Paris in the Winter..

It is an interesting fact that the models used to predict climate in 2100 are running very hot.

That is, they do not do well when compared to either observed measurements from land based instruments or satellites collecting temperature data. Compared to the actual temperature rises since 1980, the average of 32 top climate models (the so-called CIMP5) overestimates these rises by 71-159%. A new Nature Climate Change study shows that the prevailing climate models produced estimates that overshot the temperature rise of the last 15 years by more than 300%. Given that temperature rises are very minute (we are talking 100^th of a degree centigrade), these error ranges are significant. Don't get this wrong – the climate is changing. It is just that our models for anticipating these changes are not at all working well. The graph below shows the difference between model predictions, surface temperature measures and satellite measures. It is pretty dramatic.

This is important, since it is these models which give rise to at least some of the policy and adaptive concerns which will be the focus of COP21 in Paris in just a few days time.

To make matters worse, there is little agreements between the surface temperature measures taken from weather stations around the globe and adjusted in largely appropriate (but sometimes problematic) ways and the measures taken by satellite. That is, if we take the satellite data as the most accurate then the difference between the models and the actual data is substantial – 159%.

Then there is the elephant in the room problem. There has been very little (if any) rise in THE rate of global surface temperature warming in the last 19 years, despite substantial increases in levels of C02. Several studies show that the slowdown could be caused by a natural cycle in the Atlantic or Pacific that caused temperatures to rise more in the 1980’s and 1990’s but that has slowed or stopped global warming now. Even the UK Met Office accepts that this is the case. Global warming is real, but it has probably been exaggerated in the past by the poorly designed climate models.

Then there are other complications with the general theory of climate change on which COP21 policy analysts base their case:

1. The Antarctic ice expanse is growing not shrinking, according to NASA. Research, published in the Journal of Glaciology, found Antarctica gained 112 billion tons of ice per year from 1992 to 2001 and 82 billion tons of ice per year from 2003 and 2008. Eastern Antarctica gained 200 billion tons of ice per year from 1992 to 2008, according to the NASA study, outweighing ice losses from western Antarctica totalling 65 billion tons per year. This means the south pole is actually contributing to sea level declines, not sea level rises. A similar observation could be also be made about the Arctic – sea ice extent this year still has 2000 km3 more ice than the 2012 record breaking year.
2. We all are aware that sea level rises threaten small island states, such as Kirabati. But the situation is actually quite complex. Whie some of the islands are threatened, many are actually stable or growing. In a variety of studies some 80% of the “threatened” islands have either stayed the same or grown. Professor Paul Kench of Auckland University, who has studied these islands, makes clear that “the physical foundation of these countries will still be there in 100 years, so they perhaps do not need to flee their country”.
3. Sea level rises are occurring, but not as we may think. Like all aspects of climate, there are various regional variations – in some places the seas are rising quickly, in other places they are falling. Simple explanations do not work without taking into account a complex array of factors. For example, sea level along the west coast of the United States has actually fallen over the past 20 years because long-term natural cycles; yet in other parts of the world, seas have risen by 9” since 1992.

So the science is still unfolding. No serious scientists doubts that climate change is happening. But equally, few take the simple human caused climate change (more C02 = hotter climate) less seriously. Rather than being such a simple problem, climate scientists see understanding the science of climate change as a wicked problem.

So when we listen to those attending the Paris summit, including our Prime Minister Trudeau, we should be reminded that the basis of their deliberations and decisions is an emerging science which is still very problematic.

Richard Tol, an economist and statistician, is the Professor of the Economics of Climate Change at the Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam and he is ranked among the “top 50 most-cited climate scholars”. He has well over 200 publications in academic journals and is a lead author for the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  He thinks little of COP21 and the Paris process. In a recent speech he said that “the UN climate summit will “ultimately proven to be a futile effort” and achieve nothing more than “sending people to Paris for no apparent reason other than to keep these people well-travelled”.

We seem to have created a problematic process built on a theory which is still in development and not looking too healthy. Lets hope Tol is wrong. But you have to wonder..

Boycott the Paris Climate Change Talks

The final stages of preparation for the Paris climate change talks are still underway, but all is not well in the world of the national climate change management negotiators. Preliminary negotiations have made clear that there will be no legally binding agreement on CO2 emissions and it will be difficult to secure agreement on reparations for developing nations, who are seeking an annual fund of $100 billion to invest in energy projects to make affordable, low emissions technology available to them.

The EU will not support a deal that is not legally binding on all 200 nations participating in the talks. India and China will not accept a deal that inhibits their energy strategies, which depend largely on fossil fuels (especially coal in China). Most developing nations are focused on the creation of a global fund and, if this does not materialize at the funding level they expect, will object to other aspects of any climate change deal.  All of the offers of CO2 cuts made to date will also not “stop” climate change reaching more than 2C by 2100 – the arbitrary target chosen to guide these discussions. Things look bleak.

But then this is all a very silly idea. The idea that 10,000+ people who will gather in Paris in December can “stop climate change” is in itself a nonsense. The climate is a complex business with many different factors playing a role in shaping the way in which climate plays out in the regions of the world.  Yes, man-made CO2 is a part of the climate system, but it is a small part and many climate scientists remain unsure of the extent to which climate is sensitive to CO2 and what the contribution of this man-made proportion of CO2 (which also comes from other sources) plays in such a complex system. There is no simple correlation (i.e. increases in CO2 lead automatically to increases in global mean surface temperature) and a relentless focus on this one variable is now a part of the problem as well as part of the work that needs to be done.

It would be much better for these delegates to focus on the implications of inequality in the world and the way in which modern capitalism works – the issue that is really at the heart of these talks. What these talks are really all about is the right of all people to live a decent, secure life with access to affordable shelter, energy, food and economic security. These are all seen to be threatened by current modes of economic and social development as symbolized by CO2 emissions.

The secret negotiations between governments and representatives of the richest people in the world for so-called “free trade deals) like the TTP and the EU-US deal (TTIP) will have an impact on what we eat, how we travel, how we live our lives and how nations live together (or not). These negotiations – which many do not connect with climate change or energy development – will have more impact on the environment, climate, oceans and energy strategy than the meetings in Paris. Yet the details of these talks are secret – only the negotiators, a strictly limited number of Government Ministers and a legion of lobbyists know them. Maybe we should cancel the Paris climate change talks, which will go nowhere, and instead refuse to meet until the full details of the TTP and TTIP are released and their environmental impacts assessed.

As I mentioned before in my previous blog, the real issue under discussion in Paris is the future of capitalism for all. That is, equity is the real issue.

Paris, Climate, Capitalism and the Future

According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8°Celsius (1.4°Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade.

The working assumption of those who will meet in Paris at the end of the year to agree a climate change treaty are that, as CO2 increases, so does the earths surface temperature. Indeed, the table below captures the key assumptions being made.

CO2 Parts Per Million (ppm) in the Atmosphere	Will Lead to This Increase in Surface Temperature	With This Degree of Certainty
450 ppm	2C	50:50 Chance
550ppm	4C	5-50% Chance
650ppm	6C	10%

Since the mid 1990’s there has been general political alignment around the idea that the people on the planet would find temperature rises above 2C difficult to cope with, due to their impact on sea levels, weather patterns and extreme weather events.

But these assumptions are problematic. The rate of surface warming has slowed in the past eighteen years and 9 months, despite CO2 increases.  August 2015 measures of CO2 in the atmosphere showed 398.82ppm – an increase consistent with many of the models of climate change in use today. But temperature has not risen anywhere near as fast as predicted. Indeed, most scientists would agree that the models have significantly overestimated temperature rise relate to CO2 increases. The sensitivity of the climate system to changes in CO2, sun spots, water vapour, shifts in the earths orbit and so on are much more complex than many of the models account for.

Yet the physical properties ofCO2 and other greenhouse gases have not changed. The same energy they were re-radiating back to Earth during previous decades is evident now, subject only to changes in the amount of energy arriving from the sun - and we know that has changed very little. But if that’s true, where is this heat going?

There is strong evidence that the oceans are absorbing far more heat that hitherto understood and that a larger forest and expanding vegetation are also helping to absorb CO2, only some of which is manmade. It is also the case that our understanding of climate is that, far from being a simple set of relationships (more CO2 = higher temperatures), the variables impacting the surface temperature and climate are in fact more complex.

So a focus on CO2 emissions as the sole policy issue (together with money) in Paris is a fraught problem. What the delegates are looking at is how far they should go to exercise the precautionary principle – changing their energy supply systems, ending the use of coal, changing emission standards for cars, reducing meat consumption (meat production emits more CO2 than transport systems) and so on because there is a 10% chance of something bad happening.

Setting aside whether the current CO2 emissions reduction targets to be discussed by UN member nations meeting in Paris will meet the 450ppm threshold for CO2 so as to keep temperature rises below 2C (they will not), just what is the problem these delegates are trying to solve?

There are four:

1.   .      How can we reduce our impact on the earths environment as population grows?
2.          How can we ensure reliable, affordable energy which generates less greenhouses gasses than our current energy mix but nonetheless supplies reliable energy to a greater population without creating energy poverty?
3.       How can we mitigate the impacts of extreme weather events, which may have little to do with climate change and much more to do with population expansion and infrastructure development in areas of high risk of flooding and storms?
4.       How can rich nations support emerging nations in their efforts to adapt to a different energy and environmental regime while still securing food, shelter, energy and employment for a vastly greater number of people? This is the transfer of wealth issues at the heart of a great many debates at these meetings.

All of these significant conversations are important for the future of mankind. But notice that they are as much about population growth, economic and social well being and the nature of capitalism as they are about the environment and climate. Indeed, some would go as far as to suggest that climate change focus is in fact a proxy for a wider conversations about the nature of capitalism, population and economic growth, food and shelter and equity. The real issue is not climate but the future of mankind.

It has to be. No rational government would seek to fundamentally change its entire economic paradigm and participate in one of the largest schemes for wealth transfer between rich and poor nations ($100 billion a year from 2020 onwards) on the basis of a problematic theory (CO2=+C) and a 10% probability of serious challenges to society as we now know it. What is under discussion in Paris is the future of capitalism. Be aware.

A Lament for Politics

It is supposed to be the easiest thing in the world. You enter the polling booth, make a mark with a pencil and then, a few hours later, a result is announced, a Member of Parliament is elected and democracy is said to have happened. Your pencil mark means you participated in the democratic process. But it is becoming more complicated each time we walk into the polling both to make that mark. Democracy is about more than voting.

The democratic process begins well before elections with the work of informing people about issues, challenges, opportunities, threats and possible policies. For this work we rely on the “old” media, social media as well as friendship networks, families and campaign organizations. This is not easy work, since complex issues get reduced to slogans and ideas marketing. Few give time to study issues in depth, relying instead on catch phrases and headlines for their information. One hundred and forty characters is not enough to convey the challenges of climate change, population decline, immigration or the challenges faced by our cultural institutions. Yet the “twittersphere” is becoming as important as newspapers, radio and television as means for conveying ideas. The commentariat – those who write to inform and comment – say less and less but do so more often.

Making sense of the world and seeing what needs to be changed is the essence of politics. Yet the world makes less sense to many and party politics is just nonsense to some.  In fact, voter turnout over the last several elections shows the continued neglect of voting by a growing number of people across Canada. They are disengaged, disenfranchised and disgusted by politics.

But it is not just the lack of understanding that is affecting our politics. The cult of personality is also getting in the way. In the current Canadian Federal election the media seems preoccupied with the leaders of the main political parties – they cover their every move. The only other concern is the various faux pas of candidates from all parties. The more bizarre the comment, behaviour, Facebook entry or past university indiscretion the more space was dedicated to revealing the poor judgement of candidates. Several ended their candidacy after being revealed to be unfit for office following media scrutiny. This scrutiny is also about personality or, more accurately, character. Not unimportant, but less important than the work they intend to do.

Leaders matter. But so too does their analysis of the current challenges and their strategic intentions. So too does their ability to engage, involve and understand the needs of constituents. So too does the whole team that will have responsibilities in office, not just the leader. So too does policy.

Policy. That elusive thing. That thing that seems to shift with the wind during an election. That thing that, though there have been many months and years to develop sound and measured detailed policies, seems to be rethought on the fly rather than stuck to because focus groups and polling suggest that it is not popular or is too complicated. We now see policy in terms of being seeing to do good rather than doing the right things right.

Take climate change. Taxing carbon emissions is seen by most to be doing good and doing what is expected. Yet the right thing may be something quite different – changing the energy strategy of a nation, investing more in public transport and investing heavily in energy efficiency. Policy as a mantra rather than carefully thought through development seems to be the norm. Take health care policy. What people expect is a strong defence of Canada’s publicly funded health system. Yet the right thing might be to shift to multiple providers funded by a single payer. Take the CBC. What many expect is a strong defence of public broadcasting. What might be the right thing is closing CBC television but focusing instead on the power of radio and online multimedia. Good policies may require risk, imagination and creativity – not things one generally finds in mainstream political policy thinking.

The economic strategy is another area where all tread carefully. The “balanced budget mantra”, which is an epidemic amongst Canadian politicians, makes little sense in a shifting and changing economy which, frankly, is not doing very well. What is needed is stimulus spending, focused investments in innovation and a reinvestment in specific social programs to stimulate change. Debt should be welcomed not feared. Only one leader suggests this and is widely ridiculed by the commentariat for doing so. Canada is also secretly negotiating a trade management deal with other Pacific rim nations which will, in the long term, be very damaging to Canada. Yet this is seen as too complex an issue to really explore.

The thinking voter seeks to understand such issues, wants to know that the candidates and their leaders understanding the issues and wants to see policies which address the complexity of the issues. Sound bite policies are not enough. The engaged voter wants to be part of the process of developing policy and needs to see themselves able to participate in making policy happen locally, Provincially and regionally. Instead, the parties just seek our vote not our commitment. Rather than engage, they seek to canvas and truck voters to the poll to ensure they vote. The electorate is a vote-fodder, not engaged citizens.

And then there is the question of the team. Who is the team that will govern? When I was involved in political work, the strategy was always to display the bench-strength of the team. It was more than the leader. In the current Canadian election, the team is kept in the dungeon, locked up and out of sight in case they say things which the leader then has to clarify, correct or challenge. When they do emerge, the commentariat seems surprised to hear from them and unsure what to do in reporting their views. Why are we not seeing team profiles and the potential strategies they will pursue when in office? Who are these people? We all want to know.

In a few days I will walk to an early poll to cast my vote. It's a depressing task. The candidates have been knocking on my door, but don't really want to engage (“we have lots of doors to knock”) or debate. What they want to do is win, despite their lack of depth. One just spent their precious few minutes extolling the virtues of their leader. Yet it is not the leader I am voting for, it was him. Another said he would love to debate policy with me after the election. I am reminded of what an elementary school student told me when I ran a mock election in our classroom: “it doesn't matter who you vote for, the Government always gets in!”.

I have to vote tactically, since my real choice is “none of the above” and “definitely not the current lot”. Fortunately, the candidate I will vote for is someone I know personally and think I can trust to focus on what matters most. But even he is keeping a low profile, keeping out of the limelight and seeking to lower expectations. It is all a depressing experience. Whatever happened to genuine, engaged, passionate and compassionate politics? Where did the fervour go?

The Paris Climate Change Conference (COP21)

In 1996 the European Council of Environment Ministers determined, simply as a basis for political action, that a rise of average surface temperatures above 2C would be more than the world could cope with and thus the 2C target was born. While discussion of this started long before 1996, this was the first occasion it was set as a target (see here for a comprehensive history of this target). This decision was based on scientific advice from the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) and analysis of climate models from James Hansen at NASA.

Richard Betts, a UK Meteorological Office scientist, compares the 2C limit to a speed limit. He explains in a short blog post:

"The level of danger at any particular speed depends on many factors... It would be too complicated and unworkable to set individual speed limits for individual circumstances taking into account all these factors, so clear and simple general speed limits are set using judgement and experience to try to get an overall balance between advantages and disadvantages of higher speeds for the community of road users as a whole."

This December at the Paris Climate Change Summit (COP21), the nations of the world will share their commitments to C02 reductions (some of which will have conditions attached, such as those from India) which they have been led to believe will impact climate in such a way as to help keep increases in global surface temperature under the 2C target. However, an analysis of the commitments made to date suggests that this is unlikely to be a successful process. Current commitments fall short of what is needed for CO2 reduction by 10 gigatons according to EuroActiv France (a lobby organization) and the lead French negotiator for COP21. All are hoping that negotiations between now and December will bridge this 10 gigaton gap.

The analysis of what is needed relies on a number of climate models which are already known to be problematic (see here for a discussion, especially section 1.3). They take insufficient account of the impact of the sun and the oceans on climate change and show significant predictive variation between them – models differ significantly in their forecast of future climate conditions. This view is confirmed by an analysis published in Sustainability Science which says:

“.. according to our estimate based on our global energy systems model DNE21+  and a simple climate change model MAGICC, these pledges are nowhere near sufficient to limit the temperature increase to less than 2C since pre-industrialization if we apply 3C as the best estimate of the equilibrium climate sensitivity.”.

Further, commitments do not necessarily convert into action, as the evidence from Kyoto Accord outcomes show.

But Paris is not just about CO2 reductions. It is also about money. India, for example, has said that it will not adhere to CO2 unless adaptation funds are made available. Many small states and developing nations say the same (see here). What is being asked for is access to $100 billion a year from 2020 with the fund building up to that figure from now onwards.  On top of the contributions by states, largely via the Green Climate Fund, investment projects by other funds and private companies may also be taken into account under certain conditions, in order to help reach this target. Many developing economies are looking for cash to enable them to avoid fossil fuel-based energy systems. Right now, just $10 billion sits in the Green Climate Fund and no one is really clear where the $100 billion a year will come from.

Some groups who will attend Paris also want the world to stop using fossil fuels and move quickly to renewables – their basis for meeting the CO2 targets. Others are looking for ways of transitioning more gradually to a post-fossil fuel economy. Few agree on means, though most agree that CO2 is the focal point for climate change management, this despite observed evidence which shows that there has been a pause in the rate of global warming (see here). That is, even though CO2 has increased significantly over the last 18+ years, global surface temperature has not rises anywhere near the rate that the climate models predicted (see here). Indeed, the models have significantly overestimated the predicted temperature rise since 1979.

Paris, like the previous 20 Conferences of the Parties, will be interesting. A very large number of people will seek to agree, line by line, a binding climate treaty. The chances of success are slim, especially since the preliminary meeting in Bonn earlier this year scrambled a comprise document together (see here) to provide the basis for the Paris talks. Jan Kowalzig, climate change policy adviser at Oxfam, who attended the Bonn talks, described the negotiations in as “unbearably tardy.” He said:

“If the negotiators keep up that slow pace, the ministers at the UN summit will get an unfinished paper that they will have to resolve with no time for reflection. The outcome will then most likely be an extremely weak new treaty that will not save the world from climate change”.

The paper crafted at Bonn provides a variety of options and is not a set of clear and explicit commitments. The stumbling blocks – as always – are cash and CO2 cuts. Despite many years of meetings, these remain the problem.

Many are pinning great hopes on the Paris talks. History tells us, however, not to get our hopes up. We have been here before. What is likely to happen is that some face saving document will be crafted in very late night sessions which few will then feel a binding commitment to. Even nations that make firm and clear commitments may not keep them. It would be better to stop seeking global agreements, see climate as a regional not international issue and develop regional and local strategies to adapt to the changing climate. Global governance is gridlocked and broken as far as this issue (and several others) is concerned. The real action is local and regional.

Arctic To Be Ice Free by 2015 ? No way..

For many years a variety of people - scientists, political figures, journalists and climate watchers like Al Gore - have told us that the Arctic will be ice free. The predictions were that it would be ice free sometime between 2013 and 2015, though serious scientists have always doubted this proposition, which is entirely based on model predictions (so-called "simulation science") versus observational data.

Here is the most recent data from the National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Boulder, Colorado. Red shows the September 2012 minimum extent. Green shows the current extent, which is also likely to be the minimum for 2015. The Arctic has gained hundreds of miles of ice over the past three years, much of which is thick, multi-year ice. Once again, models have it wrong.