"OVER the last 18 months, policymakers in Canada, the U.S. and Japan have quietly abandoned the illusory goal of preventing global warming by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Instead, an alternative view has emerged regarding the most cost-effective way in which to deal with the undoubted hazards of climate change. 
"This view points toward setting a policy of preparation for, and adaptation to, climatic events and change as they occur, which is distinctly different from the former emphasis given by most Western parliaments to the mitigation of global warming by curbing carbon dioxide emissions."
So begins an article by Bob Carter recently published in Canada's Financial Post. The article is a summary of a public lecture Professor Carter will be giving in Ottowa, Toronto and Calgary over the next week. It continues...
"Ultimately, the rationale for choosing between policies of mitigation or adaptation must lie with an analysis of the underlying scientific evidence about climate change. Yet the vigorous public debate over possibly dangerous human-caused global warming is bedevilled by two things.
First, an inadequacy of the historical temperature measurements that are used to reconstruct the average global temperature statistic.
And, second, fuelled by lobbyists and media interests, an unfortunate tribal emotionalism that has arisen between groups of persons who are depicted as either climate “alarmists” or climate “deniers.”
In reality, the great majority of working scientists fit into neither category. All competent scientists accept, first, that global climate has always changed, and always will; second, that human activities (not just carbon dioxide emissions) definitely affect local climate, and have the potential, summed, to measurably affect global climate; and, third, that carbon dioxide is a mild greenhouse gas.
The true scientific debate, then, is about none of these issues, but rather about the sign and magnitude of any global human effect and its likely significance when considered in the context of natural climate change.
For many different reasons, which include various types of bias, error and unaccounted-for artifacts, the thermometer record provides only an indicative history of average global temperature over the last 150 years.
The 1979-2011 satellite MSU (Microwave Sounding Units) record is our only acceptably accurate estimate of average global temperature, yet being but 32 years in length it represents just one climate data point. The second most reliable estimate of global temperature, collected by radiosondes on weather balloons, extends back to 1958, and the portion that overlaps with the MSU record matches it well.
Taken together, these two temperature records indicate that no significant warming trend has occurred since 1958, though both exhibit a 0.2C step increase in average global temperature across the strong 1998 El Nino.
In addition, the recently quiet Sun, and the lack of warming over at least the last 15 years — and that despite a 10% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide level, which represents 34% of all post-industrial emissions — indicates that the alarmist global warming hypothesis is wrong and that cooling may be the greatest climate hazard over coming decades.
Climate change takes place over geological time scales of thousands through millions of years, but unfortunately the relevant geological data sets do not provide direct measurements, least of all of average global temperature.
Instead, they comprise local or regional proxy records of climate change of varying quality. Nonetheless, numerous high-quality paleoclimate records, and especially those from ice cores and deep-sea mud cores, demonstrate that no unusual or untoward changes in climate occurred in the 20th and early 21st century.
Despite an estimated spend of well over $100-billion since 1990 looking for a human global temperature signal, assessed against geological reality no compelling empirical evidence yet exists for a measurable, let alone worrisome, human impact on global temperature.
Nonetheless, a key issue on which all scientists agree is that natural climate-related events and change are real, and exact very real human and environmental costs. These hazards include storms, floods, blizzards, droughts and bushfires, as well as both local and global temperature steps and longer term cooling or warming trends.
It is certain that these natural climate-related events and change will continue, and that from time to time human and environmental damage will be wrought.
Extreme weather events (and their consequences) are natural disasters of similar character to earthquakes, tsunami and volcanic eruptions, in that in our present state of knowledge they can neither be predicted far ahead nor prevented once underway. The matter of dealing with future climate change, therefore, is primarily one of risk appraisal and minimization, and that for natural risks that vary from place to place around the globe.
Dealing with climate reality as it unfolds clearly represents the most prudent, practical and cost-effective solution to the climate change issue. Importantly, a policy of adaptation is also strongly precautionary against any (possibly dangerous) human-caused climate trends that might emerge in the future.
*******
Republished with permission.
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/05/23/deal-with-climate-reality-as-it-unfolds/
Bob Carter, a paleoclimatologist at James Cook University, Australia, and a chief science advisor for the International Climate Science Coalition, is in Canada on a 10-day tour. He speaks at Carleton University in Ottawa on Friday.
In light of the "science" we are being fed, adaptation [if it's even necessary] is by far the most logical solution.
An old [94 yo] relative told me this morning that when he was a young feller around 70 years ago, king tides came over the old family property to a height of around 8 inches whereas today they very rarely even cover it. This ties in with my own obs that king tides were higher 50 years ago and SLR [and all the AGW that goes with it] is something that we can easily live with.
Bob Carter should have included Queensland in his list as well. Well done Newman!
Food security is defintely attached to water security in OZ.
So where's the policy that supports that?
Instead we're being told that the water security is going because we have apparently destroyed the rivers.
And we've also caused unclear problems in SA 🙂
'Humans obviously survive over a wide range of temperature regimes but it is food production, flood security and water supply that are critical to success.'
A two degree cooling in mid latitudes might push us to the brink, population numbers should drop. Our ability to adapt to a Bond Event is better than it was 1470 years ago, but I still think mass migration will be on the cards unless we can offer food security.
The Chinese are well aware of the problem and are expanding their agricultural investment in Africa and Australia.
Luke,
100% of your links are not rubbished.
There isn't anything inherently wrong with using projective modelling as a tool. Science isn't the only profession that uses projective modelling. Projective modelling isn't therefore science...it's just a useful tool. When it uses scientific data....it's still just projective modelling and a useful tool..... it's not science.
It's when it gets used as 'prophetic' or 'settled' and then used as a means to dictate government policy that causes it to get what you call 'rubbished'.
It's also being used as a tool to railroad us into putting all our eggs in one basket....which is not a good match with what most would call 'adaptation'.
The whole point of adaptation is that we are able to change and adjust....not be railroaded into one course of action....isn't it?
Some of those projective models do have a probablitly of being correct.....but our lack of control/knowledge over/about the variables and also the fact that the global climate doesn't necessarily recognise human invented calendar points or human invented concepts of 'long term averages' means that it is only a probability....possibly even a good % probability...but not a certainty and not even a certain trend.
And your comment here:
Not all climate change will be catastrophic -likely to be winners and losers – but when does inconvenient for losers start to approach the big “C”??
That is not a new philosophy or a new question. Human history is actually a testament to that.
That question or variations thereof has been asked through millenium....even in our literature and arts....let alone in our religions and our recorded histories.
You can put a C before most forms and periods of climate change. Gaia has always been a sour and vicious old hag. We've already had lots of C, mostly as Global Cooling, but Global Warming can have its own set of predicaments.
For the dopes who aren't burning coal in efficient new facilities, who didn't develop nukes yesterday, it's all going to be C.
That's a shame. Don't be deterred from putting up links or debating. You'all rubbish 100% of mine don't forget. Hey my pet topic - movement of circulation systems and drying of the sub-tropics is a an important AGW prediction. Lots of people would be affected. History points to abandonment instead of adaptation. May not be globally "C" but certainly a bad hair day (decades of them) for those regionally impacted. MWP had mega-droughts in USA, China and Africa.
Not all climate change will be catastrophic -likely to be winners and losers - but when does inconvenient for losers start to approach the big "C"??
If you take CAGW as a given ( and I seem to remember you objecting to the "C",) but basically that is what you are talking about here, if I understand you right.
So if that is what you are talking about then not only probably but quite certainly the human population will diminish in numbers for sure. I never believed that the population we have even now is desirable, but talking about it is not kosher in many eyes, so I don't.
But the fact remains that humanity will survive as long there is a scrap of place on this planet capable of sustaining it.
You analogy of the "magnificent cities in deserts " is a bit questionable, there were people living there in large numbers well before oil production began and will live there for as long as circumstances allow.
The only difference is that the numbers were smaller and will again be smaller.
But I still don't take your premise of a catastrophic climate change as a given, I know you disregard any scientist who does not follow your line of thinking but I assure you, they are just as knowledgeable as the rest and they disagree with many of the findings.
That is one of the reasons I don't put up links, you will discard them anyway for one reason or other.
Becomes almost like fighting by proxy, "my big brother against yours" I rather prefer finding out why others think the way they do by discussing the ideas.
Being sceptical does not mean we are automatically wrong Luke.