OPINION PIECE – Climate change: Let’s ask the right question.

Professor Chubb has written an opinion piece on climate change in response to recent articles by the Chairman of the Prime Minister’s Business Advisory Council Maurice Newman.

It has been published in The Australian and you can download a pdf version here (265 kb) or read it below.

Climate change: Let’s ask the right question.

By Australia’s Chief Scientist Professor Ian Chubb

After his three recent articles on climate change, most recently in Wednesday’s Australian,  it is clear that Maurice Newman and I can agree on a number of things.  We can now agree, for example, that climate change is real, not a myth or a delusion.  We can agree that he is not a climate scientist; and we would agree that I am not one either.  We would, I think, agree that ‘climate’ is the result of complex interactions of multiple variables, many of them natural – but I would say not all.

We diverge when it comes to the impact of greenhouse gases.  While we agree that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, Maurice Newman wrote of ‘the myth of anthropological climate change’ and suggested that it is one in a list of popular delusions.

Others will doubtless address some of the details he has raised.  I start in a different place and ask a simple question. We have so far pumped two trillion tonnes of a greenhouse gas, CO₂, into our atmosphere since the industrial revolution, at a rate faster than ever before.  Why would we presume that it would have no effect?

If the answer were simple, we would know it.  So we have to use the evidence we have to assess the impact now; and we have to use the data to build models to estimate what the impact might be in the future.

Right now we know that as CO₂ levels in the atmosphere increase, so too does the amount of CO₂ absorbed by the ocean – with the effect of making the water less alkaline (or more acid).  Why would we presume that would have no effect on marine life? We also know that the heat content of the oceans has increased consistently although the rise in atmospheric temperature recently is flatter. Why would we presume no effect on the currents, winds and evaporation and a subsequent impact on climate? We know the planet is warmer than pre-industrial times.  While some might dismiss this as just a few tenths (0.9°C) of a degree, I wonder if they’d be as sanguine if their core body temperature increased by the same few tenths of a degree.

There will be regional variations.  There are differences even within Australia: temperatures in some regions have increased by 2°C over 50 years while others have experienced little or no change.  Our average change is 0.7°C.

We know that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are important.  If there were none, it has been estimated that the global temperature would be around -18°C rather than the average near 15°C we currently enjoy.

We also know that the relationship between CO₂ and temperature is not linear.  Uncertainty about the sensitivity of the climate to changing CO₂ means models yield different projections.  As an editorial in yesterday’s Nature opined: some have argued, in part on the basis of current temperature trends, that climate models tend to overestimate warming…but the evidence cuts both ways.   Some seem always to presume the errors only occur in the direction favourable to their argument. Notwithstanding the range, current models point out a direction, and the direction is up.

So we know that climate is a complex, complicated matter and that there are multiple variables.  Does that mean that we don’t use all the information we have to estimate what might be ahead? Does it mean that we do nothing about one variable over which we have some control – the emission of greenhouse gases?  Does it mean that because there are uncertainties we do nothing?

I am sure that Maurice Newman and I would agree that much of what should be a debate has turned into ‘low-grade’ and often personalised argument.  What it should be is a healthy and constructive discussion based on all the empirical evidence, not bits of it, with an eye to the implications for our health, well-being and prosperity in the longer term.

lee wrote on Jan 18^th, 2014 at 8:30pm:


Humans have burnt about 3% of the total fossil fuel reserves in the earths crust - almost entirely within the industrial era.

As a result the atmospheric CO2 concentration has risen from about 285ppmv in the late 19th century to its present value of about 400ppmv.

Without even considering the numerous perilous and irreversible tipping points that a warming earth can trigger, WHAT level of atmospheric CO2 level would begin concern you?

lee wrote on Jan 18^th, 2014 at 8:30pm:



Bingo!

Closed-minded morons, as is clearly evinced in this thread (and any other on AGW).

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 20^th, 2014 at 1:20am:


Could you point out the closed minded comments for me please?

lee wrote on Jan 18^th, 2014 at 8:30pm:


Acid<-->Alkaline is a scale. How do you make something less alkaline? You add acid, carbonic in this case, the oceans are having acid added to them. I do understand your take on it but it may be better to look at it as the Ph level rather than acid/alkaline as it would do away with misconceptions. The Ph of the oceans is decreasing or H+ ion concentration is increasing and that is indisputable. Playing word games over it does nothing but obfuscate the argument.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 20^th, 2014 at 1:21am:

Chi used to bust my head open in chemistry class: very clear memories! ... Or was that year 12???? 

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 20^th, 2014 at 3:49am:


I received a PM saying that this wouldn't be all that difficult to achieve - do you have a thin skull or something?

I would have that looked at if I were you - we wouldn't want anything to happen to you now would we - especially seeing that you like riding horses

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 20^th, 2014 at 12:14pm:

Ha ha, apparently he was quite happy he got his black belt!

I think he was vietnamese but i learnt something in chemistry that year- distance!!

Memories ay!!!   

Rider wrote on Jan 20^th, 2014 at 12:23pm:


...it seems that you've been sleeping a lot lately it seems?

Can you see the persistent cooling going on around your deranged fascist smelly existence?

Ignore the red trend line - just focus on the pre selected blue lines. they will provide re-assurance for you, YOU putrid decaying weasel carcass stench freak clown maggot

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 20^th, 2014 at 12:49pm:


Yawn and so bloody what...Your abusive unimaginative twattery is so typical of your loonie clan.

namnugenot wrote on Jan 20^th, 2014 at 1:33pm:


lol

another lunatic trying to pedal their fascist lunacy

be gone with you fascist freak clown maggot puppet

Your childhood deceptions may work on your church group congregation and blind mice freaks that attend, but are exposed as spin turds in here.

Stay for a while - I could use a laugh you demented slab of rotting skunk carcass stench

namnugenot wrote on Jan 20^th, 2014 at 2:02pm:


Actually there is plenty more

But I am sure that you would agree that wasting energy and intellectual rigour on a void that doesn't respond is a futile exercise

ISNT IT YOU PUTRID DERRANGED FASCIST FREAK MAGGOT CLOWN!

Rider wrote on Jan 20^th, 2014 at 2:29pm:

# wrote on Jan 18^th, 2014 at 7:34pm:

Because all that did was increase atmospheric CO2 from just under 0.03% to just under 0.04% of the atmosphere.
[/quote]

Quote:



Do something is not the same as do anything.  Why don't we shovel some money out the window? That would be doing something and would be just as effective as a carbon tax.

Clean air is important, Clean energy, no dependence on OPEC are important. But there is no justification for the utter hysterics of many AGW activists.  Technological innovation, not a speculative tax, is the answer.

I am sad to see you are still unwell, despite the encouraging lack of insane smileys.