Climate Change: Are the Models Good Enough?

One of the key tools in foreseeing the effects of any changes in global temperature are the climate models that are used by scientists to predict how the climate will look a number of years ahead.  The central importance of such models is clear.  Indeed the whole of the argument about the devastation that global warming will bring is solely based on such models.  But are these models good enough?  Do they really predict the future?
The efficacy of climate modelling depends on two key things.  First are the data that are fed into the models accurate and reliable and secondly are the underpinning assumptions and algorithms sufficiently logical, robust and comprehensive to produce reliable conclusions.  The trouble is the world is such a complicated place with so many interactions that even our best models can only produce very simplistic conclusions.  Unfortunately we simply don't know enough about how the World ticks.
Today the Economist publishes an excellent article Errors of Omission that tackles these exact points.  Easy to read and understand (like all Economist articles - what a joy they are!), the article points out some of the difficulties we have in relying on such models that take no account of geopolitical and diplomatic trends, for example.  The conclusion is that the models must become even more comprehensive if they are to be of more use.  We know from our own experience how difficult it is to get a totally reliable forecast of what the weather is going to do.  Forecasting the global impact of a change in temperature is therefore a big ask!

US Army Reduces Carbon Footprint

The US Army is taking delivery of a self-contained "energy-from-waste" installation produced by Qinetiq in the UK.  The plant is designed to produce more energy than it consumes by converting waste to storable combustible gases using a process of pyrolysis involving an oxygen-free environment.
This plant, easily deployable in two ISO containers, will enable the US Army to significantly decrease the carbon footprint of management waste plants.  Already successfully operating in HMS Ocean, the Royal Navy helicopter assault ship, the plant shows much promise and is a great demonstrator for the application of new technology to combat global warming and climate change.
Fortuitously it enables me to blog about two different interests in the same post!

HMS Ocean

Back

Only Nuclear Can Save the World

The new Chief Scientist at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, Professor David MacKay, has presented a pretty compelling argument that we must move to nuclear power as our source of energy (through electricity generation) as quickly as possible if we are to stave off the the worst effects of climate change and global warming.
Nuclear power has had a bad press as a result of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, so many are wary and worried about more of the same.  This is understandable but the historic disasters will rank as nothing against the apocalyptic impact of a 4 degree temperature rise (literally as it will, apart from making life uncomfortable, unleash the Four Horsemen: War, Famine, Pestilence and Death).
So we should go to a nuclear future says Professor MacKay.  A nuclear future would guarantee a bulwark against global warming and a way of providing large-scale desalination of seawater for drinking, vital if we wish to save cities like Adelaide SA and Perth WA and many others,
So we need to get the technology right, the economics sorted and the disposal of waste solved.  But this is not beyond the resources of Mankind.  So I am all for it - the sooner the better!

Back

Global Warming in the Greater Mekong

The WWF is warning that the Greater Mekong countries (Laos, Cambodia, Burma, Vietnam, Thailand and the South West provinces of China) will need to take action if ecological apocalypse is to be averted as a result of global warming.  A temperature rise of 2 -4 degrees Celsius would spell disaster for the ecosystems of these countries.  The report comes hot on the heels of the WWF's December 2008 report First Contact in the Greater Mekong which identifies a host of new species and biodiversity.  Whilst action needs to be taken locally, developing countries must play their part in reducing carbon emissions as well.
You can read the full report here.
Now I have commented on this blog before about global warming (see Global Warming and Climate Change - Still a Mystery? and Inconvenient truth) , so you may think that I might be sceptical about the WWF report.  Of course I am:I am sceptical - but not doctrinaire - about all global warming and climate change predictions but I support absolutely the recommendations made by the WWF.  Even if there is no global warming the actions need to be taken to preserve the biodiversity of this amazing region and best of all it will do no harm!

Back

Global Warming and Climate Change - Still a Mystery?

I have posted before on climate change and the contradictory evidence (Inconvenient Truth).  Now hot on the heels of Latif's work, which suggests the Earth will cool for a while, comes published research from the Met Office Hadley Centre which claims that the Earth's average global temperature will rise by 4 degrees Celsius.
Who are we to believe?  How can policy makers make informed choices when the scientific community seems at odds?  Worse what are ordinary people like us to make of it all.  And should we believe the politicians?

Inconvenient truth

Inconvenient truth: "The earth may be cooling down, says new research"

This is really interesting. It has become the accepted doctrine over the past five years that climate change is occurring making the earth warmer, threatening livelihoods; that it is as a result of global warning caused by carbon dioxide emissions produced by the excessive use of carbon fuels (and the odd farting cow or two).

Disagreement with this has been described as heresy and those with alternative views have been labelled "carbon deniers". Why such a virulent response to legitimate inquiry? Well politicians, lobbyists and the corporate world have discovered that there are votes to be won and money to be made by adhering to this line. Absolute belief in the proposition has become rampant political correctness. Research grants have been allocated on the basis of the extent to which the research will support the fundamental thesis. Much is now riding on the proposition of global warming. All of this is true: it is an unbiased account of what has happened. (Please note that I don't have the faintest idea whether the cause and effect - carbon dioxide, global warming - is right or not).

Now we hear that a leading climatologist has modelled the future and concluded that well, actually, the earth is likely to get a bit cooler for a while and then warm up a bit. .

Those of us with long memories know that the weather seems to be changing - even perhaps the climate. But whether it is a result of carbon driven global warming cannot be taken as an absolute truth. Could it be that the changes are part of a natural cycle that we haven't yet understood? After all the Earth has been very hot (by our standards) in the past and it has also been very cold. Is there a meta cycle occurring and if so what is driving it? Or is the current doctrine absolutely and indisputably correct?

Against this background Professor Latif's work is quite important. Science works by falsification of hypothesis based on evidence. Let us hope that this latest piece of research helps to shed light rather than heat on the issues and is not steam rollered by the juggernaut of political correctness. Because if we have actually got it wrong...well it just doesn't bear thinking about.

Back