Apparently Sarah Palin is worried that gas prices will reach $4/gallon. Doesn’t she have anything else to worry about?
Posts Tagged ‘Netherlands’
It was a dark day in Dutch history this past wednesday. The extremist anti-Islam party, that is cynically called “Party for Freedom” (PVV in Dutch), led by Geert Wilders of Fitna-fame, more than doubled its number of seats at the general elections.
A critical analysis of Geert Wilders was aired on Dutch TV recently (Zembla; mostly in Dutch), which made minced beef of the arguments for his political stance, and warned for the dangers of his ideology. His analysis of what the Koran sais (e.g. in Fitna) is extremely shaky, and in some instances even diametrically opposed to what is actually meant in context (where have we heard that before…?). His appeal is based on fear mongering and scapegoating, while ‘dehumanizing’ the humanity of people with a different faith than his own. It’s entirely reprehensible.
As if that’s not enough, they flat out deny the existence of human induced climate change.
Some background to balance the ranting:
Far from being a two-party system, the Dutch political landscape is more fragmented than it’s ever been. A majority coalition needs at least three, and in many cases four parties. The historic ‘political middle’ has been decimated (via RNW):
150 is the number of seats in the Dutch Parliament
The parties represented in this graphic with the number of seats between brackets are:
PvdA (Dutch Labour Party)
PVV (Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party)
VVD (centre-right liberals)
CDA (Christian Democrats)
SGP (Protestant party)
SP (Socialist Party)
Partij voor de Dieren (Party for the Animals)
D66 (Democrats 66)
ChristenUnie (Christian Union)
Trots op Nederland (Proud of the Netherlands)
RealClimate has a good post on the recent string of (alleged) errors in the IPCC report. It explains the IPCC proces, the nature and significance of the errors, and highlights the spin put on them by several media outlets.
Excerpt about the reported amount of land in the Netherlands that is below sea level:
Sea level in the Netherlands: The WG2 report states that “The Netherlands is an example of a country highly susceptible to both sea-level rise and river flooding because 55% of its territory is below sea level”. This sentence was provided by a Dutch government agency – the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, which has now published a correction stating that the sentence should have read “55 per cent of the Netherlands is at risk of flooding; 26 per cent of the country is below sea level, and 29 per cent is susceptible to river flooding”. It surely will go down as one of the more ironic episodes in its history when the Dutch parliament last Monday derided the IPCC, in a heated debate, for printing information provided by … the Dutch government. In addition, the IPCC notes that there are several definitions of the area below sea level. The Dutch Ministry of Transport uses the figure 60% (below high water level during storms), while others use 30% (below mean sea level). Needless to say, the actual number mentioned in the report has no bearing on any IPCC conclusions and has nothing to do with climate science, and it is questionable whether it should even be counted as an IPCC error.
And wrapping up the context of this whole manufacured controversy:
Do the above issues suggest “politicized science”, deliberate deceptions or a tendency towards alarmism on the part of IPCC? We do not think there is any factual basis for such allegations. To the contrary, large groups of (inherently cautious) scientists attempting to reach a consensus in a societally important collaborative document is a prescription for reaching generally “conservative” conclusions. And indeed, before the recent media flash broke out, the real discussion amongst experts was about the AR4 having underestimated, not exaggerated, certain aspects of climate change. These include such important topics as sea level rise and sea ice decline (see the sea ice and sea level chapters of the Copenhagen Diagnosis), where the data show that things are changing faster than the IPCC expected.
55 of the top Dutch climate scientists have published an open letter about the IPCC and the mistakes in the latest climate report. They put the mistakes in the context of what we know, and show that the mainframe of our knowledge of the climate system is not adversely affected by these errors.
I’m glad for this highly needed voice of reason in the popular debate, which has recently been overshadowed by far reaching claims of fraud and conspiracies.
An English version of the open letter is available here. It’s well worth reading.
Dutch version here.
Update: It’s now possible to support this open letter by signing it (PhD holders only). Go to http://www.sense.nl/openletter
(Nederlanse versie hier)
The Dutch Deltacommittee released their report on how to protect the Netherlands against the rising waters. The advice goes quite far, from the inevitable heightening of dikes to increasing the waterlevel of the major lake by 1.5 meters.
The starting point is an estimate of sealevel rise of 0.55 to 1.1 metres by 2100 and of 2 to 4 metres by 2200. To their credit, the prognosis doesn’t stop in 2100, and neither does sealevel rise. In a business as usual scenario the sealevel will continue to rise (long) after 2200. The report mentions that they use a “plausible upper bound” of sealevel rise. A comparable range (0.5 to 1.4 metres by 2100) is found by extrapolating the observed correlation between temperature and sealevel rise.
The consequences of ice dynamics (e.g. mechanical instability of large ice sheets due to more meltwater, associated with large uncertainties) is included in their estimate. That is the main reason that they are higher than the KNMI and IPCC estimates for 2100 (40 to 85 cm and 25 to 76 cm for 2100, respectively). A new article in the journal Science gives 80 cm as the most likely sealevel rise for 2100, and 2 metres as the upper bound (including uncertainties related to ice dynamics). Besides uncertainties regarding ice melt, the future greenhouse gas emissions are of course an important variable, and one that we can influence (for better or for worse). Realclimate has a discussion of sealevel rise here and a thorough review of the IPCC estimates here.
Can the Netherlands adapt to such high sealevels? The Deltacommitte is very positive about that, at least up to a 4 metre (!) sealevel rise. I think that at some point the possibilities for adaptation become limited. For example, can the Netherlands continue to exist amidst a sealevel that is 6 metres higher than now? That’s what sealevels were 125,000 years ago, when the global average temperature was “only” 1 to 2 degrees higher than now. Such a massive change in sealevel probably takes centuries, if not millennia, to achieve, but it makes sense to me that we’d try to avoid it from happening nevertheless. Therefore we cannot afford to keep the earth very long or very high above the 1-2 degrees higher temperature. For how long or how high can we, before the big icesheets (Greenland and the Antarctic) start melting irreversibly? Nobody knows. But it’s not worth an experiment, I’d say.
The emphasis in the committee’s report is strongly on adaptation to rising sealevels, although emission reduction (mitigation) is of course also necessary. Otherwise it’s like mopping while the tap is running, as we say in Dutch. Is it perhaps better to relocate certain economic activities to safer grounds instead of pumping large sums of money into keeping them in the current low lying and vulnerable area? One comment I heard is from a member of parliament, who wondered whether our (grand)children would be happy to pay for the measures we’d be taking now (because part of the money would be borrowed is the plan). I think that if anything, they will complain that we did too little for the problems facing us than too much.
To what extent should we anticipate (and thus adapt to and trying to prevent) future problems, that haven’t manifested themselves to their full extent? That’s a debate that’s worth having. Science doesn’t tell us which risks are worth taking and which are not; that’s very much an individual choice. Science does have an important role in informing us about the chances of a certain outcome; in other words, about the risk. The difficulty is that an individual’s choice in this matter has consequences for the risks of others, but their own risk is only marginally affected: the “tragedy of the commons”. Governments also have to make choices regarding the safety of their citizens. The same tragedy plays there too: The risk we run is strongly dependent on what other countries do. But let’s not use that as an excuse to then not do anything ourselves. And let’s not use scientific uncertainty as an excuse either. It does not decrease the risk; to the contrary.