Anne of Carversville

My utter confusion around climate change hasn’t changed one iota in the last two weeks. Admittedly, one cannot become an informed layperson on the environment overnight. To date, I’ve believed in the ‘fact’ of global warming, without really trying to understand the science.

Linear Models

1. It seems that all parties agree that future projections of climate change catastrophe are based on complex scientific models that make certain assumptions about the past and future.

My radar goes ding, ding, ding when I read concerns that the climate change models are basically linear models and not holistic ones, factoring in the vast complexity of Mother Nature’s ecosystem. Simply stated, men are not holistic thinkers and these models come primarily from the male mind.

Female minds are much more likely to look at the intersections of complementary factors impacting model projections.

via Flickr’s Ahmed AlbaqerWorst-Case Scenario Planning

2. Even ardent environmentalists agree that the climate-change prediction models involve a wide range of possible future scenarios. The argument seems to be that we have a moral obligation to plan for the worst case scenario.

Ignoring Opposing Viewpoints: Climategate

3. Until 10 minutes ago, it was my understanding that the vast majority of scientists agree that global warming has stalled the past decade. Pro-climate change people say it’s a statistical blip on the screen and the Climategate group says “I told you so.”

I hop over to the Sydney Morning Herald and confront Stephan Lewandowsky’s Fraction too much fiction in ‘climategate’. If his is the only article that I read about climate change and the disputed science, I’d be convinced that Climategate is for nonsense.

But Daniel Henninger’s WSJ Climategate: Science Is Dying rings truer to me. Henninger equates Copenhagen with a Manhattan Project, in global importance, and I agree. Vast decisions will be made that impact the global economy in dramatic ways for centuries.

Taking Another Look at Carbon Absorption (CO2) Models

Bottom line, unlike cancer research which is reasonably organized and factual, climate change scenarios seem to be all over the map and much more theoretical than I ever realized. This is why Dr. Wolfgang Knorr’s research should be relevant science in the discussion.

Also important in Dr. Knorr’s study is the possibility that emissions from deforestation might have been overestimated by between 18 and 75 percent.

This would agree with results published in early November in Nature Geoscience by a team led by Guido van der Werf from VU University Amsterdam. They re-visited deforestation data and concluded that emissions have been overestimated by at least a factor of two. via Science Daily

Powerful Scientific, Journalistic, Political and Business Interests

Brazil is leaving for Copenhagen confident that the world can save 80% of the Amazon rainforest. This progress will cost money, of course, but it’s a major piece of news in the environmental debate.

Lifting the complex science onto the national stage in America is almost impossible. Politicians are screaming wildly in 10 second bullet-points and we have no forum to discuss the complexity of these issues.

Where is the national press in letting us get to Copenhagen without someone as well-read as I am, not knowing that the climate change models are highly speculative and we’re making decisions on a worst-case scenario?

Answer: because writers as well as researchers have a vested interest in protecting their turf, beliefs and values. I like the Guardian UK, but we have an amazing example of media manipulation of the facts in this article.

The Guardian published on Nov. 17, 2009 an article saying Global temperatures will rise 6C by end of century, say scientists. This headline remains at the top of the page. The first paragraph reads:

Global temperatures are on a path to rise by an average of 6C by the end of the century as CO2 emissions increase and the Earth’s natural ability to absorb the gas declines, according to a major new study. via Guardian UK

via Flickr’s Gecko2007Not true. Reading this article, my response is that the 6-degree rise is the outer limit of the model. The increase may be as little as 1-degree. Only at the very end of this article do we read: The headline to this article was amended on Wednesday 18 November 2009 to make clear that the study said global temperatures could rise 6C by end of century, not that they will do so. I never noticed, based on the first paragraph and headline still printed at the top of the page.

Why not mention that the 6-degree limit is the outer estimate of the rise in temperature? Because the Guardian is the most pro-environmet newspaper in London.

Let me give you the scariest bottom line of all this morning. I should be flattered with my findings, but in fact, I’m totally unsettled.

Granted that Anne of Carversville is becoming a major website with a solid following who appreciate my neutral, investigative approach to telling both sides of a story. I also have no problem saying that I’m confused by conflicting facts and research findings, while trying to assemble the puzzle of a major issue like climate change. Readers appreciate that honesty from me.

Google has rewarded me nicely with a high rank, so A of C tends to move forward quickly in Google search, when we write on a topic.

Nevertheless, it’s downright chilling that just now I put the phrase”CO2 absorption” into Google News blogs and Anne of Carversville has the top spot. (Note: we do not have the top spot under “carbon absorption”. On that term, we’re on page 3. )

I understand the first position on Dr. Knorr’s research findings, because no one wants to talk about them. But CO2 absorption? That’s chilling, my friends.

Where is the informed, factual, honest, most-recent conversation on the latest news around CO2 absorption?

Talking to a colleague just now, he reminds me that when I make trend presentations, I’m changing slides all night, until 6am in an effort to deliver real time information to clients.

My premise for client (or reader) deliverables is vastly different than those of scientists, researchers and writers, who have made careers of their own research and writing around a set of basic premises.

The vast majority of professionals have a vested interest in protecting the sanctity of their research, business models, values and life assumptions.

My role in business has always been that of the gadfly, the provocateur, the “think different’ person. I bring the same set of traits to covering topical news at Anne of Carversville.  Admiting that in most trend presentations, I know what I’m talking about, in the case of the complexities of climate change, right now your guess is as good as mine.  

Marching in to Copenhagen, even the Guardian prints the truth on the “inconvenient truth” of Dr. Knorr’s and Dr.  Guido van der Werf unsettling findings about CO2 carbon absorption models.

Speaking for the University of Bristol — home to the latest contradictory findings on CO2 absorption research —Jo House says: “It is difficult to accurately estimate sources and sinks of CO2, particularly in emissions from land use change where data on the area and nature of deforestation is poor, and in modelled estimates of the land sink which is strongly affected by inter-annual climate variability. While the science has advanced rapidly, there are still gaps in our understanding.”

The Guardian concludes with journalistic objectivity: The scientists agreed, however, that an improved understanding of land and ocean CO2 sinks was crucial, since it has a major influence in determining the link between human CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentration of the greenhouse gas. In turn, this has implications for CO2 targets set by governments at climate negotiations.

Bloggers, journalists and scientists may not be talking much this reality of faulty model-premises in CO2 absorption models, but I pray that the Copenhagen process will allow this late-night dabate to achieve its deserved hearing on the world stage.

Without one, you can forget getting substantial climate change legislation through the US Congress. I stake my reputation on that prediction. Anne

More reading: The Civil Heretic New York Times Magazine