 |
With Speed and Violence: Why Scientists Fear Tipping Points in Climate Change by Fred Pearce
Book Summary InformationAuthor: Fred Pearce Edition: Hardcover Published: 2007-03-07 ISBN: 0807085766 Number of pages: 278 Publisher: Beacon Press
Book Reviews of With Speed and Violence: Why Scientists Fear Tipping Points in Climate ChangeBook Review: "Timberrrrr!" Summary: 2 StarsWith Speed and Violence: why Scientists Fear Tipping Points In Climate Change
By Fred Pearce
July 13, 2008
Mr Pearce works for New Scientist and has published several books on this subject including Turning Up The Heat way back in 1989. Here he looks at all the Doomsday scenarios out there, the ones we have all heard about: Gulf Stream shutting down, Greenland melting suddenly, the Amazon drying up, etc.
To his credit has been around a while and knows the players -- Hansen, Broeker, et. al. This gives him access where others might not get it. He has also been around scientists long enough to develop their trait of hedging their conclusions with a lot of maybes, possiblies, this suggests.
To his discredit he has abandoned most of the restraints here. Maybe (heh) he feels he has to in order to make his point, that he has to scare us into action. This reveals his reason for writing the book. He is not here to teach us but to get us on board, to prod us into action. His final chapter is his list of things we must do:
Adopt efficient appliances;
Improve automotive efficiency;
Increase use of public transport;
Effect a 50-fold increase in wind;
A 50-fold increase in biofuels;
A global program of insulating our buildings;
Cover an area the size of New Jersey with solar panels;
Effect a 4-fold increase in our use of natural gas for generating electricity;
Capture and store 1,600 gW-worth of carbon;
Halt deforestation;
Double nuclear power capacity;
Increase low-till/no-till agriculture times 10.
The few changes I would make to this list are to the nuclear part (bad idea for now) and the New Jersey part (why not just go ahead and cover New Jersey itself?) The rest make good sense in general terms. If we all use less we will experience an increase in efficiency which will give us room to grow without fouling our own nest. Our individual bills will go down, too.
One big problem I have with his text is his consistent conversion of square meters to square feet. The measurements are taken in the metric system and values of, say, solar output are quantified in terms of watts per square meter. Every time a square meter comes up, he writes it as 10.8 square feet. Is this because New Scientist is a British magazine? Then why not use BTU per square foot? It is because no one measures it that way. Moreover, a watt is a metric unit, one joule per second. A calorie will raise the temperature of 1 gram of water 1 degree centigrade; a BTU will raise the temperature of 1 pound of water 1 degree Fahrenheit. Thus, watt per square foot is a hybrid unit, like combining Greek and Latin into a phrase -- it just isn't done. His fear of writing the word "meter" in a book for the English-speaking world is misplaced. It makes him look silly and besides makes it more difficult for the reader, with his obscure "watts per 10.8 square feet".
Another lesser problem is the hyperbolic language. I don't need or want to be scared. I am a practicing atmospheric scientist so I actually prefer the kind of understatement I find in the journals. They leave it to the reader to draw their own conclusion, they don't tell you what to think about what you've just read. I am not the typical audience.
Nonetheless I side with Carl Sandburg: we should take it easy on "that old anvil, the people." We The People are tossed this way and that by the experts, all wanting some kind of action on our part. "If you knew what I know, you'd feel like I do," seems to be behind the idea that "the public must be educated on this." For me, our ignorance outweighs our knowledge on this subject by about 10 to 1.
We are just starting to probe the truth. Let's wait until the facts are a little better-established before we go around saying the sky is falling. I'm not talking about where the carbon came from or how to decrease it. I'm talking about the climate. Yes, the carbon is there and, yes, we should reduce it simply for efficiency's sake. Waste is bad, this seems obvious to my engineering brain.
But I can guarantee that climate change will be neither speedy nor violent. Weather can be observed but climate had to be invented, sort of like motherhood and fatherhood. By definition climate is a long-term matter. You can't say it has changed until a long period of time has passed. Currently we use 30-year normals updated every 10 years. This is not speedy. Climate is never violent. Is an average temperature of 75F "violent?" How is an average annual rainfall of 35 inches "violent?" See what I'm saying? Climate is a statistical concept.
Rather, it is the weather that is often speedy and violent. This blending of weather and climate is becoming a real problem. They are not the same! This brings me to my final point. Any meteorologist knows all about models. Our models are vital for our business. Note I said "models" in plural. I consult half a dozen synoptic-scale models, a few regional- or meso-scale models as well as different conceptual models every day. Ordinarily they do not agree. One says the storm will go left, the other right. One calls for intensification, the other weakening. Every model has its weakenesses and biases.
One thing we all learn in this trade is not to "jump on it." If a model has something interesting on Day 6, just note it for now, there is plenty of time to wait and see if it is still there tomorrow for Day 5. When it gets to Day 3 we can start to mention it and adjust our probabilities, slowly at first, just nudge them in the right direction. The climate modelers need to learn this. Every graduate student seemingly has his own model these days and when he tweeks an interesting result, publishes. Soon it is in the news and the public is set up for another whipsaw when it turns out not to be true. This is called "yo-yoing" in our forecasts and we avoid it by being conservative.
A model is just a model. What good does it do to know that temperatures world-wide will increase by 3.5F? This is a meaningless statistic. What is needed is a plausible physical mechanism whereby that statistic is turned into actual weather on the ground. Here is an example: let the air temperature over the Gulf Stream in my front yard increase by 3.5F. Now what? Well, since e-sub-s has increased, relative saturation will decrease and net evaporation from the water surface will increase. This will tend to cool the surface waters to the new wet-bulb temperature, which has increased by maybe half the total amount, say 1.75F. So we have the air 3.5 warmer and the sea surface 1.75 warmer -- the air has warmed more than the sea surface. Therefore static stability in the column has increased over the water and hence we would expect to see less cloudiness at sea by day. At night when the air cools a little, stability will decrease and cloudiness will increase. All this is exactly as observed today. The cloud fraction is small over the sea during the day and is a maximum around surise when we also experience a slight but noticeable peak in our hourly rainfall. So my simple model predicts sunnier days with more sunrise showers, along with a temperature increase that is strongly moderated by the nearby water mass -- not 3.5F but 1.75F. Why does no one talk in this straightforward way? Where is the violence here?
These connections are mostly missing in the climate models. We need to know more before we can say what it means.
Enough! Read more on the topic, educate yourself, decide for yourself what is right and good. Take no one's word. The climate experts are guessing when it comes to the weather.
Summary of With Speed and Violence: Why Scientists Fear Tipping Points in Climate ChangeFred Pearce has been writing about climate change for eighteen years, and the more he learns, the worse things look. Where once scientists were concerned about gradual climate change, now more and more of them fear we will soon be dealing with abrupt change resulting from triggering hidden tipping points. Even President Bush's top climate modeler, Jim Hansen, warned in 2005 that "we are on the precipice of climate system tipping points beyond which there is no redemption."
As Pearce began working on this book, normally cautious scientists beat a path to his door to tell him about their fears and their latest findings. With Speed and Violence tells the stories of these scientists and their work-from the implications of melting permafrost in Siberia and the huge river systems of meltwater beneath the icecaps of Greenland and Antarctica to the effects of the "ocean conveyor" and a rare molecule that runs virtually the entire cleanup system for the planet.
Above all, the scientists told him what they're now learning about the speed and violence of past natural climate change-and what it portends for our future. With Speed and Violence is the most up-to-date and readable book yet about the growing evidence for global warming and the large climatic effects it may unleash.
"Nature is fragile, environmentalists often tell us. But the lesson of this book is that that it is not so. The truth is far more worrying. She is strong and packs a serious counter-punch. Global warming will very probably unleash unstoppable planetary forces. And they will not be gradual. The history of our planet's climate shows that it does not do gradual change. Under pressure, whether from sunspots or orbital wobbles or the depredations of humans, it lurches – virtually overnight."-from the Introduction
"If you want to quickly get up to date on climate change and its consequences, I recommend With Speed and Violence: Why Scientists Fear Tipping Points in Climate Change. If you can read only one book on climate change, this is it." -Lester Brown, president, Earth Policy Institute
"Pearce's survey of abrupt climate change science is a compelling and terrifying read." -In Brief (newsletter for Earth Justice)
"You must read this book." -The Cost of Energy website
Praise for When the Rivers Run Dry
"An enriching and farsighted work." -Jai Singh, San Francisco Chronicle
"The one-word review of Pearce's book is: Terrifying. Whether he's writing about the Indian peasant farmers who draw from poisoned wells every day, the oblivious Arizonans who run fountains in the desert, or the apocalyptic moonscape that is the Aral Sea (once a thriving fishery, now a toxic cesspool), Pearce manages to convey the immense wreckage human activity is making of our lifeblood." -John McGrath, Grist
"Pearce provides a compelling compendium of place-based water stories that reveal just how ground-shifting the world's water predicament will be." -Sandra L. Postel, Science
"In a highly readable style, Pearce makes the case for a new water ethos." -Todd Neale, Audubon
"Pearce cogently presents the alarming ways in which this ecological emergency is affecting population centers, human health, food production, wildlife habitats, and species viability. Having crisscrossed the globe to research the economic, scientific, cultural, and political causes and ramifications of this under publicized tragedy, Pearce's powerful imagery, penetrating analyses, and passionate advocacy make this required reading for environmental proponents and civic leaders everywhere." -Booklist
"He uses up-to-date science, explains difficult concepts in accurate, entertaining ways and includes a scientific glossary. The result is a gripping, highly readable book-perhaps the best discussion of climate change for lay readers."-American Magazine
|
 |