It is becoming increasingly clear that climate models, complex as they are, are not only a poor approximation for the reality of what goes on in our atmosphere but also actually give misleading results. The composite results published by the IPCC are from a range of different models (with different assumptions and giving widely-differing outputs). The input data is based on a number of scenarios which themselves make assumptions about the path of future population growth, economic development and energy mix.
The net result is a projection for the future average lower atmospheric temperature, expressed as a range plus a median value at any given time. Since the end of last century, there has been no trend in measured temperatures, either upwards or downwards, whereas the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air has continued to rise as expected. While no-one would expect there to be a simple linear rise of temperature in step with this, the further the actual temperature deviates from the projected model, the more some credible explanation is needed.
Things may now have reached a point where the question can be ignored no longer. Unless there is a dramatic change in the trend, the actual measured temperature will shortly fall outside the range of projected temperatures; a range which is claimed to represent the trend with 95% confidence limits. This story was first printed in the Daily Mail under the headline The Great Green Con no. 1: The hard proof that finally shows global warming forecasts that are costing you billions were WRONG all along and debate continues in various forums in the blogosphere. Admittedly, we should not regard the Mail (nor any other newspaper, for that matter) as a haven of unbiased reporting, but this trend has been clear for some time to those who have looked at the figures.
Such a disconnect between projection and observation will not resolve the issue of how climate is likely to change over coming decades. Rather, it will tend to harden already polarised positions. There will, understandably, be those on the more sceptical wing who will say that the whole edifice of current climate science – the essence of which is distilled into computer models – must now be regarded as fatally flawed, and call for the IPCC to admit that the enhanced greenhouse hypothesis must be reviewed.
But this will not sway more than a few doubters occupying the middle ground. Those who are committed to the current received wisdom on the trajectory and causes of climate change (many of them having built their careers on this basis) will continue to defend the orthodoxy, circling the wagons and trying to deflect all criticisms. This, in turn, will only encourage the critics to shout louder and complain about the behaviour of the climate change establishment as much as the views they hold. The scientific method may sound like a good, rational way to settle a dispute, but unfortunately life is not like that.
A few years ago, the concept of tipping points became popular, and this is still a good concept to keep in mind in this situation. For any issue which seems settled, doubts and criticism may begin to sway opinion until such a critical mass is built up that the prevailing view changes. This is what Kuhn was referring to when talking of paradigm shifts. Up to a point, inconvenient facts or inconsistencies are rejected or ignored, but there comes a time when the weight of contrary evidence simply becomes too great and a new paradigm emerges.
In an ideal world, this should be happening now with mainstream climate science. The change needed is not that great; an acceptance by climate scientists that the influence of trace levels of carbon dioxide in the air may not be the primary driver of average temperatures and overall weather patterns. But this is a step too far for the IPCC and activist scientists. Politicians have been persuaded that climate change is a real and present danger and that the only way to lessen the threat is to radically reduce CO2 emissions; any weakening of the message could lead towards a tipping point, with a move to less demanding targets being accepted. Once the momentum has been lost, regaining it would be all but impossible.
On the other hand, politicians are not fools. Many are beginning to recognise that public opposition to wind turbines and rising energy bills is increasing and cannot be ignored. German consumers are complaining of the additional costs they have to bear for the government’s enthusiasm for renewable energy and, in Scotland, the results of the forthcoming independence referendum (now scheduled for September 2014) will hinge in part on the credibility or otherwise of the SNP’s claim that a high dependence on wind energy will be an economic benefit. We could be approaching a tipping point in electoral tolerance.
This could be accelerated as more voters recognise that the EU emperors have no clothes. Once they appreciate that they are being economically disadvantaged even while global carbon dioxide emissions continue to rise, opposition to current policy is likely to build if some electorally-credible party chooses to make an issue of it. After that, there would be no turning back.
On the scientific side, things will remain unresolved for many years to come. The best we can hope for is more investment in unbiased, evidence-based studies to understand more about the drivers of weather patterns and climate change. Rather than putting taxpayers’ money into work biased towards supporting a shaky orthodoxy, more funding should be put into more objective studies. At the very least, we should hope to understand more about what future generations may need to cope with.
The Scientific Alliance
St John’s Innovation Centre
Cowley Road
Cambridge CB4 0WS
________________________________________________