· The Millennium Irritant.

· Saturday 30 September 2006

· More thoughts on the climate change debate.

Since I posted my comment of 18 September 2006, attempts to stifle scientific debate and discredit those who question the present “conventional wisdom” on the topic have been back in the news.

The Scientific Alliance newsletters of 22 and 29 September report on this issue and comment on the disturbing role which The Royal Society seems to be playing in attempting to stifle scientific comment that may appear to question their interpretation of the climate change issue.

I have quoted from the Scientific Alliance Newsletter before and make no apology for doing so again. In the 29 September Scientific Alliance Newsletter the Alliance make clear their position on the climate change issue and encourage challenge and debate on this. I reproduce the Alliance’s understanding and analysis is as follows:

Average global temperatures (as currently defined) rose by approximately 0.6°C during the 20th Century, but in a discontinuous way.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have been rising, and burning of fossil fuels is undoubtedly contributing to this.

Carbon dioxide, though only a trace gas, has a relatively long residence time in the atmosphere, and so levels will remain high for some considerable time.

Higher levels of carbon dioxide have a warming effect on surface temperatures, but the degree of influence is still a matter of study.

A number of sophisticated computer models have been developed to project likely climate trends over the 21st Century and beyond. Using the same input emissions scenarios, they suggest a range of possible temperature increase.

These models are based on an incomplete understanding of a highly complex global climate system and, at best, only seem to be capable of reproducing temperature trends over a relatively short timescale of a century or so.

We still have no real understanding of the drivers of major climatic fluctuations in the historical period, particularly the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, nor the longer-term Glacial/Interglacial cycle. They clearly were not driven by industrial fossil fuel use.

Without a better understanding of drivers of climate change, it is unrealistic to expect that concentrating solely on reducing carbon dioxide emissions will enable us to tune global climate to our liking.

The Kyoto protocol sets rather modest targets for emissions reductions, which it is clear the majority of participating countries will not meet. To expect that the next phase of emissions reductions, which must include major developing economies such as China, India and Brazil to make any discernable impact, to be agreed and targets met is even less realistic.

What is to be done? (with apologies to Lenin)

This analysis does not mean we should ignore the issue. In our view, there are three key things that scientists and politicians should be doing, and all are equally important.

The first is to continue research on climate and its drivers. However, too many current efforts give the impression of being geared towards uncovering evidence to support the IPCC’s position. Rather, open-minded research aimed at gaining a better understanding of how and why the Earth’s climate has evolved would place us in a much better position to project possible future changes.

The second is to build societies which are more resilient and can adapt to changing weather patterns. More prosperous societies are, by and large, better able to cope, and robust and healthy economic growth by developing countries should be encouraged by all means possible. But even rich, industrialised countries make basic mistakes. The continuing trend to build houses in the UK on flood plains is surely one. On the other hand, the stated intention of the government to make houses better insulated and more energy efficient is very welcome, and will improve living conditions in both warm and cold spells.

The third is to continue to work on alternative technologies and energy sources to replace (at least partially) fossil fuels. This inevitably needs to cover a wide range of options, from basic work to develop a commercially viable nuclear fusion process and low-cost photovoltaics to a building programme for Combined Heat and Power plants in urban areas. Whatever the effect of this on climate patterns, and we are currently sceptical that it will make any significant difference, energy security and efficiency will be improved, for the benefit of all.

I fully endorse the Scientific Alliance’s encouragement of rational scientific debate on the climate change issue. Such an attitude contrasts favourably with the hysterical name calling and head counting which substitutes for debate among some scientists who should no better and politicians and others who don’t.