Meteorologists know a lot about climate, or at least they should. But are they the best group to be promoting policy responses to say 'climate change'? Once upon a time scientists mostly just provided quality information, and then those with, for example, expertise in economics, looked for best potential policy solutions?
Anyway, I have just received** this information from the American Meteorological Society explaining that they more-or-less have the science of climate change sorted, and now want to mediate a very open and very public discussion on potential policy responses:
"The American Meteorological Society, the nation's leading professional society for those in the atmospheric and related sciences, recently launched a new weblog (blog) to address the challenging policy issues related to climate change. The goal is to help decision makers at all levels make sound policy based on the
best available information."
"From a policy standpoint, the important scientific questions about human caused climate change are largely settled. Society faces serious risks and complex choices about how to handle them. We need to confront the most contentious policy issues as openly and straightforwardly as possible. That way we may be able to overcome
the stumbling blocks that keep preventing us from dealing with climate change. AMS wants to help by making sure that it is knowledge and understanding that drive our policy choices.
"ClimatePolicy.org will encourage exchanges among experts, policy-makers, journalists, and the broader society. The blog will build on the knowledge of some of the world's leading climate experts who come from the United States' most renowned institutions. The core contributors include Joe Aldy (Resources for the Future), Scott Barrett (Johns Hopkins University), Dan Kammen (University of California, Berkeley), Mike MacCracken (Climate Institute), Mike Mastrandrea (Stanford University), and Michael Oppenheimer (Princeton University). With this broad range of expertise, ClimatePolicy.org will explore and analyze society's options for reducing climate risks while also increasing economic opportunities and incorporating ethical values. These expert contributors, along with reader input from around the world, will help encourage a full assessment of potential responses to the threats posed by climate change." [End of quote]
As I see it there are two options: mitigation and/or adaptation.
In order to mitigate, countries like Australia are looking at reducing emissions through the introduction of carbon trading or alternatively a carbon tax. There is always the option to do nothing, what a friend described to me the other day as "the third way".
------------------
** Information received via David, thanks.
I thought that risk and uncertainty was the field in which only actuarians are the experts? Engineers make mistakes and only use factors of known criteria to avoid failure.
"News and features
Lloyd's reports £3.7bn profit for 2006
29 March 2007
Lloyd's has recorded a gross profit of £3.7bn for 2006
Lloyd's has reported a record profit of £3.7bn for 2006 following a benign year for catastrophe claims.
Lord Levene, Lloyd's Chairman, said 2006 had been "an excellent year" for the world's leading specialist insurance market, but warned that it would be unrealistic to expect such a good claims experience this year.
Lloyd’s financial results, published today, also reveal that the market has beaten its competitors in terms of profitability. Its 2006 combined ratio of 83.1% compares favourably with the estimated average of 93% for US property and casualty insurers, 95% for US reinsurers, 94% for European insurers and reinsurers, and 86% for Bermudian insurers and reinsurers.
Lloyd’s central assets have also increased by 14.8% to £1.45bn.
Lord Levene said: “During the year, we benefited from strong underlying conditions and an exceptionally low level of catastrophes. However, it would be unrealistic to expect such a favourable claims experience this year. With a trend for more frequent and severe natural catastrophes we must continue our focus on underwriting for profit. The market is well prepared to meet these challenges.”
Richard Ward, commenting on his first annual Lloyd’s results since becoming chief executive last April, added: "Lloyd's is in a strong competitive position and our performance compares well with our global peers. Retaining our competitive edge requires an unrelenting focus on all our customers. We have a clear vision to be the platform of choice for specialist insurance and a clear strategy in place to achieve this.”"
http://www.lloyds.com/News_Centre/Features_from_Lloyds/Lloyds_reports_37bn_profit_for_2006.htm
Jennifer is probably correct if she is saying; there are no political strategies coming from within climate science. RC however appears through correspondence on this blog as close as we can get to peer reviewed climate science and is therefore respected by many outside that exchange.
My contribution here is often aimed at another problem, the sheer lack of first hand experience from another discipline and that’s engineering. Engineers must consider worst case conditions as a matter of fact in all design. Engineers would know how much waste heat or CO2 they generated and where.
From experience the economist argument is often the most dangerous one.
Jennifer Marohasy; the blog offers something RC can’t; our worst case political point of view on the net with a strong QLD flavour on the environment downunder. That’s why I’m here. Believe me; it’s much less fun asking these Q’s do you believe in climate change, man made warming then how do you know etc while walking down the street.
Let’s go again hey
Anybody who uses the term Gaia is a romantic and not a scientist.
===
I thought Gaia is a scientific hypothesis, using a Greek mythological term (perhaps that is where you get your notion of romance) as a metaphor to communicate the general concept that all life on earth is interrelated.
the use of a metaphor to provide a shortcut isn't uncommon and by itself doesn't undermine the science behind it. Scientists pooing pooing the term are overly fashion conscious and failing to focus on the point
Jennifer: Scientists who can’t see some value in the Gaia Hypothesis have no imagination.
As Luke describes there is a natural (seasonal) oscillation even in background CO2. This variation returns to the center despite all the forces and feedbacks. The complex physics here is net result of “life” in the system.
From another point of view I offer a familiar form of intelligence for your consideration such as we had with CDMA and still have with TDMA and a mere watt or two of radio energy. Tell me with your science exactly what’s going between us on a call. Better still; tell us if it’s the same between any two of your brain cells whilst they are in action.
Romantic True: Electro chem. Physics at cell level had me fascinated as I watched our med research.
SJT, I don't believe that the Gaia concept is useful. It has been my observation that "change is the only constant" in the natural world... nothing stays the same and there is no equilibrium.
I guess the Meteorologists are wondering why so many economists don't seem to want to come to the party.
Travis,
Its perhaps gone too far when the American Meteorology Society starts a blog on issues that essentially relate to economics. I reckon it would be better if they started a blog on climate science.
BTW scientists with a training and/or specific interest in entomology have always made the best biologists (eg. Andrewartha and Birch), natural historians and conservationists (eg. E.O.Wilson and this theories of island biogeography), ecologist (eg. T.R.E Southwood... he could teach those 'polar bear experts' how to properly sample populations) and evolutionary biologists (Alfred Russel Wallace collected about 20,000 beetle and butterfly specimens during his visit to the Malay Archipelago).
Interestingly, Paul R. Ehrlich, who wrote 'The Population bomb', also started life as an entomologist, but he is perhaps an exception to my general thesis.
😉