Trillion Ton Carbon, Temperature Hiatus and climate change denial !!!

With the publication of more and more threatening results like glacier melt, possible but ambitious 2 degree Celsius, world map might be changed etc. global engagement on #actonclimate is also warming up. COP21 has arrived. However, these engagement is still not concrete enough to get translated into action, and this is where COP21 has great hope. Here in this post I will try to track how uncertainty in scientific prediction leads to denial by interest groups, which then forces climate policy dilemma.

Allen et al (2009) describes a trillion ton of carbon (3.67 trillion of carbon dioxide) into the atmosphere is sufficient to forces 2 degree Celsius, half of which is already released. The study uses ideal carbon dioxide forcing models to forecast the cumulative warming effects. They observe the cumulative effect scenario extend well behind 2100AD and the scenario might change if non-carbon forcing becomes strong or some cooling effect occurs into the system. They recommend polices should not only stop rapid warming by controlling short term activities but also adopt the concept of cumulative warming commitment for long term mitigation.

From: Karl et al (2015)

Box(1980) mentions, "No models can safely be assumed adequate" Uncertainty are inherited with forecast. Beside these constraints, uncertainty also arises with contradictory results. Slowdown of temperature rise is discussed here as example. Karl et al. (2015) discuss about the recent temperature hiatus is result of bias data collection and its analysis. They observe the uninsulated bucket used for collecting water sample, grid size discrepancies toward hemisphere and unequal distribution of data collection location as cause to pause. They use corrected grid cell, bias corrected samples and analysed the ocean-land temperature separately to estimate the warming trend. They observed slight warmer condition oppsoing the hiatus. Cowten and Way (2014) also propose the incomplete global coverage of data as a cause of such temperature trend. Whereas Kosaka and Xie, (2012) propose internal feedback system like La Nina as cause and suggest steep rise in temperature follow  the hiatus. They indicate the repeat of La Nina in future decade can contribute to cooling effect.

These uncertainty cater some chunk of interest group to create noise and deny the climate change. This often creates confuses common people exposing them to different massage (Nuccitelli, 2015). Lewandowsky(2015) discuss the effect of climate denial and its effect to scientific community. Analysing the debate and scientific community response to temperature hiatus, they suggest scientist should communicate what they know and what are its condition. This will reduce the scepticism, and denial.

From: antinuclear.files.wordpress.com 

Carbon and Development have strong relation (see: Nov-1 post). Unsustainable economy forces climate change and again climate change to loss of economy. Reducing carbon emission could have big economic impact, at least for next decade. Allen et al.(2009) discuss carbon should be sucked into instead of releasing to achieve 2 degree Celsius commitment, which in economic term is, at least for now, retrogressive. Denial in one part and threat of economic loss in another, which has been cooked together to escape effective actions. Pindyck, R. S. (2013)  describe that it is not easy to commit and act on climate change by cutting down the GHG emission at recommended rate. As time is passing abatement measure should be screwed tighter, more ambitious with more stringent global enforcement. The authors estimates the willingness to pay for three different temperature scenario and concludes that it is hard to analyse if environmental economist should push for stringent GHG abatement measures. The take way lesson from the study is Climate change policy should consider potential catastrophic result. 
The above discussion simply suggest that uncertainty in climate prediction is somehow boosting climate denial and policy dilemma. The potential solution can be what suggested by Lewandowsky(2015), scientist should clearly communicate 'what is the truth?" and "At what condition does it exist?"