alarmism is nothing but a hoax. Amaze us all and admit that simple fact. While you're at it, why not admit that GCMs have been shown to have zero predictive ability? Oh wait, you can't: that requires an understanding of math. It's a lot easier for you to stick to the a Leftist-libs' kind of 'truth' and continue sticking science and the search for objective truth in the back.
-Posted Tuesday, September 22nd, 2009, at 5:28 PM PDT.

Are the models, in fact, untestable? Are they unable to make valid predictions? Let's review the record. Global Climate Models have successfully predicted:

  1. That the globe would warm, and about how fast, and about how much.
  2. That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.
  3. That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.
  4. That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.
  5. Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).
  6. That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.
  7. The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
  8. They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.
  9. They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.
  10. The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.
  11. The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.
  12. The expansion of the Hadley cells.
  13. The poleward movement of storm tracks.
  14. The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.
  15. The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.
  16. The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.
  17. The expanded range of hurricanes and cyclones--a year before Cyclone Catarina showed up off the coast of Brazil, something which had never happened before.

Looks like a pretty good track record to me.

Are there problems with the models, and areas where they haven't gotten it right yet? Sure there are. The double Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone which shows up in some coupled models, ENSO variability, insufficiently sensitive sea ice, diurnal cycles of moist convection, and the exact response of climate to clouds are all areas of ongoing research. But the models are still the best thing we have for climate prediction under different scenarios, and there is no reason at all to think they're getting the overall picture wrong.

Science historian Weart: “We’ve never before seen a set of people accuse an entire community of scientists of deliberate deception and other professio

Spencer Weart: My most interesting conversations were with historians who have been studying the history of the tobacco companies that did their best, and quite successfully for many years, to cover up the fact that smoking kills people by the million. Some interesting parallels, but…

So begins a fascinating interview of Weart on the illegally hacked emails by Capital Weather Gang’s Andrew Freedman. Dr. Weart is a physicist and science historian with the American Institute of Physics.

Weart’s website, “The Discovery of Global Warming,” is one of the places to start if you’re interested in getting the basics of climate science. Based on the comments posted on CP, RealClimate, WUWT, DotEarth, etc., I think it’s safe to say that the overwhelming majority of the self-proclaimed “skeptics” (aka those who’ve been duped by the professional disinformers) haven’t even bothered to look at the most basic scientific evidence on human-caused global warming.

And the majority of the professional disinformers simply have no regard whatsoever for basic science or an evidence-based search for the truth — which is why they keep pushing talking points that have long been debunked in the scientific literature (see, for instance, Scientists advising fossil fuel funded anti-climate group concluded in 1995: “The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of GHGs such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied”).

But as science historian Weart tells Freedman — spreading disinformation about science is nothing new. What is new is the slander of both individual scientists and the entire scientific community:

Andrew Freedman: What effects do you think this will have on public perceptions of climate science and climate scientists?

Spencer Weart: I don’t expect this to have much impact on public perceptions of climate and climate scientists. Opinions have become so fixed that it would take serious evidence to shift a significant number of people. Since the late 1980s, just about every year and sometimes almost every month, a group of people (mostly the same ones) have exclaimed, “Now in these latest (whatever) we finally have proof that there is no need to worry about climate change!” There is a segment of the public that has believed every new claim. The rest will continue to doubt such claims in the absence of truly solid proof.

AF: What do you think this story reveals about the conduct of climate science?

SW: Back around 2000 leading climate scientists talked to each other mostly about their science–debating one another’s data and analysis and negotiating travel, collaboration and other administration–and a little bit about policy. As time passed they have had to spend more and more of their time answering criticism of the scientific results already established, criticism mostly based on ignorance, fallacious reasoning, and even deliberately deceptive claims. Still more recently they have had to spend far too much of their time defending their personal reputations against ignorant or slanderous attacks.

The theft and use of the emails does reveal something interesting about the social context. It’s a symptom of something entirely new in the history of science: Aside from crackpots who complain that a conspiracy is suppressing their personal discoveries, we’ve never before seen a set of people accuse an entire community of scientists of deliberate deception and other professional malfeasance.

Even the tobacco companies never tried to slander legitimate cancer researchers. In blogs, talk radio and other new media, we are told that the warnings about future global warming issued by the national science academies, scientific societies, and governments of all the leading nations are not only mistaken, but based on a hoax, indeed a conspiracy that must involve thousands of respected researchers.

Extraordinary and, frankly, weird. Climate scientists are naturally upset, exasperated, and sometimes goaded into intemperate responses… but that was already easy to see in their blogs and other writings.

Guess the tobacco companies just weren’t as clever and ruthless as the big fossil fuel polluters and their allies (see On the 150th anniversary of first commerical U.S. well, the oil industry is headed toward oblivion — and trying to take civilization down with it and Obama takes on the anti-scientific delayers, while Australia’s Rudd slams the “deniers” and the “gaggle” of “conspiracy theorists” opposing climate action).

AF: For a science historian such as yourself, how valuable are these emails? And what is your impression of them thus far?

SW: There would be a lot to learn if the owner of these emails (I suppose the University) would release them for analysis; for example, you could run up statistics on the types of interchanges and the structure of networks of discussion among researchers. Of course no scholar can make use of stolen material, and in particular one cannot legally or ethically quote a private message without the explicit permission of the writer.

Historians do often work with collections of letters that have been donated to archives. Typically we spend countless hours trying to understand the context; scholarly reputations have been ruined by interpretations that turned out to be mistaken. The risk of misinterpretation is far greater with emails, written so much more casually than letters. Our society is having difficulty dealing with this new form of communication. Look at last week’s verdict on the Bear Sterns hedge fund managers who were accused of misleading investors. The prosecutrs based their case on a few seemingly incriminating sentences drawn from a mass of emails. When the jury saw the whole set of emails, they quickly found that there was no crime, just ordinary business chatter. From what I’ve seen, I expect that will be the verdict on the climate scientists’ emails.

Precisely — see Reuters: “ANALYSIS-Hacked climate e-mails awkward, not game changer.”

Skeptikud ütlevad: maailmalõppu pole olemas

The skeptic argument...

Corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate (source: Hudson Institute)

What the science says...

A large number of ancient mass extinction events have been strongly linked to global climate change. Because current climate change is so rapid, the way species typically adapt (eg - migration) is, in most cases, simply not be possible. Global change is simply too pervasive and occurring too rapidly.

Human are transforming the global environmental. Great swathes of temperate forest in Europe, Asia and North America have been cleared over the past few centuries for agriculture, timber and urban development. Tropical forests are now on the front line. Human-assisted species invasions of pests, competitors and predators are rising exponentially, and over-exploitation of fisheries, and forest animals for bush meat, to the point of collapse, continues to be the rule rather than the exception.

Driving this has been a six-fold expansion of the human population since 1800 and a 50-fold increase in the size of the global economy. The great modern human enterprise was built on exploitation of the natural environment. Today, up to 83% of the Earth’s land area is under direct human influence and we entirely dominate 36% of the bioproductive surface. Up to half the world’s freshwater runoff is now captured for human use. More nitrogen is now converted into reactive forms by industry than all by all the planet’s natural processes and our industrial and agricultural processes are causing a continual build-up of long-lived greenhouse gases to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years and possibly much longer.

Clearly, this planet-wide domination by human society will have implications for biological diversity. Indeed, a recent review on the topic, the 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment report (an environmental report of similar scale to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment Reports), drew some bleak conclusions – 60% of the world’s ecosystems are now degraded and the extinction rate is now 100 to 1000 times higher than the “background” rate of long spans of geological time. For instance, a study I conducted in 2003 showed that up to 42% of species in the Southeast Asian region could be consigned to extinction by the year 2100 due to deforestation and habitat fragmentation alone.


Figure 1: Southeast Asian extinctions projected due to habitat loss (source: Sodhi, N. S., Koh, L. P., Brook, B. W. & Ng, P. K. L. 2004)

Given these existing pressures and upheavals, it is a reasonable question to ask whether global warming will make any further meaningful contribution to this mess. Some, such as the sceptics S. Fred Singer and Dennis Avery, see no danger at all, maintaining that a warmer planet will be beneficial for mankind and other species on the planet and that “corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate”. Also, although climate change is a concern for conservation biologists, it is not the focus for most researchers (at present), largely I think because of the severity and immediacy of the damage caused by other threats.

Global warming to date has certainly affected species’ geographical distributional ranges and the timing of breeding, migration, flowering, and so on. But extrapolating these observed impacts to predictions of future extinction risk is challenging. The most well known study to date, by a team from the UK, estimated that 18 and 35% of plant and animal species will be committed to extinction by 2050 due to climate change. This study, which used a simple approach of estimating changes in species geographical ranges after fitting to current bioclimatic conditions, caused a flurry of debate. Some argued that it was overly optimistic or too uncertain because it left out most ecological detail, while others said it was possibly overly pessimistic, based on what we know from species responses and apparent resilience to previous climate change in the fossil record – see below.

A large number of ancient mass extinction events have indeed been strongly linked to global climate change, including the most sweeping die-off that ended the Palaeozoic Era, 250 million years ago and the somewhat less cataclysmic, but still damaging, Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum, 55 million years ago. Yet in the more recent past, during the Quaternary glacial cycles spanning the last million years, there were apparently few climate-related extinctions. This curious paradox of few ice age extinctions even has a name – it is called ‘the Quaternary Conundrum’.

Over that time, the globally averaged temperature difference between the depth of an ice age and a warm interglacial period was 4 to 6°C – comparable to that predicted for the coming century due to anthropogenic global warming under the fossil-fuel-intensive, business-as-usual scenario. Most species appear to have persisted across these multiple glacial–interglacial cycles. This can be inferred from the fossil record, and from genetic evidence in modern species. In Europe and North America, populations shifted ranges southwards as the great northern hemisphere ice sheets advanced, and reinvaded northern realms when the glaciers retreated. Some species may have also persisted in locally favourable regions that were otherwise isolated within the tundra and ice-strewn landscapes. In Australia, a recently discovered cave site has shown that large-bodied mammals (‘megafauna’) were able to persist even in the arid landscape of the Nullarbor in conditions similar to now.

However, although the geological record is essential for understanding how species respond to natural climate change, there are a number of reasons why future impacts on biodiversity will be particularly severe:

A) Human-induced warming is already rapid and is expected to further accelerate. The IPCC storyline scenarios such as A1FI and A2 imply a rate of warming of 0.2 to 0.6°C per decade. By comparison, the average change from 15 to 7 thousand years ago was ~0.005°C per decade, although this was occasionally punctuated by short-lived (and possibly regional-scale) abrupt climatic jolts, such as the Younger Dryas, Dansgaard-Oeschger and Heinrich events.

B) A low-range optimistic estimate of 2°C of 21st century warming will shift the Earth’s global mean surface temperature into conditions which have not existed since the middle Pliocene, 3 million years ago. More than 4°C of atmospheric heating will take the planet’s climate back, within a century, to the largely ice-free world that existed prior to about 35 million years ago. The average ‘species’ lifetime’ is only 1 to 3 million years. So it is quite possible that in the comparative geological instant of a century, planetary conditions will be transformed to a state unlike anything that most of the world’s modern species have encountered.

C) As noted above, it is critical to understand that ecosystems in the 21st century start from an already massively ‘shifted baseline’ and so have lost resilience. Most habitats are already degraded and their populations depleted, to a lesser or greater extent, by past human activities. For millennia our impacts have been localised although often severe, but during the last few centuries we have unleashed physical and biological transformations on a global scale. In this context, synergies (positive or self-reinforcing feedbacks) from global warming, ocean acidification, habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, invasive species, chemical pollution (Figure 2) are likely lead to cascading extinctions. For instance, over-harvest, habitat loss and changed fire regimes will likely enhance the direct impacts of climate change and make it difficult for species to move to undamaged areas or to maintain a ‘buffer’ population size. One threat reinforces the other, or multiple impacts play off on each other, which makes the overall impact far greater than if each individual threats occurred in isolation (Brook et al 2008).


Figure 2: Figure from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

D) Past adaptation to climate change by species was mainly through shifting their geographic range to higher or lower latitudes (depending on whether the climate was warming or cooling), or up and down mountain slopes. There were also evolutionary responses – individuals that were most tolerant to new conditions survived and so made future generations more intrinsically resilient. Now, because of points A to C described above, this type of adaptation will, in most cases, simply not be possible or will be inadequate to cope. Global change is simply too pervasive and occurring too rapidly. Time’s up and there is nowhere for species to run or hide.

Printable Version | Link to this page

Further reading

Skeptikud ütled: teie mudelid sakivad

Kuna skeptik R mainis, et ta oma kogemuse põhjal finantsturgude toimumisest, ei suuda ta mitteskeptiliselt suhtuda kliimamudelitesse. Vaatame mida vastavad teadlased sellele. See skeptiline argument tuleb Dyson Freemani suust kes siingi blogis varem sõna võtnud on:

The skeptic argument...

"Models solve the equations of fluid dynamics and do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields, farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. They are full of fudge factors that are fitted to the existing climate, so the models more or less agree with the observed data. But there is no reason to believe that the same fudge factors would give the right behaviour in a world with different chemistry, for example in a world with increased CO2 in the atmosphere," he states. (Source: Freeman Dyson)

What the science says...

While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have successfully predicted future climate change.

There are two major questions in climate modelling - can they accurately reproduce the past and can they successfully predict the future?

Reproducing the past

A way to test the accuracy of models is through hindcasting - see whether they successfully predict what has been observed over the past century. Here is the IPCC model of surface temperature from the 1800's - both with and without anthropogenic forcings.

The key point is that all the models fail to predict recent warming without taking rising CO2 levels into account. Noone has created a general circulation model that can explain climate's behaviour over the past century without CO2 warming.

Another way to look at it is multiple studies (both using models and independently) calculate a climate sensitivity of around 3°C (Hegerl 2006, Annan 2006, Tung 2007). In other words, global temperatures would warm 3°C if CO2 was doubled. To deny anthopogenic warming, you need to not only explain what's causing global warming but also explain why increasing CO2 isn't causing the expected and observed warming. More on climate sensitivity...

Predicting/projecting the future

A common argument heard is "scientists can't even predict the weather next week, how can they predict the climate years from now". This betrays a misunderstanding of the difference between weather, which is chaotic and unpredictable and climate which is weather averaged out over time. While you can't predict with certainty whether a coin will land heads or tails, you can predict the statistical results of a large number of coin tosses. Or expressing that in weather terms, you can't predict the exact route a storm will take but the average temperature and precipitation will result the same for the region over a period of time.

Climate projection is a difficult and ever refining art. There's the problem that future behaviour of the sun is very difficult to predict. Similarly, short term perturbations like El Nino or volcanic eruptions are difficult to model. Nevertheless, climate scientists have a handle on the major drivers of climate. Way back in 1988, James Hansen projected future temperature trends (Hansen 1988). Those initial projections show remarkable agreement with observation right to present day (Hansen 2006). Hansen even speculated on a volcanic eruption in 1995 but missed the date by a few years (we'll cut him some slack there).

The image “http://www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen06_fig2.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

Hansen's Scenario B (described as the most likely option and in hindsight, the one that most closely matched the level of CO2 emissions) shows close correlation with observed temperatures. In fact, Hansen overestimated future CO2 levels by 5 to 10% so if his model was given the correct forcing levels, the match would be even closer. There are deviations from year to year but this is to be expected. The chaotic nature of weather will add noise to the signal but the overall trend is predictable. More on predicting the future...

Other results successfully predicted and reconstructed by models

  • Cooling of the stratosphere
  • Warming of the lower, mid, and upper troposphere
  • Warming of ocean surface waters (Cane 1997)
  • Trends in ocean heat content (Hansen 2005)
  • An energy imbalance between incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation (Hansen 2005)
  • Amplification of warming trends in the Arctic region (NASA observations)

Uncertainties in future projections

The other misconception is that climate models are biased towards exagerating CO2 effects. Uncertainty could go either way - catastrophic climate surprises are as likely to occur as smaller-than-expected changes. Many current models don't take into account positive feedback systems such as melting permafrost releasing additional greenhouse gases or warming oceans releasing more CO2. For example:

  • IPCC projections fail to take into account non-linear feedback effects like melting ice causing a loss of albedo which further accelerates warming. Analysis of past sea levels shows instances of 'albedo flips' that spark rapid climate change (Hansen 2007)
  • IPCC sea level projections may have "substantially underestimated the contribution of small glaciers and ice caps" to rising sea levels (Meier 2007)
  • Actual CO2 emissions from 2000 to 2004 are higher than any rate used in IPCC emissions scenarios (Global Carbon Project)

Do we know enough to act?

There is a notion that we should wait till models are 100% sure and get it perfectly right before we act on reducing CO2 emissions. If we waited for that, we would never act. Models are in a constant state of improvement as they include more processes, rely on fewer approximations and increase their resolution as computer power develops. The complex and non-linear nature of climate means there will always be refinements and subtleties to be included.

The main point is we know enough to act. Models have evolved to the point where they successfully predict long term trends and are always improving on predicting the more chaotic, short term changes. Multiple lines of evidence tell us global temperatures will change 3°C with a doubling of CO2. The uncertainty is ±1°C degree but this uncertainty is decreasing (and the climate sensitivity of 3°C reaffirmed) as new studies refine our understanding.

Models don't need to be exact in every respect to give us an accurate overall trend and its major effects - and we have that now. If you knew there was a 10% chance you'd be in a car crash, you'd wear a seatbelt. In fact, if there was any possibility, you'd still do it. The IPCC consider it at least 90% sure humans are causing global warming. Considering the negative impacts of global warming, to wait for 100% certainty before acting is recklessly irresponsible.

Printable Version | Link to this page

Further reading

Saturday, November 28, 2009

Skeptic Arguments and What the Science Says

Skeptic Arguments and What the Science Says














































































































































































































































































































Examing the science of the global warming skeptisim

Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to expand their knowledge and improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens in global warming skepticism. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet eagerly, even blindly embrace any argument, op-ed piece, blog or study that refutes global warming.

So this website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/


What will climate change do to our planet?

Mark Lynas rummages through his filing cabinet like a badger raking out his bedstraw, much of the stuff so crumpled that he might have been sleeping on it for years. Eventually he finds what he is looking for - four sheets of printed paper, stapled with a page of notes.

It is an article, dated November 2000, which he has clipped from the scientific journal Nature: "Acceleration of global warming due to carbon-cycle feedbacks in a coupled climate model". Even when they are mapping a short cut to Armageddon, scientists do not go in for red-top words like "crisis". If you speak the language, however, you get the message - and the message, delivered by the UK Met Office's Hadley Centre for Climate Change, was cataclysmic.

"There should have been panic on the streets," says Lynas in his new book, Six Degrees, "people shouting from the rooftops, statements to parliament and 24-hour news coverage."

In layman's language, Hadley's message was that newly discovered "positive feedbacks" would make nonsense of accepted global-warming estimates. It would not be a gradual, linear increase with nature slowly succumbing to human attrition. Nature itself was about to turn nasty. Instead of absorbing and retaining greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, the figures suggested, it would suddenly spew them out again - billions of years' worth of carbon and methane, incontinently released in blazing surges that would drown or incinerate whole cities. Ice would melt in torrents, and the Earth's essential green lung, the Amazon rainforest, could be moribund as early as 2050. A vicious spiral would have begun which would threaten not just our way of life but the very existence of our own and every other species on Earth. Lynas's notes, still fixed to the report, have the dour humour of the gallows: "The end of the world is nigh, and it's already been published in Nature."

Next day's newspapers ignored the rescheduling of Armageddon - the headlines were all about faulty counts in the US presidential election, Gordon Brown's fiddling with National Insurance and Lord Falconer's refusal to resign over "the Dome fiasco". Lynas, however, was energised like the hero of a ?disaster movie. Inconveniently, he had a book to write, but as soon as he'd finished it he ?pedalled from his Oxford home to the nearby ?Radcliffe Science Library. He did it every working day for a year: arriving at 10am and sitting till five in the afternoon, being served sheaves of paper by librarians who - even though professionally attuned to world-class standards of eccentricity - must have wondered at the power of the man's obsession.

Lynas wanted to see every scrap of paper the library held on global warming. Scanning at speed, he worked his way through two or three hundred every day, tens of thousands in all. Then as now, new pieces of research were emerging almost weekly as computer models were improved, new data collected and analysed. Then as now, there was no single, provable prediction of the future. Without knowing how much more fossil fuel will be burnt, the best science can offer is a range of plausible "scenarios". These vary so widely that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in its Third Assessment report in 2001, was able to suggest only that global average temperatures by the end of the 21st century will have risen between 1.4 and 5.8C above the average for 1990 - an estimate which last month it pushed up to a possible maximum of 6.4C. It doesn't look much, but it could measure the difference between survival and the near-extinction of human life.

On Lynas's laptop were six spreadsheets - one for each degree of warming from one to six. As he worked, he would slot each paper into the appropriate file. Many of them included predictions from climate models, but there was more: "Some of the most interesting came from palaeoclimate studies - investigations of how variations in temperature, calculated by analysis of soil strata and ancient ice-cores, affected the planet in prehistory." It was these that would give some of the most terrifying insights into what the future might be like. Which parts of the globe would be abandoned first? What was the precise mechanism that, eventually, would wipe us out?

The spreadsheets became the six core chapters of Lynas's book - a detailed, carefully annotated, degree-by-degree guide not just to our grandchildren's futures but to our own.

UP TO ONE DEGREE OF WARMING

Even if greenhouse emissions stopped overnight - of which there is about as much chance as Tony Blair holidaying in Skegness - the concentrations already in the atmosphere would still mean a global rise of between 0.5 and 1C. A shift of a single degree is barely perceptible to human skin, but it's not human skin we're talking about. It's the planet; and an average increase of one degree across its entire surface means huge changes in climatic extremes.

Six thousand years ago, when the world was one degree warmer than it is now, the American agricultural heartland around Nebraska was desert. It suffered a short reprise during the dust- bowl years of the 1930s, when the topsoil blew away and hundreds of thousands of refugees trailed through the dust to an uncertain welcome further west. The effect of one-degree warming, therefore, requires no great feat of imagination.

"The western United States once again could suffer perennial droughts, far worse than the 1930s. Deserts will reappear particularly in Nebraska, but also in eastern Montana, Wyoming and Arizona, northern Texas and Oklahoma. As dust and sandstorms turn day into night across thousands of miles of former prairie, farmsteads, roads and even entire towns will be engulfed by sand."

What's bad for America will be worse for poorer countries closer to the equator. The Hadley centre calculates that a one-degree increase would eliminate fresh water from a third of the world's land surface by 2100. Again we have seen what this means. Lynas describes an incident in the summer of 2005: "One tributary fell so low that miles of exposed riverbank dried out into sand dunes, with winds whipping up thick sandstorms. As desperate villagers looked out onto baking mud instead of flowing water, the army was drafted in to ferry precious drinking water up the river - by helicopter, since most of the river was too low to be navigable by boat." The river in question was not some small, insignificant trickle in Sussex. It was the Amazon.

While tropical lands teeter on the brink, the Arctic already may have passed the point of no return. Warming near the pole is much faster than the global average, with the result that Arctic icecaps and glaciers have lost 400 cubic kilometres of ice in 40 years. Permafrost - ground that has lain frozen for thousands of years - is dissolving into mud and lakes, "destabilising whole areas as the ground collapses beneath buildings, roads and pipelines". As polar bears and Inuits are being pushed off the top of the planet, previous predictions are starting to look optimistic. "Earlier snowmelt," says Lynas, "means more summer heat goes into the air and ground rather than into melting snow, raising temperatures in a positive feedback effect. More dark shrubs and forest on formerly bleak tundra means still more heat is absorbed by vegetation."

Out at sea the pace is even faster. "Whilst snow-covered ice reflects more than 80% of the sun's heat, the darker ocean absorbs up to 95% of solar radiation. Once sea ice begins to melt, in other words, the process becomes self-reinforcing. More ocean surface is revealed, absorbing solar heat, raising temperatures and making it unlikelier that ice will re-form next winter. The disappearance of 720,000 square kilometres of supposedly permanent ice in a single year testifies to the rapidity of planetary change. If you have ever wondered what it will feel like when the Earth crosses a tipping point, savour the moment."

Mountains, too, are starting to come apart. In the Alps, most ground above 3,000 metres is stabilised by permafrost. In the summer of 2003, however, the melt zone climbed right up to 4,600 metres, higher than the summit of the Matterhorn and nearly as high as Mont Blanc. With the glue of millennia melting away, rocks showered down and 50 climbers died. As temperatures go on edging upwards, it won't just be mountaineers who flee. "Whole towns and villages will be at risk," says Lynas. "Some towns, like Pontresina in eastern Switzerland, have already begun building bulwarks against landslides."

At the opposite end of the scale, low-lying atoll countries such as the Maldives will be preparing for extinction as sea levels rise, and mainland coasts - in particular the eastern US and Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean and Pacific islands and the Bay of Bengal - will be hit by stronger and stronger hurricanes as the water warms. Hurricane Katrina, which in 2005 hit New Orleans with the combined impacts of earthquake and flood, was a nightmare precursor of what the future holds.

"Most striking of all," says Lynas, "was seeing how people behaved once the veneer of civilisation had been torn away. Most victims were poor and black, left to fend for themselves as the police either joined in the looting or deserted the area. Four days into the crisis, survivors were packed into the city's Superdome, living next to overflowing toilets and rotting bodies as gangs of young men with guns seized the only food and water available. Perhaps the most memorable scene was a single military helicopter landing for just a few minutes, its crew flinging food parcels and water bottles out onto the ground before hurriedly taking off again as if from a war zone. In scenes more like a Third World refugee camp than an American urban centre, young men fought for the water as pregnant women and the elderly looked on with nothing. Don't blame them for behaving like this, I thought. It's what happens when people are desperate."

Chance of avoiding one degree of global warming: zero.

BETWEEN ONE AND TWO DEGREES OF WARMING

At this level, expected within 40 years, the hot European summer of 2003 will be the annual norm. Anything that could be called a heatwave thereafter will be of Saharan intensity. Even in average years, people will die of heat stress.

"The first symptoms," says Lynas, "may be minor. A person will feel slightly nauseous, dizzy and irritable. It needn't be an emergency: an hour or so lying down in a cooler area, sipping water, will cure it. But in Paris, August 2003, there were no cooler areas, especially for elderly people.

"Once body temperature reaches 41C (104F) its thermoregulatory system begins to break down. Sweating ceases and breathing becomes shallow and rapid. The pulse quickens, and the victim may lapse into a coma. Unless drastic measures are taken to reduce the body's core temperature, the brain is starved of oxygen and vital organs begin to fail. Death will be only minutes away unless the emergency services can quickly get the victim into intensive care.

"These emergency services failed to save more than 10,000 French in the summer of 2003. Mortuaries ran out of space as hundreds of dead bodies were brought in each night." Across Europe as a whole, the heatwave is believed to have cost between 22,000 and 35,000 lives. Agriculture, too, was devastated. Farmers lost $12 billion worth of crops, and Portugal alone suffered $12 billion of forest-fire damage. The flows of the River Po in Italy, Rhine in Germany and Loire in France all shrank to historic lows. Barges ran aground, and there was not enough water for irrigation and hydroelectricity. Melt rates in the Alps, where some glaciers lost 10% of their mass, were not just a record - they doubled the previous record of 1998. According to the Hadley centre, more than half the European summers by 2040 will be hotter than this. Extreme summers will take a much heavier toll of human life, with body counts likely to reach hundreds of thousands. Crops will bake in the fields, and forests will die off and burn. Even so, the short-term effects may not be the worst:

"From the beech forests of northern Europe to the evergreen oaks of the Mediterranean, plant growth across the whole landmass in 2003 slowed and then stopped. Instead of absorbing carbon dioxide, the stressed plants began to emit it. Around half a billion tonnes of carbon was added to the atmosphere from European plants, equivalent to a twelfth of global emissions from fossil fuels. This is a positive feedback of critical importance, because it suggests that, as temperatures rise, carbon emissions from forests and soils will also rise. If these land-based emissions are sustained over long periods, global warming could spiral out of control."

In the two-degree world, nobody will think of taking Mediterranean holidays. "The movement of people from northern Europe to the Mediterranean is likely to reverse, switching eventually into a mass scramble as Saharan heatwaves sweep across the Med." People everywhere will think twice about moving to the coast. When temperatures were last between 1 and 2C higher than they are now, 125,000 years ago, sea levels were five or six metres higher too. All this "lost" water is in the polar ice that is now melting. Forecasters predict that the "tipping point" for Greenland won't arrive until average temperatures have risen by 2.7C. The snag is that Greenland is warming much faster than the rest of the world - 2.2 times the global average. "Divide one figure by the other," says Lynas, "and the result should ring alarm bells across the world. Greenland will tip into irreversible melt once global temperatures rise past a mere 1.2C." The ensuing sea-level ?rise will be far more than the half-metre that ?the IPCC has predicted for the end of the century. Scientists point out that sea levels at the end of the last ice age shot up by a metre every 20 years for four centuries, and that Greenland's ice, in the words of one glaciologist, is now "thinning like mad and flowing much faster ?than [it] ought to". Its biggest outflow glacier, Jakobshavn Isbrae, has thinned by 15 metres every year since 1997, and its speed of flow has doubled. "At this rate," says Lynas, "the whole Greenland ice sheet would vanish within 140 years. Miami would disappear, as would most of Manhattan. Central London would be flooded. Bangkok, Bombay and Shanghai would lose most of their area. In all, half of humanity would have to move to higher ground."

Not only coastal communities will suffer. As mountains lose their glaciers, so people will lose their water supplies. The entire Indian subcontinent will be fighting for survival. "As the glaciers disappear from all but the highest peaks, their runoff will cease to power the massive rivers that deliver vital freshwater to hundreds of millions. Water shortages and famine will be the result, destabilising the entire region. And this time the epicentre of the disaster won't be India, Nepal or Bangladesh, but nuclear-armed Pakistan."

Everywhere, ecosystems will unravel as species either migrate or fall out of synch with each other. By the time global temperatures reach two degrees of warming in 2050, more than a third of all living species will face extinction.

Chance of avoiding two degrees of global warming: 93%, but only if emissions of greenhouse gases are reduced by 60% over the next 10 years.

BETWEEN TWO AND THREE DEGREES OF WARMING

Up to this point, assuming that governments have planned carefully and farmers have converted to more appropriate crops, not too many people outside subtropical Africa need have starved. Beyond two degrees, however, preventing mass starvation will be as easy as halting the cycles of the moon. "First millions, then billions, of people will face an increasingly tough battle to survive," says Lynas.

To find anything comparable we have to go back to the Pliocene - last epoch of the Tertiary period, 3m years ago. There were no continental glaciers in the northern hemisphere (trees grew in the Arctic), and sea levels were 25 metres higher than today's. In this kind of heat, the death of the Amazon is as inevitable as the melting of Greenland. The paper spelling it out is the very one whose apocalyptic ?message so shocked Lynas in 2000. Scientists at the Hadley centre feared that earlier climate models, which showed global warming as a straightforward linear progression, were too simplistic in their assumption that land and the oceans would remain inert as their temperatures rose. Correctly as it would turn out, they predicted positive feedback.

"Warmer seas," explains Lynas, "absorb carbon dioxide, leaving more to accumulate in the atmosphere and intensify global warming. On land, matters would be even worse. Huge amounts of carbon are stored in the soil, the half-rotted remains of dead vegetation. The generally accepted estimate is that the soil carbon reservoir contains some 1600 gigatonnes, more than double the entire carbon content of the atmosphere. As soil warms, bacteria accelerate the breakdown of this stored carbon, releasing it into the atmosphere."

The Hadley team factored this new feedback into their climate model, with results that fully explain Lynas's black-comic note to himself: The end of the world is nigh. A three-degree increase in global temperature - possible as early as 2050 - would throw the carbon cycle into reverse. "Instead of absorbing carbon dioxide," says Lynas, "vegetation and soils start to release it. So much carbon pours into the atmosphere that it pumps up atmospheric concentrations by 250 parts per million by 2100, boosting global warming by another 1.5C. In other words, the Hadley team had discovered that carbon-cycle feedbacks could tip the planet into runaway global warming by the middle of this century - much earlier than anyone had expected."

Confirmation came from the land itself. Climate models are routinely tested against historical data. In this case, scientists checked 25 years' worth of soil samples from 6,000 sites across the UK. The result was another black joke. "As temperatures gradually rose," says Lynas, "the scientists found that huge amounts of carbon had been released naturally from the soils. They totted it all up and discovered - irony of ironies - that the 13m tonnes of carbon British soils were emitting annually was enough to wipe out all the country's efforts to comply with the Kyoto Protocol." All soils will be affected by the rising heat, but none as badly as the Amazon's. "Catastrophe" is almost too small a word for the loss of the rainforest. Its 7m square kilometres produce 10% of the world's entire photosynthetic output from plants. Drought and heat will cripple it; fire will finish it off. In human terms, the effect on the planet will be like cutting off oxygen during an asthma attack.

In the US and Australia, people will curse the climate-denying governments of Bush and Howard. No matter what later administrations may do, it will not be enough to keep the mercury down. With new "super-hurricanes" growing from the warming sea, Houston could be destroyed by 2045, and Australia will be a death trap. "Farming and food production will tip into irreversible decline. Salt water will creep up the stricken rivers, poisoning ground water. Higher temperatures mean greater evaporation, further drying out vegetation and soils, and causing huge losses from reservoirs." In state capitals, heat every year is likely to kill between 8,000 and 15,000 mainly elderly people.

It is all too easy to visualise what will happen in Africa. In Central America, too, tens of ?millions will have little to put on their tables. Even a moderate drought there in 2001 meant hundreds of thousands had to rely on food aid. This won't be an option when world supplies ?are stretched to breaking point (grain yields decline by 10% for every degree of heat above 30C, and at 40C they are zero). Nobody need look to the US, which will have problems of its own. As the mountains lose their snow, so cities and farms in the west will lose their water and dried-out forests and grasslands will perish at the first spark.

The Indian subcontinent meanwhile will be choking on dust. "All of human history," says Lynas, "shows that, given the choice between starving in situ and moving, people move. In the latter part of the century tens of millions of Pakistani citizens may be facing this choice. Pakistan may find itself joining the growing list of failed states, as civil administration collapses and armed gangs seize what little food is left."

As the land burns, so the sea will go on rising. Even by the most optimistic calculation, 80% of Arctic sea ice by now will be gone, and the rest will soon follow. New York will flood; the catastrophe that struck eastern England in 1953 will become an unremarkable regular event; and the map of the Netherlands will be torn up by the North Sea. Everywhere, starving people will be on the move - from Central America into Mexico and the US, and from Africa into Europe, where resurgent fascist parties will win votes by promising to keep them out.

Chance of avoiding three degrees of global warming: poor if the rise reaches two degrees and triggers carbon-cycle feedbacks from soils and plants.

BETWEEN THREE AND FOUR DEGREES OF WARMING

The stream of refugees will now include those fleeing from coasts to safer interiors - millions at a time when storms hit. Where they persist, coastal cities will become fortified islands. The world economy, too, will be threadbare. "As direct losses, social instability and insurance payouts cascade through the system, the funds to support displaced people will be increasingly scarce." Sea levels will be rampaging upwards - in this temperature range, both poles are certain to melt, causing an eventual rise of 50 metres. "I am not suggesting it would be instantaneous," says Lynas. "In fact it would take centuries, and probably millennia, to melt all of the Antarctic's ice. But it could yield sea-level rises of a metre or so every 20 years - far beyond our capacity to adapt." Oxford would sit on one of many coastlines in a UK reduced to an archipelago of tiny islands.

More immediately, China is on "a collision course with the planet". By 2030, if its people are consuming at the same rate as Americans, they will eat two-thirds of the entire global harvest and burn 100m barrels of oil a day, or 125% of current world output. That prospect alone contains all the ingredients of catastrophe. But it's worse than that: "By the latter third of the 21st century, if global temperatures are more than three degrees higher than now, China's agricultural production will crash. It will face the task of feeding 1.5bn much richer people - 200m more than now - on two thirds of current supplies." For people throughout much of the world, starvation will be a regular threat; but it will not be the only one.

"The summer will get longer still, as soaring temperatures reduce forests to tinderwood and cities to boiling morgues. Temperatures… in the Home Counties could reach 45C - the sort of climate experienced today in Marrakech. Droughts will put the south-east of England on the global list of water-stressed areas, with farmers competing against cities for dwindling supplies from rivers and reservoirs.

"Air-conditioning will be mandatory for anyone wanting to stay cool. This in turn will put ever more stress on energy systems, which could pour more greenhouse gases into the air if coal and gas-fired power stations ramp up their output, hydroelectric sources dwindle and renewables fail to take up the slack." The abandonment of the Mediterranean will send even more people north to "overcrowded refuges in the Baltic, Scandinavia and the British Isles".

Britain will have problems of its own. "As flood plains are more regularly inundated, a general retreat out of high risk areas is likely. Millions of people will lose their lifetime investments in houses that become uninsurable and therefore unsaleable… The Lancashire/Humber corridor is expected to be among the worst affected regions, as are the Thames Valley, eastern Devon and towns around the already flood-prone Severn estuary like Monmouth and Bristol. The entire English coast from the Isle of Wight to Middlesbrough is classified as at 'very high' or 'extreme' risk, as is the whole of Cardigan Bay in Wales."

One of the most dangerous of all feedbacks will now be kicking in - the runaway thaw of permafrost. Scientists believe at least 500 billion tonnes of carbon are waiting to be released from the Arctic ice, though none yet has put a figure on what it will add to global warming. One degree? Two? Three? The pointers are ominous.

"As with Amazon collapse and the carbon-cycle feedback in the three-degree world," says Lynas, "stabilising global temperatures at four degrees above current levels may not be possible. If we reach three degrees, therefore, that leads inexorably to four degrees, which leads inexorably to five…"

Chance of avoiding four degrees of global warming: poor if the rise reaches three degrees and triggers a runaway thaw of permafrost.

BETWEEN FOUR AND FIVE DEGREES OF WARMING

We are looking now at an entirely different planet. Ice sheets have vanished from both poles; rainforests have burnt up and turned to desert; the dry and lifeless Alps resemble the High Atlas; rising seas are scouring deep into continental interiors. One temptation may be to shift populations from dry areas to the newly thawed regions of the far north, in Canada and Siberia. Even here, though, summers may be too hot for crops to be grown away from the coasts; and there is no guarantee that northern governments will admit southern refugees. Lynas recalls James Lovelock's suspicion that Siberia and Canada would be invaded by China and the US, each hammering another nail into humanity's coffin. "Any armed conflict, particularly involving nuclear weapons, would of course further increase the planetary surface area uninhabitable for humans."

When temperatures were at a similar level 55m years ago, following a very sudden burst of global warming in the early Eocene, alligators and other subtropical species were living high in the Arctic. What had caused the climate to flip? Suspicion rests on methane hydrate - "an ice-like combination of methane and water that forms under the intense cold and pressure of the deep sea", and which escapes with explosive force when tapped. Evidence of a submarine landslide off Florida, and of huge volcanic eruptions under the North Atlantic, raises the possibility of trapped methane - a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide - being released in a giant belch that, as Lynas puts it, "pushed global temperatures through the roof".

"Summer heatwaves scorched the vegetation out of continental Spain, leaving a desert terrain which was heavily eroded by winter rainstorms. Palm mangroves grew as far north as England and Belgium, and the Arctic Ocean was so warm that Mediterranean algae thrived. In short, it was a world much like the one we are heading into this century." Although the total amount of carbon in the atmosphere during the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum, or PETM, as scientists call it, was more than today's, the rate of increase in the 21st century may be 30 times faster. It may well be the fastest increase the world has ever seen - faster even than the episodes that caused catastrophic mass extinctions.

Globalism in the five-degree world will break down into something more like parochialism. Customers will have nothing to buy because producers will have nothing to sell. With no possibility of international aid, migrants will have to force their way into the few remaining habitable enclaves and fight for survival.

"Where no refuge is available," says Lynas, "civil war and a collapse into racial or communal conflict seems the likely outcome." Isolated survivalism, however, may be as impracticable as dialling for room service. "How many of us could really trap or kill enough game to feed a family? Even if large numbers of people did successfully manage to fan out into the countryside, wildlife populations would quickly dwindle under the pressure. Supporting a hunter-gatherer lifestyle takes 10 to 100 times the land per person that a settled agricultural community needs. A large-scale resort to survivalism would turn into a further disaster for biodiversity as hungry humans killed and ate anything that moved." Including, perhaps, each other. "Invaders," says Lynas, "do not take kindly to residents denying them food. History suggests that if a stockpile is discovered, the householder and his family may be tortured and killed. Look for comparison to the experience of present-day Somalia, Sudan or Burundi, where conflicts over scarce land and food are at the root of lingering tribal wars and state collapse."

Chance of avoiding five degrees of global warming: negligible if the rise reaches four degrees and releases trapped methane from the sea bed.

BETWEEN FIVE AND SIX DEGREES OF WARMING

Although warming on this scale lies within the IPCC's officially endorsed range of 21st-century possibilities, climate models have little to say about what Lynas, echoing Dante, describes as "the Sixth Circle of Hell". To see the most recent climatic lookalike, we have to turn the geological clock back between 144m and 65m years, to the Cretaceous, which ended with the extinction of the dinosaurs. There was an even closer fit at the end of the Permian, 251m years ago, when global temperatures rose by - yes - six degrees, and 95% of species were wiped out.

"That episode," says Lynas, "was the worst ever endured by life on Earth, the closest the planet has come to ending up a dead and desolate rock in space." On land, the only winners were fungi that flourished on dying trees and shrubs. At sea there were only losers. "Warm water is a killer. Less oxygen can dissolve, so conditions become stagnant and anoxic. Oxygen-breathing water-dwellers - all the higher forms of life from plankton to sharks - face suffocation. Warm water also expands, and sea levels rose by 20 metres." The resulting "super-hurricanes" hitting the coasts would have "triggered flash floods that no living thing could have survived".

There are aspects of the so-called "end-Permian extinction" that are unlikely to recur - most importantly, the vast volcanic eruption in Siberia that spread magma hundreds of metres thick over an area bigger than western Europe and shot billions of tonnes of CO² into the atmosphere. That is small comfort, however, for beneath the oceans, another monster stirred - the same that would bring a devastating end to the Palaeocene nearly 200m years later, and that still lies in wait today. Methane hydrate.

Lynas describes what happens when warming water releases pent-up gas from the sea bed. "First, a small disturbance drives a gas-saturated parcel of water upwards. As it rises, bubbles begin to appear, as dissolved gas fizzles out with reducing pressure - just as a bottle of lemonade overflows if the top is taken off too quickly. These bubbles make the parcel of water still more buoyant, accelerating its rise through the water. As it surges upwards, reaching explosive force, it drags surrounding water ?up with it. At the surface, water is shot hundreds of metres into the air as the released gas blasts into the atmosphere. Shockwaves propagate outwards in all directions, triggering more eruptions nearby."

The eruption is more than just another positive feedback in the quickening process of global warming. Unlike CO², methane is flammable. "Even in air-methane concentrations as low as 5%," says Lynas, "the mixture could ignite from lightning or some other spark and send fireballs tearing across the sky." The effect would be much like that of the fuel-air explosives used by the US and Russian armies - so-called "vacuum bombs" that ignite fuel droplets above a target. According to the CIA, "Those near the ignition point are obliterated. Those at the fringes are likely to suffer many internal injuries, including burst eardrums, severe concussion, ruptured lungs and internal organs, and possibly blindness." Such tactical weapons, however, are squibs when set against methane-air clouds from oceanic eruptions. Scientists calculate that they could "destroy terrestrial life almost entirely" (251m years ago, only one large land animal, the pig-like lystrosaurus, survived). It has been estimated that a large eruption in future could release energy equivalent to 108 megatonnes of TNT - 100,000 times more than the world's entire stockpile of nuclear weapons. Not even Lynas, for all his scientific propriety, can avoid the Hollywood ending. "It is not too difficult to imagine the ultimate nightmare, with oceanic methane eruptions near large population centres wiping out billions of people - perhaps in days. Imagine a 'fuel-air explosive' fireball racing towards a city - London, say, or Tokyo - the blast wave spreading out from the explosive centre with the speed and force of an atomic bomb. Buildings are flattened, people are incinerated where they stand, or left blind and deaf by the force of the explosion. Mix Hiroshima with post-Katrina New Orleans to get some idea of what such a catastrophe might look like: burnt survivors battling over food, wandering far and wide from empty cities."

Then would come hydrogen sulphide from the stagnant oceans. "It would be a silent killer: imagine the scene at Bhopal following the Union Carbide gas release in 1984, replayed first at coastal settlements, then continental interiors across the world. At the same time, as the ozone layer came under assault, we would feel the sun's rays burning into our skin, and the first cell mutations would be triggering outbreaks of cancer among anyone who survived. Dante's hell was a place of judgment, where humanity was for ever punished for its sins. With all the remaining forests burning, and the corpses of people, livestock and wildlife piling up in every continent, the six-degree world would be a harsh penalty indeed for the mundane crime of burning fossil energy."

RED ALERT

If global warming continues at the current rate, we could be facing extinction. So what exactly is going to happen as the Earth heats up? Here is a degree-by-degree guide

1c Increase

Ice-free sea absorbs ?more heat and accelerates global warming; fresh water lost from a third of the world's surface; low-lying coastlines flooded

2c Increase

Europeans dying of heatstroke; forests ravaged by fire; stressed plants beginning to emit carbon rather than absorbing it; a third of all species face extinction

3c Increase

Carbon release from vegetation and soils ?speeds global warming; death of the Amazon rainforest; super-hurricanes hit coastal cities; starvation in Africa

4c Increase

Runaway thaw of permafrost makes global warming unstoppable; much of Britain made uninhabitable by severe flooding; Mediterranean region abandoned

5c Increase

Methane from ocean floor accelerates global warming; ice gone from both poles; humans migrate in search of food and try vainly to live like animals off the land

6c Increase

Life on Earth ends with apocalyptic storms, flash floods, hydrogen sulphide gas and methane fireballs racing across the globe with the power of atomic bombs; only fungi survive

Chance of avoiding six degrees of global warming: zero if the rise passes five degrees, by which time all feedbacks will be running out of control

Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet, by Mark Lynas