Justice and love: why this Christian cares about climate

"The crux of climate change for Christians is the poorest, most vulnerable countries are those hardest hit by global warming. The poor are least able to adapt to the impact of climate change and ironically, have contributed least to it. The carbon footprint of the poorest 1 billion people on the planet is estimated to be around 3% of the world’s total footprint. This is the social injustice of climate change: poor, developing countries will suffer because of the fossil fuels emitted by developed nations. We are commanded to love our neighbour. [...] God requires that His people oppose social injustice and open their hearts to the poor and vulnerable. For the church to turn a blind eye to the injustice of climate change is to turn our back on God’s heart for the poor."

John Cook, founder of the justly famous site Skeptical Science, has written a short piece in Eternity magazine explaining why he takes climate change seriously as a Christian. You can read the rest here.
H/T Liz.

What path are we on? Emissions update

Between 2003 and 2008, the global economy was tracking above the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) worst case scenario for carbon dioxide emissions. The financial crisis brought a brief respite in 2009, when emissions actually dropped (remember, this still means that greenhouse gas levels rose in 2009, just a little more slowly than they had been). But it was recently announced by the International Energy Agency that 2010 saw the largest jump in emissions in human history, putting us back up close to the IPCC worst case. What does this mean? If we continue on this trajectory, where will we end up? This piece by two climate scientists gives plenty of good context. The bottom line? According to the IPCC's most recent major report (2007), our current trajectory puts us on track for a 2100 temperature rise of 3-4°C above pre-industrial levels with likely associated impacts including:

Hundreds of millions of people exposed to increased water stress.
30–40% of species at risk of extinction around the globe.
About 30% of global coastal wetlands lost.
Increased damage from floods and storms.
Widespread coral mortality.
Terrestrial biosphere tends toward a net carbon source.
Reduction in cereal productions.
Increased morbility and mortality from heat waves, floods and droughts.

Remember that these projections are based on IPCC AR4 (2007), which was a compilation of research up to the middle of last decade. A lot has happened in climate science in the last five or six years, and little of it has made the picture any rosier. Crucially, the above projections do not include a variety of feedback mechanisms that were not well understood at the time of publication. And there have also been advances in modeling likely impacts in some areas, notably, sea level rise, which is now thought to be between 0.5 and 1.5 metres by 2100. Of course, if our emissions are towards the upper end of the scenarios, then rises are also likely to be higher than 50 cm. However, I think that it is reduction in cereal production that could be the most significant effect geopolitically in the next few decades.

For a more up to date assessment of the state of the science, see the recent Australian Climate Commission's publication The Critical Decade, whose three chapters are helpfully summarised by Skeptical Science: one; two; three. Here is the concluding paragraph:

As you’ve read in this report, we know beyond reasonable doubt that the world is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause. The impacts of climate change are already being felt in Australia and around the world with less than 1 degree of warming globally. The risks of future climate change – to our economy, society and environment – are serious, and grow rapidly with each degree of further temperature rise. Minimising these risks requires rapid, deep and ongoing reductions to global greenhouse gas emissions. We must begin now if we are to decarbonise our economy and move to clean energy sources by 2050. This decade is the critical decade.

Remember, we are not just talking about less ice or a few more days of sunscreen, the likely geopolitical consequences of our current path are dire. It doesn't have to be this way.

Can we feed ten billion people?

By popular demand, my link dump posts will continue.

Jeremy asks the $64,000 question (ok, so you can add a few more zeroes to the value of that question due to inflation): can we feed ten billion people? He also answers the question: yes and no.

Another Jeremy wonders: what has nature ever done for us?

Bryan reviews a new book co-authored by John Cook (of Skeptical Science fame) on climate change denial. The book makes the point that there are different kinds of denial and that one kind is simply doing nothing with the knowledge that we have.

"I just want my child to go to a good school." Chris Bonnor points out the effects of this mindset.

Ross Cameron offers some reflections on the royal wedding: "The vows are uttered in public because they are so outrageous they have to be witnessed. In lives bombarded by change, there is something incredibly attractive in the idea of making a promise for life."

Mike Wells encourages us to stop being Australian (especially if we actually are).

What do philosophical arguments sorely lack? Referee hand signals.
H/T Kath.

Onion: Obama's new plan to balance the budget.

And xkcd makes us all feel old.

Pity none of these are April Fools' jokes

AAAS conference: 50 million environmental refugees by 2020. This is a connection that we've been seeing in the Middle East and North Africa and is only likely to continue to grow in importance. Climate and ecological damage combine with political and economic conditions to cause food insecurity, leading in turn to political instability in nations closer to the edge and these problems are then exported through migration. Such migrants won't always be labelled ecological or climate refugees, since the proximate causes will include political and economic factors, often focalised or triggered through food issues.

Physorg: Some Greenland glaciers have doubled in speed over the last decade.

Science Daily: Higher CO2 means less transpiration as plants reduce their pores.

Coral reefs are the canaries in the global coal mine. It is likely most won't survive above 350 ppm CO2 for more than a few decades. We're at 390 and rising.

Guardian: Wasting water in a throwaway society. In the UK, "we throw away, on average, twice as much water per year in the form of uneaten food as we use for washing and drinking."

The Australia Institute: Hiding the unemployed (and underemployed), or why the official unemployment rate is the tip of the iceberg.

Shell says we are entering a zone of uncertainty over oil supply. A clever ploy to keep the prices high or a frank admission that the future of oil is declining global production?

One of the most useful pages on Skeptical Science is Ten Indicators of a Warming World (and Ten Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change). But this may be an eleventh: wave height.

Guardian: Time to pledge our "full-throated" support for the monarchy.

OK, so one of them is.

A white Christmas in a warming world

The answer to Wednesday's riddle ("what has six arms, can swallow farms and a million makes a man?") was snowflakes.

At the end of last month, I raised the question many people in the UK are asking at the moment: where did the global warming go? It started snowing in November and here in Edinburgh there have been numerous significant falls over the last three weeks, with snow continuously on the ground the whole time. I've lost count of the days that have dropped below -10ºC and only one or two have nudged above freezing. Transport in the UK has been thrown into chaos, with trains cancelled or delayed, roads blocked, airports disrupted. Heathrow airport, the largest in the world, was closed or running at reduced capacity for much of the last week.*
*This affected us personally since my sister, who was here visiting us until yesterday, was very unsure whether she would be home for Christmas with her husband and children. As it turned out, her flight from Edinburgh to Heathrow was cancelled, and the train which she took instead was delayed by three or four hours, but she managed to get home.

So far, it is shaping up to be the coldest UK December on record, running about 5ºC below average. The last three years have all been significantly colder than average. Prior to that, the trend was for warming winters, which was quite consistent with the widespread scientific understanding anthropogenic climate change, which predicts more warming at night, at the poles and during winters (all patterns evident in the temperature record and which rule out solar forcing as the main culprit). Indeed, only a couple of years ago, the MET Office infamously predicted, "Children just aren't going to know what snow is". So what happened?

I suggested back in November that a pattern of WACCy weather (Warm Arctic Cold Continents) might help us understand this phenomenon. Where did the warming go? The UK is five degrees colder than usual, but much of Greenland is up to 15 degrees warmer than the long term average, and large parts of the Arctic Ocean are more than 10 above average. Indeed, recent studies suggest a link between declining Arctic sea ice and patterns of cold air for the continents in northern latitudes. With less sea ice over the Arctic ocean, more heat escapes from the water (which is obviously no colder than 0ºC) to the atmosphere (which is, as one would expect during an Arctic winter, generally well below zero). This creates high pressure cells, which disrupt the usual wind patterns and lead to the much-warmer-than-usual-but-still-freezing Arctic air being pushed further south over the continents. When this freezing air coming down over the UK runs into moist air being brought from the Atlantic, we get significant (by UK standards) dumps of snow, bringing the country to a standstill.

All this has been mentioned numerous times in scientific papers and reports from NOAA and NASA (and again), but has barely rated a mention in most mainstream media (Monbiot is a notable exception).

Is this having one's cake and eating it if both warmer and colder winters are evidence of climate change? No, because climatologists have never claimed that every place would be affected in the same way at the same time. Global warming is (a) global and (b) only one of the effects of climate change. Climate change means climate disruption, increasingly dramatic shifts from the relative climatic stability of the Holocene that has nurtured the birth of agriculture and the rise of human civilisation over the last ten thousand years or so. Is using the term "climate change" in preference to "global warming" a con to save face? Not at all, since the terms mean slightly different things and both have been in use for decades. (Or if you'd prefer, here's a video response.)

It is not yet clear whether this pattern is likely to become the new normal UK winter as Arctic sea ice continues its apparent death spiral, or whether other factors will prove more significant. On that question hang billions of pounds in infrastructure decisions.

And so tomorrow in Edinburgh, there will probably be snow on the ground for Christmas: a white Christmas in a warming world.*
*I realise that, technically, bookmakers and the MET Office define a white Christmas as at least a single snowflake reaching the ground somewhere in the UK, but snow on the ground is good enough for this Aussie.

Skeptical about climate change?

"There’s not just a consensus of scientists - there’s a consensus of evidence."

This is an excellent resource for those unsure, confused or hostile to the idea that human activities are dangerously disrupting the climate. John Cook, with the help of a number of climate scientists and other helpers, has put together a free document titled, The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism (pdf here). It is well illustrated, clearly written, brief and to the point, addressing some of the most common queries and misunderstandings.

If your question isn't covered by the guide, the rest of John's site, Skeptical Science, has responses to more than one hundred common arguments concerning climate change (with plenty of links to published peer-reviewed scientific papers, or just short simple answers for beginners). I have recommended this excellent and highly informative website before, but let me do so again.

Is Christian ethics just for Christians? and other links

Andrew asks about Christian ethics: just for Christians?

Jason ponders ordinary time.

Halden rethinks whether the new monasticism is what it says on the tin.

Nicole (a.k.a Stoneleigh) peers beyond the trust horizon (scroll down past the ad for a talk that I linked to back here).

Stephan points out that real experts don't know everything and gives a useful test for how to spot a fake expert (as well as the schedule for a series of interesting talks in various Australian cities).

Matt reflects on why he buys organic foods out of love for his neighbour, rather than his own health.

Sager thinks about what it takes to build a resilient community.

And Charlie Brown - finally! - kicks the ball.

Over budget and getting worse

Too much of a good thing: "In fact, no phenomenon has probably impacted the nitrogen cycle more than human inputs of nitrogen into the cycle in the last 2.5 billion years".

Another threat to coral: algal blooms, caused by excess nitrogen, found to kill large areas of coral within weeks.

Plane danger? It turns out you are more likely to die from plane exhaust than in a plane crash.

Water, water everywhere: more water flowing into the ocean due to climate change, an 18 percent increase between 1994 and 2006. Another good summary and some discussion on Skeptical Science.

Birds could signal mass extinction: "Biodiversity loss is arguably much more serious and more permanent than climate change". Which is saying something, since anthropogenic climate change is likely to redefine the planet's living systems and geography for millennia.

Loss of old growth forests continues, albeit a little more slowly: where biodiversity and climate converge (one of many places, but this is perhaps the most critical).

Economy vs ecology? Ecological damage estimated to currently cost the global economy US$6.6 trillion (with a "t") each year.

Drying up: unexpected shift in evapotranspiration across large parts of the southern hemisphere.

Finish your plate: 27% of food in the US is wasted. I assume that is not even calculating all the excess calories that are actually consumed.

A second planet by 2030: current trends in consumption are drawing down on the natural capital of the earth. We're currently about 50% over "budget".

And some good news: deadly virus eradicated in "the biggest achievement of veterinary history".

The big picture on climate change

Skeptical science, an excellent website run by Australian Christian John Cook that gives very readable and well referenced answers to common sceptic talking points about climate change, has just posted an excellent summary of the big picture on climate change. It expresses very succinctly where the uncertainties do and don't currently lie, with plenty of links for those who want to read more. If you're feeling like you'd rather let the whole climate thing pass you by, or feel confused about where to begin, or just want to get your bearings after reading too many newspaper articles, this post is the one to read.

The site is called Skeptical Science because true science is indeed sceptical, and so John applies this to common "scepticism" about climate change, in order to see where the balance of evidence from the best research lies (see here for a good intro to the idea behind the site). If you have specific arguments that you've come across that seem to "disprove" climate science, here are 122 common sceptic talking points each answered in a single sentence (with links to longer answers). If you are yourself sceptical of the science of climate change, then make sure you read through the list and see if your reasons are already answered in the scientific literature. If you come across people putting forward arguments on other websites, bookmark this page and point people towards it.

Each answer refers to relevant scientific literature for those who want to take the discussion further. John is in the process of turning all his answers into three levels of readership: beginner, intermediate and advanced. The website is also being translated into numerous languages. All this work is done by volunteers, who have come across the site, found it a very useful resource and want to make it even more useful. Neither John nor any of his contributers are paid for what they do (apart from the odd PayPal donation); the site is a true labour of love.

Indeed, John has been quite open about the fact that he is concerned about climate change out of Christian love for his neighbours (especially the poor and future generations). He is doing an excellent job co-ordinating an increasingly popular, complex and useful website (which is now also a free iPhone and Android app) and he does it for love, not money. Praise God for John Cook!

Choking on coal

Washington Independent: coal related health effects cost the US $100 billion each year, including over 13,000 deaths. I imagine that even prior to considerations of climate change, if the public health effects of burning coal are taken into account, renewable energy is more affordable than such dirty combustion. Meanwhile, the head of BHP Billiton has said that Australia needs to move beyond coal. And finally, images of coal ash in China.

Independent: UK government to adapt to inevitable warming, yet without spending any more money.

Mongabay: Amazon.com vs the Amazon: paper trails and deforestation.

Deep-sea trawling damages an area twice the size of the contiguous USA each year.

And just to show that sometimes simultaneous disasters can dilute rather than amplify each other: Scientific American reports on research showing that hurricanes help save thermally-stressed coral reefs by cooling water temperatures; Skeptical Science points out that in New York, higher rainfall doesn't necessarily mean more flooding due to drier soil from higher temperatures; and NASA satellites reveal that the incidence of wildfires is no higher in dead forests killed by mountain pine beetle infestations (which have reached epidemic proportions due to warmer winters enabling more beetles to survive) since green needles of live trees are more flammable than brown needles of dead ones.

These points vaguely remind me of the story of a man who wanted to kill himself and so decided to do a thorough job. He hung himself over a lake after taking poison and brought along a gun to make sure. His shot missed his head and severed the noose, dropping him into the water which diluted the poison. Since all the other methods had failed, he decided he wanted to live after all and so swam to shore and survived. I'm not sure we're going to be so lucky.

Is climate change good for us? Deutsche Bank: Nein!

A new report from Deutsche Bank (PDF) says that “Human-made climate change is already happening and is a serious long term threat.” The report runs through many of the typical sceptic talking points - it's not happening, it's not us, it's not bad - and debunks them in turn (in the style of John Cook's excellent Skeptical Science site). One of the most interesting answers concerns the common claim that since humanity has survived many climate changes in the past, there is nothing to worry about:

"Although adaptation is possible, historical shifts in climate have never occurred under conditions of such high human population numbers. Natural resources and ecosystems are already taxed and further climate perturbation is likely to be disruptive. Climate shifts in the past have frequently been accompanied by collapse of governments or extensive mortality. Increasing population pressure exacerbates the likelihood of pandemics and the destabilization of food-insecure regions can lead to failed states and threats to global security. Humans have survived numerous past changes in climate, but survival of the species is a poor measure of the true consequences and costs associated with adaptation to climate change."

The threat of complete human extinction gets too much attention in some circles. There is plenty for us to be concerned about before we reach that stage - indeed, there are 6.8 billion reasons for concern prior to getting that far.

And it is worth repeating the point that humanity has never faced a situation quite like this before; the threats are on an unprecedented scale. We have never had anywhere near this many people, with anywhere near this amount of infrastructure investments to protect, with anywhere near this level of consumption, with anywhere near this level of firepower to hurt ourselves if things turn pear-shaped geopolitically. Climate change is far from the only issue we face, but it is a threat multiplier in a world already under incredible and growing stresses. We are living in a historically novel period for all kinds of reasons and the stakes are higher than they have ever been.

A taste of the menu

Global warming turns 35: both the term itself and the experience of rising temperatures have lasted a little longer than my lifespan. Predictions made back in the mid-70s were in the right ballpark.

Ben discovers the law of ice cream (well, gelato actually).

Phytoplankton, the base of the ocean's food chain, are in serious decline, according to a new global study in Nature.

Alison points out what has largely been missing from the Australian election campaign.

The Automatic Earth: why deflation matters more than inflation.

Dominic Knight: How to make the election more interesting.

SMH/Crikey: Gillard's cash for clunkers is a lemon costing almost twenty times as much to reduce a tonne of carbon as an ETS. And that is with some generous assumptions. And the claims of money for R&D when looked at carefully also fare poorly. Neither the emperor nor the would-be emperor are wearing any climate clothes.

Gravity, it's only a theory. The hoax unmasked.

John Cook: Ten ways we know the earth is warming and ten reasons we know that the primary driver is human activities enhancing the natural greenhouse effect.

Popular author Anne Rice has "quit being a Christian" (but still follows Christ).

Joe Romm: US EPA gives ruling on ten different petitions submitted by climate change deniers: "These petitions - based as they are on selectively edited, out-of-context data and a manufactured controversy - provide no evidence to undermine our determination."

Wynne Parry asks whether the oceans primed for mass extinction in an article that starts to join the dots between pollution, overfishing, nutrient run-off, dead zones, ocean warming and acidification from carbon dioxide.

Peer review as spam filter

This is a good brief read on why peer-reviewed science is not about to be replaced by blog science. In short, peer review cuts out the spam and indicates what might be worth reading.