TO DISCUSS THIS INTERVIEW IN YOUR OWN LANGUAGE - GO TO YOUR COUNTRY FORUM
Copenhagen, Europe, Africa and a Vulnerability Paradigm
Prof Pielke Snr
RAY TAYLOR: Good morning Professor Pielke and thank you for agreeing to this interview for the European Union OurClimate portal.
What would your advice be to EU and African countries for the Copenhagen climate talks?
PROFESSOR ROGER PIELKE Sr: I recommend that the vulnerabilities, from a bottom-up, natural resources* perspective be identified, rather than starting with the inappropriate (and ineffective) narrow emphasis on carbon emissions. The vulnerability framework is more inclusive and will permit more effective policymaking.
There also needs to a recognition that climate change is much more than global warming. Even without global warming, humans are altering the climate system significantly.
RAY: When looking at our choices for the next two decades, what would you see as the most important and necessary climate-change related actions?
PROF: We need to implement adaptation and mitigation approaches to reduce the vulnerabilities to water, food, energy, human health and ecosystem function, rather than focusing on just one issue, such as the role of added CO2 as a climate forcing. We need to consider the spectrum of all important human and natural threats and develop optimal adaptation and mitigation approaches.
RAY: Which countries are you most concerned for, given what you already know about vulnerability and climate change.
PROF: We need to first complete the vulnerabiltiy assessement, but clearly countries and societies that already have major disruptions from events such as drought are of particular concern. They are seriously at risk with current climate.
RAY: President Obama recently called for agreements at Copenhagen that can have "immediate operational effect". So what would you like to see for Africa and Asia?
PROF: Africa and Asia have always experienced impacts from climate variability. Droughts and floods, for example, have always occurred. Thus the vulnerability approach can support immediate operational actions, even without considering long term climate change.
RAY: What outcome would you most like to see from the Copenhagen talks?
PROF: A change from the global climate models and a globally averaged surface temperatures (e.g. 2C) as the measures and targets to develop policy. The models actually have no demonstrated regional predictive skill. Also a rising global average surface temperature tells us nothing of value with respect to the droughts, floods, and so forth that particular regions will face in the future.
If the Copenhagen talks would move to a vulnerability framework, however, important and effective policy decisions could be made to reduce the threats to our key resources water resources, agricultural lands etc.
RAY: Most meteorologists these days seem to be focussed on (a) the role of the oceans as a heat store, and (b) on greenhouse gases as the almost the only major forcing, whereas you've done a lot of work on (c) movement of heat and water over continents and (d) non-greenhouse forcings that humans influence the climate, such as
(i) land surface change - how it can affect local rainfall but also have distant effects
(ii) particles and chemicals ("aerosols") which affect cloud formation and whether clouds are good at raining, which is really important for countries with deserts.
Famously, you worked with Marshall et al to demonstrate that Florida is hotter and drier mainly because of changes in forest cover/land use, rather than mainly because of global warming.
You've sometimes incorrectly been called a climate skeptic, but people who actually know your work see you as recognising that the human effect on the climate is much more than just greenhouse gases.
PROF: Yes - what I have concluded is that the natural causes of climate variations and changes are important, but the human influences are also significant and involve a diverse range of first- order climate forcings, including, but not limited to, the human input of carbon dioxide (CO2). Most, if not all, of these human influences on regional and global climate will continue to be of concern during the coming decades.
RAY: Before we go on it may be helpful to explain the difference between climate feedbacks and climate forcings. If I understand correctly, a feedback is the result of climate changes and a forcing is what causes the feedbacks. Correct?
PROF: A feedback occurs in response to a forcing. The feedback can amplify (a positive feedback) or damp (a negative feedback) the net effect of a forcing. A first order forcing means that it has an effect of the same scale of magnitude as all of the other first order forcings.
In addition to greenhouse gas emissions, other first- order human climate forcings are important to understanding the future behavior of Earth's climate. These forcings vary across the planet and include the effect of aerosols on clouds and rainfall, the influence of aerosol deposition (e.g., black carbon (soot) and reactive nitrogen), and the role of changes in land use/land cover. Among their effects is their role in altering atmospheric and ocean circulation features away from what they would be in the natural climate system. As with CO2, the lengths of time that they affect the climate are estimated to be on multi-decadal time scales and longer.
RAY: Thank you for your time Professor Pielke - I would love to go on longer but we need to be merciful to the translators on the European Union OurClimate portal.
Professor Pielke's website and blog can be found at:
http://climatesci.org/
Ray Taylor is a KI (knowledge intermediary). His work on the land-atmosphere resilience initiative (LARI), partly inspired by Prof Pielke's work, can be found at www.larinet.com
* I believe Prof Pielke, when he refers to resources means natural resources such as land, soil, forest, water, petroleum, phosphate (for fertiliser) etc