G8 summit declaration
We assume that many of our readers will be interested in the declaration of the G8 summit in Heiligendamm (Germany), which was agreed yesterday by the leaders of the G8 countries. We therefore document the key passages on climate change below. As usual we refrain from a political analysis, but as scientists we note that it is rewarding to see that the results of climate science are fully acknowledged by the heads of state.
The declaration states:
CLIMATE CHANGE
48. We take note of and are concerned about the recent UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports. The most recent report concluded both, that global temperatures are rising, that this is caused largely by human activities and, in addition,that for increases in global average temperature, there are projected to be major changes in ecosystem structure and function with predominantly negative consequences for biodiversity and ecosystems, e.g. water and food supply.
Fighting Climate Change
49. We are therefore committed to taking strong and early action to tackle climate change in order to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Taking into account the scientific knowledge as represented in the recent IPCC reports, global greenhouse gas emissions must stop rising, followed by substantial global emission reductions. In setting a global goal for emissions reductions in the process we have agreed today involving all major emitters, we will consider seriously the decisions made by the European Union, Canada and Japan which include at least a halving of global emissions by 2050. We commit to achieving these goals and invite the major emerging economies to join us in this endeavour.
50. As climate change is a global problem, the response to it needs to be international. We welcome the wide range of existing activities both in industrialised and developing countries. We share a long-term vision and agree on the need for frameworks that will accelerate action over the next decade. Complementary national, regional and global policy frameworks that co-ordinate rather than compete with each other will strengthen the effectiveness of the measures. Such frameworks must address not only climate change but also energy security, economic growth, and sustainable development objectives in an integrated approach. They will provide important orientation for the necessary future investment decisions.
51. We stress that further action should be based on the UNFCCC principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. We reaffirm, as G8 leaders, our responsibility to act. We acknowledge the continuing leadership role that developed economies have to play in any future climate change efforts to reduce global emissions, so that all countries undertake effective climate commitments tailored to their particular situations. We recognise however, that the efforts of developed economies will not be sufficient and that new approaches for contributions by other countries are needed. Against this background, we invite notably the emerging economies to address the increase in their emissions by reducing the carbon intensity of their economic development. Action of emerging economies could take several forms, such as sustainable development policies and measures, an improved and strengthened clean development mechanism, the setting up of plans for the sectors that generate most pollution so as to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions compared with a business as usual scenario.
52. We acknowledge that the UN climate process is the appropriate forum for negotiating future global action on climate change. We are committed to moving forward in that forum and call on all parties to actively and constructively participate in the UN Climate Change Conference in Indonesia in December 2007 with a view to achieving a comprehensive post 2012-agreement (post Kyoto-agreement) that should include all major emitters.
53. To address the urgent challenge of climate change, it is vital that major economies that use the most energy and generate the majority of greenhouse gas emissions agree on a detailed contribution for a new global framework by the end of 2008 which would contribute to a global agreement under the UNFCCC by 2009. We therefore reiterate the need to engage major emitting economies on how best to address the challenge of climate change. We embrace efforts to work with these countries on long term strategies. To this end, our representatives have already met with the representatives of Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa in Berlin on 4 May 2007. We will continue to meet with high representatives of these and other major energy consuming and greenhouse gas emitting countries to consider the necessary components for successfully combating climate change. We welcome the offer of the United States to host such a meeting later this year. This major emitters’ process should include, inter alia, national, regional and international policies, targets and plans, in line with national circumstances, an ambitious work program within the UNFCCC, and the development and deployment of climate-friendly technology. This dialogue will support the UN climate process and report back to the UNFCCC.
8 June 2007 at 11:24 AM
It was interesting to see how this particular G8 meeting developed in the eyes of the press. Here is a sampling of headlines from 31 May 2007:
SPIEGEL: Bush startet Offensive gegen Merkels Klima-Plane (Bush initiates offensive against Merkel’s Climate Change Plans)
Suddeutsche Zeitung: Bush torpediert Merkels Klimaplane (Bush torpedoes Merkel’s Climate Change Plans)
CNN: Bush urges 15 nations to set global emissions goal
Fox: Bush Unveils New Climate Change Strategy
CBC: Bush calls for climate change talks, new target by 2008
BBC: US urges new climate goals
Guardian: G8 leaders fight over global agreement on climate change
It’s kind of enlightening to see how differently the same news is presented to different countries and audiences.
8 June 2007 at 11:28 AM
Halving global emissions by 2050… If we assume a linear reduction, approximately where would the CO2 levels stabilize? How much warmer would our planet be, according to recent models and estimations?
[Response: Halving global emissions by 2050 (relative to 1990 levels) should give us a good chance to stop global warming short of 2 ºC above preindustrial temperatures. Allowing 2 ºC maximum warming is the official policy of the EU, Japan and Canada. I say “a good chance” because there are some uncertainties in the carbon cycle (which determines what CO2 concentrations will result from given emissions), in climate sensitivity (which determines how much warming you get given a certain CO2 concentration), and in aerosol pollution (which offsets some of the warming we are causing). Also, 2050 is not the end point - we need to keep reducing further after 2050 to stay below 2 ºC. Final thought: note the 50% reduction is global. Since industrial nations have far higher per capita emissions than other countries (e.g., US=20 tons/yr, Europe=10 tons/yr, China=4 tons/yr), industrial nations will have to reduce a lot more if some degree of fairness is to be achieved (without which important nations like China or India are not going to join the effort). That’s why some European countries are aiming towards 80% reduction of their emissions by 2050. -stefan]
8 June 2007 at 11:54 AM
“In setting a global goal for emissions reductions in the process we have agreed today involving all major emitters, we will consider seriously the decisions made by the European Union, Canada and Japan which include at least a halving of global emissions by 2050.”
Meaningless language.
“To address the urgent challenge of climate change, it is vital that major economies that use the most energy and generate the majority of greenhouse gas emissions agree on a detailed contribution for a new global framework by the end of 2008 which would contribute to a global agreement under the UNFCCC by 2009.”
Looks to me like all this language comes right up against the US wall against meaningful action until doofus is over the hill. I’m ashamed for my country.
8 June 2007 at 11:57 AM
Stefan quotes the G8:
Setting aside any “political analysis” of the implications of “consider seriously” as to whether the stated goal has any prospect of actually being achieved, I would be interested in RC’s scientific analysis of whether “a halving of global emissions by 2050″ (compared to what baseline level of emissions?) is actually sufficient to “prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”
Especially since it seems to me that ALL of the empirical observations of what is happening to the Earth right now are consistent with “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” being already well under way and accelerating rapidly as a result of GHG emissions to date, rather than being a future possibility that could be prevented.
8 June 2007 at 12:03 PM
Good question in comment 1 from SecularAnimist. Regarding the politics of it all, it’s interesting to note Kimberley Strassel sees it in the Wall St Journal Opinion Pages : Bush 1, Greens 0
8 June 2007 at 12:10 PM
I would agree - but I would also say that while things are going to be bad, they will be much worse if we continue to emit carbon dioxide at present levels. The positive feedback which will result from the carbon dioxide we have already put into the atmosphere will be quite substantial - but it will be much worse if we continue along the current path. The sooner we limit emissions, the more limited such feedback will be. And I would like to see us avoid 1000 ppm if at all possible - including the strong positive feedback from the carbon cycle itself.
8 June 2007 at 12:11 PM
re #2: Ksero; there’s a BOTE guess on http:/fergusbrtown.wordpress.com/
It’s probably wrong; someone here will correct it, I am sure. Hope this helps,
Fergus.
8 June 2007 at 12:16 PM
“Regarding the politics of it all, it’s interesting to note Kimberley Strassel sees it in the Wall St Journal Opinion Pages : Bush 1, Greens 0 ”
Strassel’s a fool, not that that’s unusual in the reality-exclusion zone of the WSJ op-ed page.
She either didn’t read, or her frontal lobes didn’t disgest, the implication of paragraph 52 and 53 of the G8 declaration. Bush’s attempt to go around the UN/Kyoto framework went nowhere: so its compulsory, not voluntary, reductions on the table. Yeah, post-Kyoto China and India will be in the mix, but that was always the intention as anyone familiar with the history of Kyoto would know. Bush’s capitulation got bought off with a paragraph or two on technology, but that’s it.
“Looks to me like all this language comes right up against the US wall against meaningful action until doofus is over the hill.”
But it was always going to be that way. At least now Inhofe will be a bit more embarrassed when he calls AGW a fraud.
8 June 2007 at 12:24 PM
But will the nations really fullfill there goals and not produce worse emmisions from coming technologies.
8 June 2007 at 12:28 PM
PS
My response in #6 was in response to SecularAnimist in #4 but I apparently didn’t finish formatting.
My apologies.
8 June 2007 at 12:51 PM
An exercise in the use of Orwellian language?
“1) The most recent report concluded…. that global temperatures are rising, that this is caused largely by human activities
2) We are therefore committed to taking strong and early action to tackle climate change in order to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system…
3) We share a long-term vision and agree on the need for frameworks that will accelerate action over the next decade…
4) We acknowledge the continuing leadership role that developed economies have to play in any future climate change efforts to reduce global emissions…
5) This major emitters’ process should include…. the development and deployment of climate-friendly technology.”
Notably missing from this document are any of the following words or phrases:
Fossil fuels, coal, petroleum, natural gas, global warming, deforestation, renewable energy, solar, wind, carbon dioxide, methane, emissions caps, carbon taxes, insurance, catastrophic events, economic collapse, etc.
Essentially, all they said is that they acknowledge that global warming is due to unspecified human activities, that it will have ecological consequences (no mention of economic consequences, other than the insinuation that taking action of global warming might threaten economic growth), and that coordinated global action is required, but that economic growth and energy security must be taken into account, and that they’ll meet to talk about it again.
This document glosses over the fundamental problems: the need to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy sources, and the need to halt the ongoing deforestation trends. Since global fossil fuel use is dominated by the G8, and since much deforestation involves raw material export to G8 countries, the failure to plainly address these issues is an abdication of responsibility.
8 June 2007 at 1:10 PM
Whatever G8 leaders say, there is little chance that we will beat the oil depletion curve. 2050 takes us about 40 years beyond Peak Oil. We’ll burn all the conventional oil whatever happens, taking us up to maybe 450ppm CO2. We just have to keep fingers crossed on feedbacks at that level. What our wonderful leaders need to concentrate on is finding a way of ensuring that the coal, tar and shale stays locked underground.
8 June 2007 at 1:13 PM
Re #4 Measured against what?
It seems to have become the convention to compare with 1990 emission levels.
Regarding absolute levels, unfortunately news sources can’t seem to agree yet on kgs of carbon (molecular mass 12) or kgs of CO2 (mass 44), a factor 3.7 difference.
8 June 2007 at 1:18 PM
This is a big step. Kudos to the (many) scientists who provided the information/analysis on which the policy makers based their decisions. This didn’t happen overnight, but they’re rolling along now.
Take time to appreciate where we are now.
And pat yourselves on the back!
8 June 2007 at 1:20 PM
biffvernon (#10) wrote:
Perhaps, but we have plenty of fossil fuel to burn:
(emphasis added)
8 June 2007 at 1:40 PM
Just to hope, these are not empty words… one thing is to say something and the second thing is to *do* something. Politicians have been speaking about the CO2 reduction for so long…
8 June 2007 at 1:44 PM
Maggie, it really isn’t a big step; in fact, since no binding emissions targets are proposed, it is actually a step back from the original Kyoto protocol, opened for signature back in 1998, and which also contained the very same statement:
“stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system”
I suggest taking a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Emission_by_Region.png
Despite the protestations of US politicians about their concern about global warming, the facts are that US emissions are projected to increase at an unchanged rate - 11% per decade (see NYT Revkin 03-03-07) This means that the carbon emission trends are not expected to change.
There is also no acknowledgement in the document of the economic problems that global warming is causing - see Stern report graph
The only people who should be patting themselves on the back are the fossil fuel lobbyists, who once again have headed off meaningful action on global warming.
8 June 2007 at 3:28 PM
… and on the Glacier Front…
(emphasis added below)
8 June 2007 at 3:47 PM
Projected US emissions may be based on optimistic assumptions about oil production rates. Oil is such a useful fuel it will all be used as fast as it can be produced. Not using oil in one sector of the economy just allows it to be burnt in another sector. The effort has to switch to not burning coal and unconventional oils if we are to limit CO2 emissions.
8 June 2007 at 3:51 PM
The declaration states:
“In setting a global goal for emissions reductions in the process we have agreed today involving all major emitters, we will consider seriously the decisions made by the European Union, Canada and Japan which include at least a halving of global emissions by 2050.”
“…less than Kyoto.”
I wrote this was meaningless. Actually it’s even more disingenuous. Peak fossil fuels will have come and gone by then. The halving will be perforce. In the meantime the world will have burned every molecule of carbon it can find.
The G8 didn’t commit to take meaningful actions to curb C02 emissions by keeping fossil fuels or their oxidation products in the ground. In the meantime the greedheads serving the industrialized nations with raw materials are cutting down the tropical (terrestrial) carbon sinks as fast as they can keep the chainsaws gassed up.
see:
Expansion of Industrial Logging in Central Africa
Science 8 June 2007:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5830/1451?etoc
-
After the rainforests are gone in Africa, S.A. and Indonesia they’ll replant it in African oil palms and sugarcane for even more fuel to add to atmospheric load of greenhouse gas.
see:
“Why is oil palm replacing tropical rainforests?”
http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0425-oil_palm.html
Google over THAT.
-
There is evidence that the oceanic sinks are approaching saturation.
see:
“Vital Ocean ‘Carbon Sink’ Nearly Full”
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/05/17/southernocean_pla.html?category=animals&guid=20070517150030
-
More greenhouse gas on the way. Fewer ways to make it go away. What difference will it make it we commit to halve CO2 concentrations by 2050? By then we’ll be on a runaway train. Do we have inspired elected leadership? Or do we have cop-outs to business as usual as it becomes the theft of the future.
Empirical evidence: there’s so much empirical evidence out there that something radical is happening it’s hard to keep up.
How do you convert a gazillion tons of fossil fuel into 8 gigatons of CO2 a year and NOT cause an effect?
Thanks RealClimate. Even Cockburn gets cooked on a slow burn here.
8 June 2007 at 5:00 PM
I think that if we are serious about the need to cut greenhouse gas emissions we’d show it by drastically cutting air and highway travel beginning with a freeze on all non-essential travel by air. I’d also stop fireworks celebrations.
8 June 2007 at 5:36 PM
For the leaders of this world climate change has priority 48, if my observation is correct that the list starts with a 48.
8 June 2007 at 6:21 PM
Re #2, #7: A reduction of carbon emissions by half by 2050 is broadly consistent with stabilization at 450 ppm, which is generally viewed as somewhere in the ballpark of a 2 degree Celsius warming. Merkel apparently chose this target with a 2 degree limit in mind.
8 June 2007 at 6:41 PM
With the UN as the recognized forum for negotiating climate agreements, I suppose Bush & Co can rest easy, knowing that skeptics (US and China) can take turns with their vetos.
8 June 2007 at 7:14 PM
As scientists, one of our duties is education. We need to make everyone clearly aware of the climatic implications of their actions, or lack of action.
Our global climate is an environment for economic activities. Climate scientists need to proactively explain what climate projections mean for human economic and social activities. For example, at what point will open water in the Arctic affect the corn in Nebraska? At what point does warmer water in the Gulf of Mexico affect the airline traffic in Denver? This is a broader scope than climate scientists have seen for themselves in the past. Climate scientists need to educate people on what climate projections mean for biodiversity concerns. Again, this is new scope.
Such proactive educational efforts will bring complaints that climate scientists are being alarmist, activist, and political. However, that is just the price of doing good science. Remember how Newton was rewarded for inventing the science that started us building mathematical models of physical systems? (He was locked up! His response was to write a textbook, and thereby to educate future generations.)
For all that I admire about realclimate, it remains quire sedate, and respectable; even when the ice is melting much faster than the models predicted; even when global CO2 emissions are increasing faster than the models assumed. What do you say, when they look you in the eye and ask, “Why didn’t you tell us it was going to happen this fast?â�� and “Why did you not tell us how bad it really was going to get?” Are you going to say that there was an institutional policy against “being alarmist?”
There is a fire! The time has come to stand up, and shout, �Fire!� The G8 leaders are not going to do anything until the Climate Scientists stand up and shout, �Fire! FIRE!, FIRE!� A calm and rational discussion of an issue does not get that issue to the top of a G8 Leader�s �to do list� these days. These G8 Leaders will have to hear real panic in their experts voices before they take action.
8 June 2007 at 10:00 PM
#21
I assume you are joking? If not, what exactly is the impact of fireworks on GW?
8 June 2007 at 10:15 PM
Peak fossil fuels will have come and gone by then
Even coal? If in situ gasification of coal is feasible — and it’s been done in Russia for decades — then a great deal of the stuff is potentially exploitable, even that left behind in closed underground mines.
8 June 2007 at 11:20 PM
I have several comments:
First, several people have noted that the Kyoto treaty was binding and this declaration was not. I am a bit confused about the significance of the term “binding”, as most of the wealthy nations that signed the Kyoto treaty are going to break it. Only a handful will meet their targets, generally because of one-time factors rather than sustained change. Will these nations that signed the treaty and then broke it be punished? If not, what does “binding” really add to the equation?
Second, how does population growth and decline factor into the equation? Japan, for example, is now loosing people and allows very little immigration. In contrast, the US has a much higher birthrate (around replacement levels for the native born), has an increasing native population due to the baby boom echo, and allows a large number of immigrants each year. Our population could easily increase by 30% or more by 2050, obviously making it much harder to meet any set percentage reduction in emissions. Europe falls somewhere in the middle. Is this accounted for in any way, and should it be?
9 June 2007 at 12:24 AM
Robert A. Rohde (#23) wrote:
Very few countries are projected to meet their obligations under the Kyoto Protocol - even with the loop-holes and “cheating.” Halving emissions with increased population growth (as is required to meet the targets) currently seems highly unrealistic - without major investments in new technology. The United States is still refusing to participate, and both China and India insist on being exempt while modernizing their economies.
Under the A2 scenario (which would seem far more likely), eleven different models involving carbon cycle feedback were run.
The results?
(emphasis added)
It should be noted that in their projections the IPCC has not taken into account the positive feedback from the carbon cycle. Likewise, they don’t seem to be doing that well with feedback from the cryosphere. The artic icecap is disappearing more rapidly than has been projected - as are the glaciers - and there is reason to believe that the positive feedback from the carbon cycle is already kicking in.
From the ocean:
(emphasis added)
We weren’t expecting that sort of positive feedback from the ocean until 2050.
… but it doesn’t appear to be just the ocean:
(emphasis added)
There is more, but this is probably enough for right now.
9 June 2007 at 2:01 AM
�The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best is now.� Chinese proverb.
9 June 2007 at 3:23 AM
The G8+5 countries have a duty to keep to their declaration on climate change. We have a responsibility to hold them to account. Those of us working in this vital area of science and technology also have a duty to provide the knowledge base required to enable the target to be achieved.
9 June 2007 at 4:57 AM
It is interesting to note that as the world is projected to require 70% more energy by 2050 than is used now and begs the question of where this additional energy will come from if not from fossil fuels? This 70% increase in energy requirements may well come from sustainable energy and nuclear fission power perhaps but that still leaves present levels of carbon release unchanged. Maybe we can sequester carbon from coal but commercially that technology 10 years away from commercial proof and another 10 years away from global deployment making coal a decidely difficult energy decision for the carbon conscious. Lobbying of US congress however seems to win the day in many ways and I would not be suprised to see many new coal fired power stations in the USA and hence worldwide built in then ext decade without carbon capture fitted.
I doubt that politicians truely understand the problem at hand, it is not as if we have a new energy technology ready to fill in for fossil fusl at the present time and whilst I am sure than energy efficiency can reduce carbon emissions by around 25% it will be left to the markets to decide this and that means awaiting the onset of peak fossil fuels to push up the price of it that will make other energy sources more viable. But with peak oil/gas comes the potential for war and resources contention.
I applaude the G8’s acknowledgement of the seriousness of climate change but with 0.2 degrees decade temperature rises come 2020 that means 1 degree C will have already occured and I doubt that by that time the world would have seriously dented its carbon footprint. Then comes the next 50 years to 2 degrees. Maybe we can avoid that and I believe that is what the G8 are talking about, so called dangerous climate change.
1 degree celcius is assured I take it and even real climate would not argue that point as the oceans have latent heat that comes some time after land warming of upwards of 0.5 C I believe. This 1 degree could assist methane release from arctic tundra and assist the drying out of biomass areas such as the Amazon and other rain forest basins.
Is a positive feedback loop from nature itself a possibility ?
9 June 2007 at 5:40 AM
Here is my prediction.
Given the politics around AGW I don’t believe much of any consequence will be done to reduce CO2 emissions until climate change starts to really hurt the major emitters. By hurt I mean changes in weather that cause major famines and sea level rises that cause dislocation of large numbers of people. Essentially the economic costs of doing nothing would by then be comparable to the costs of taking drastic action.
By then the major emitters will be China, India and US (probably in that order). At that time I expect the turn around will be surprisingly rapid (say 20 years for a 50-80% cut in CO2 emission from the peak) and a number of technofixes will be attempted to reduce solar insulation while atmosphereic CO2 is brought under control. (Whether that works or makes things worse I don’t know.)
If someone could say when the effects of AGW will really hurt then I think we could get a good handle on the the level at which CO2 will peak.
This is my personal view, but I am by nature a pessimist with not a great deal of confidence in human nature.
9 June 2007 at 5:41 AM
re 26.
This is NOT a joke: Fireworks celebrations are harmful to the climate - they encourage travel and other excessive human activities harmful to global climate and life.
However,
This IS a joke (not funny):
From the Mission Statement, above:
Why is
and the enhancement of the national economy
in the NWS mission statement of NOAA’s National Weather Service?
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/hdqrtr.php
9 June 2007 at 6:00 AM
Ive just read the G8 report in full, and from my laymans perspective it makes a good read. At the level G8s primary announcements emanate from they must take a very broad brush approach, but never the less the document entails a pretty fine list of things that must be attended to in the near future. They have a committee and a program for everything that needs doing.
G8 recognises the need for urgency, but perforce it uses yesterdays bureaucratic systems to advance the cause. Very (extremely) inclusive and carefully worked processes, not dissimilar to IPCC. G8 cannot do anything else.
The only minor problem for us all is that the pace of climate change is lining up to be orders of magnitude faster than the pace of technical, economic and social change that the G8 program will ever see.
Interestingly G8 seeks more transparency in regard to the extractive raw materials sector � surely a hint that all is not well with the present estimates of reserves. But already we know that oil and many other critical minerals have very short viable production times ahead; peak oil and peak lots of other things as well. When sea levels start to rise we are looking at rebuilding homes, business, communities and infrastructure for a lot of people. I think it was Gore who observed that one billion people will be displaced by a 1m sea level rise. So demand for cheap and readily available building materials and systems will sharply increase, just as critical materials like bitumen, copper, zinc and many others fall off the market. Oops. Itll be recycled materials for the lot of us, or nowt.
I have some sympathy with Tim Jones #20 and with the approach suggested by Aaron Lewis #25. But if we are to yell FIRE, there is certainly no point yelling it at the present fire brigade - the old fire companies don�t have any idea how to fight this fire.
In a way this report may well go down as the Obituary for the G8 way of global organisation � a last gasp in the face of overwhelming odds. The final act of a desperate man - or is it the first act of Henry the Fifth? I think what is important is that suddenly the world doesn�t care about what the established order has in mind for us.
We know we have to come up with a different paradigm. Most of us we are powerless to do much about emissions at a global scale. The coal-fired power plants will run unabated and un-muzzled until people stop paying. So all we ordinary folk can do is sort out how to configure our own patches to ensure the survival of our own children in a time of rapid climate and social change. But don�t worry, our emissions will certainly drop to close to zero, but alas too late. For a while it will be G1 � every man for himself. But eventually it will be a forlorn scramble at the local level for local resources. Those resources available to us will be the scraps that are left over after the raids by more powerful gangs. The picture will not be pretty. Slavery will be back in vogue.
So thank you RC, keep up the good work of informing the politicians of our impending demise. In the mean time the rest of us will be making other arrangements.
9 June 2007 at 6:21 AM
#27 Peak fossil fuels will have come and gone by then
“Even coal?”
Yes. I suspect the world will be well past the peak in production for all hydrocarbons by 2050.
See: http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/2396
See chart: http://www.theoildrum.com/files/possiblecoalproduction.gif
Taking into consideration the revolution of rising expectations in India and China resulting in massive industrialization the consumption of fossil fuels may push the peak closer than the estimates.
There is a parallel to global warming catastrophes derived from the concept of peak oil. You can see it here.
http://dieoff.org/
How this attenuates GW due to demand destruction is a question of how a world full of bad monkeys manage the future.
9 June 2007 at 8:30 AM
This Hansen model that is debated a lot… these 20 year “estimations”.
Did it predict that global temperatures would pretty much stabilize for over a decade, beginning in 1995?
My other question is that, what is the explanation for this?
Many credible sources give 1998 (9 years ago) as the hottest year on record. 1995 and 1997 make the list between places 3rd and 7th. The global temperature trend 1995-2007 shows no warming.
In a time when global CO2 emissions have been increasing enormously?
What’s the catch?
9 June 2007 at 8:42 AM
Re #29 And how are you going to get the G8+5 countries to keep to their declaration? At Gleneagles they promised $50 bikkion in aid with $25 billion for Africa, have did not delivered. Now they are promising the same again, but nothing on global warming. Bob Geldorf described the Aid issue a farce. At least it is a $50 billion farce. The amount to be spent on global warming means it is not a farce, it is nothing!
Maggie, claimed this was a great achievement, and the scientists should congratulate themselves. In fact, they have produced four sets of IPCC reports and it has achieved zilch. Rather than patting themselves on the back, they should be looking to see where they have gone wrong, and working out how to FRAME their input so that it is effective.
Stephen Schneider famously wrote So we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. â�¦Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective, and being honest. — Stephen H. Schneider, author of the book Global Warming (Sierra Club), in an interview in Discover Magazine, October 1989.
Until the physical scientists who produce climate models take some lessons from the social scientists who study psychology, political science and the art of persuation, then we are going to see no progress.. CO2 levels will continue to rise, and the loss of land and sea ice, which keep the global climate in equilibrium, will accelerate. It is not just be the polar bears that will suffer when the global climate is disrupted. (Actually, forget the polar bears! unless that is the only way to get over to the public what is really happening.)
9 June 2007 at 8:52 AM
I’m glad the culprits have finnally acknowledged the planet really is “sick”, thanks mainly to the IPCC’s “diagnosis” that has been shoved under their noses. Pity they won’t be taking any medicine untill 2012, but it’s better than letting mother nature cut down the polutants all by herself.
9 June 2007 at 9:12 AM
RE #23:
IIRC, Lord Oxborough suggested a target of 450pmm when he was chairman of the board at Shell.
9 June 2007 at 9:21 AM
We can be so proud on what has been achieved in a mere 20 years time. Now lets define weather and climate so that the the next G8 meeting understands what we mean.
9 June 2007 at 9:36 AM
I think government minds will slowly gain more focus on this issue as torrential rains occur periodically and as homes and cities are buried under massive winter snowfalls over the next few years. The people will start seeking the scalps of do-nothing politicians.
Meanwhile the science community and people in general can work on new energy and efficient energy use, respectively. It appears Germany is leading in deployment of PV arrays, Denmark in wind power, others in other ways.
There are numerous undiscovered sources of energy and there is much more that can be done with renewable energy.
Some places may need assistance as conditions develop: Primarily Africa, but even Australia is having dire trouble with water supply.
It is important to keep methods and techniques for green energy, renewable energy and energy efficiency available to ordinary people.
Ultimately the USA gets to work on problem areas, but not until everyone is jumping up and down.
I construe the G-8 Summit as a sign of progress this time around.
9 June 2007 at 11:56 AM
Comment by Ike Solem â?? …..Since global fossil fuel use is dominated by the G8, and since much deforestation involves raw material export to G8 countries, the failure to plainly address these issues is an abdication of responsibility.
Gee, Ike, did you really expect a G8 conference to issue an IPCC-partII? Between afternoon tea and evening cocktails maybe?? You AGW proponents got a collossal political jump forward, but you seem to be too myopic to see it.
9 June 2007 at 12:07 PM
Stefan, Could you explain why (in #2), you say:
According to IPCC 4AR WGIII, Table SPM.5, reductions of 50% will get us somewhere between 445-535 ppm CO2equiv. Doesn’t Fig. SPM 8 show that, in that stabilization range, we’d have to be pretty lucky to stay below 2 ºC?
9 June 2007 at 12:13 PM
Comment by pat n â?? …Why is and the enhancement of the national economy in the NWS mission statement of NOAA’s National Weather Service?
Is there something unseemly about enhancing (or looking out for) the economy????
9 June 2007 at 1:20 PM
Re#43,
A ‘collosal political jump forward’ would be for the US to strip all subsidies from the fossil fuel industry, and to strip all subsidies from fossil-fuel intensive agricultural industry as well (over $35 billion a year), and to deliver those subsidies to solar, wind, and carbon-neutral agricultural industries - as well as instituting a hefty carbon tax on all fossil fuels, and agreeing to strict emissions caps, and mandating energy efficient technology in all areas.
Re the ‘peak fossil fuel issue’, if all easily accessible fossil fuels in the ground are burned, atmospheric CO2 levels will hit 1500-3000 ppm (sink limitation issues and carbon cycle feedbacks create the variability). This is a repost from an earlier thread:
“Now, the estimated total fossil fuel resources left to burn (as of 2000) from www.worldenergy.org:
Conventional oil - 263 (GtC)
Shale oil, etc. - 525
Natural gas - 422
Coal bed gas, etc - 450
Coal - 3370
The preindustrial atmospheric carbon dioxide content (as carbon) was 580 GtC (280 ppm), and as of 2000 was 750 GtC (380ppm)
How many gigatonnes of carbon per year stay in the atmosphere? Around half, so if current total CO2 emissions (as carbon) are at 7.2 GtC (only looking at fossil fuels), then around 3.6 Gt of carbon stay in the atmosphere each year - and it’s worth wondering what processes account for the uptake of the other half… meaning that it’s possible that more CO2 could start lingering.
If we burn all the fossil fuel, that means adding 5000 GtC to the atmosphere, (if half stays up, that’s 2500 Gt) and warmer oceans and stressed forests will probably absorb less CO2, resulting in a minimum CO2 content of around 1500 ppm (and probably quite a bit higher, due to sink limitations.. and the oceans may degas methane and CO2 if they warm up a lot …). There’s also no reason to assume that all that CO2 wouldn’t stay in the atmosphere for millennia, either - meaning no ‘global cooling effect’ after the fuel is gone. This is a bit beyond the worst-case scenario in the IPCC report.”
Don’t rely on ‘peak production’ to solve the problem. Most of the remaining fossil fuels will have to be left in the ground.
9 June 2007 at 1:45 PM
We have good evidence that the wheels come off the biosphere at 1000 ppm, and probably well before. The Permian-Triassic extinction event was likely caused by a giant volcanic rift opened in what is now Siberia, and for tens of thousands of years it dumped gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere. The result was a globally anoxic ocean which contained only anaerobes, like purple sulfur bacteria and algae. These organisms released enormous quantities of hydrogen sulfide into the atmosphere, which had the effect of poisoning most life on land, and destroying the ozone layer. The resulting extinction event lasted several million years, and it was by far the worst mass extinction the planet has faced.
In addition, the Paleoeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum was accompanied by CO2 concentration near 1000 ppm, and it resulted in the worst extinction event in the past 90 million years. Humans will add as much carbon to the atmosphere in 500 years (1800 to 2300) as the PETM did over 10,000 years.
To my mind, we have to stay well away from 1000 ppm or risk literally destroying the world as we’ve known it.
9 June 2007 at 1:47 PM
Re 37: This has been addressed countless times, that’s probably why none of the more scientifically qualified writing here has bothered to respond to you. So, I’ll do it. The upward trend is still plain in the record. According to the best temp data sets, 2006 is either very close to or higher than the exceptional 1998, and the climb is steady from 1999. Exceptional years are going to happen. Trying to use 1998 to show that temperatures have decreased since is silly and will not fool anyone, at least on this site. I note also that exceptionally cold years are seriously lacking.
9 June 2007 at 2:05 PM
Explore this link to understand why fossil fuels can be left in the ground, with many other advantages. Encourage production of biochar.
www.shimbir.demon.co.uk/biocharrefs.htm
9 June 2007 at 3:13 PM
Re: 37
Noone seems to be replying to this - are we supposed to ignore “climate skeptic”?
I think the main explanation for this is that there was an extremely strong el niño in 97-98. We’ve just come out of a weaker one, which is partly why 2007 is reckoned to have a decent chance of beating 1998.
“Many credible sources give 1998 (9 years ago) as the hottest year on record” - and others don’t, putting 2005 above it.
It would be nice if each year was exactly 0.02 C hotter than the previous one, but things just don’t work out like that.
9 June 2007 at 4:16 PM
re 37: “The global temperature trend 1995-2007 shows no warming.”
Were did you get that? Go to see the global average temperature graph in the IPCC report and you’ll notice that during the 1995-2005 period the global temperature trend went up, pretty much as Hansen predicted, The 1998 being the hotest indeed because an additional strong El Nino.
As the report states: “Eleven of the last 12 years (1995 - 2006) rank amongst the 12 hotest years in the instrumental record of Global Surface Temperature (since 1850).”
9 June 2007 at 4:29 PM
In the inline response to Ksero (#2), stefan wrote:
Hansen has suggested that anything above 1 C may be “dangerous” where by dangerous he is referring to long-term positive feedback between the ice melt in Greenland and the western Peninsula of Antarctica.
The positive feedback from the carbon cycle may be quite considerable - depending upon how far we let things go. For example, we are already noticing the diminished capacity of the Antarctic Ocean to absorb as much carbon dioxide as it has in the past - let alone keep up with the increased amount of carbon dioxide we are putting out. Likewise, there is at least one study which suggests that positive feedback due to the inability of plants to absorb carbon dioxide during the dryer, warmer years has begun. Then, atleast within the subarctic regions we are noticing increased methane emissions from the permafrost, particularly thaw lakes - in places like Canada, Alaska, and more importantly Siberia, although at present this appears to require wetter subartic seasons. Moreover, Hansen suggests that shallow methane hydrates are a genuine concern.
Currently I would assume roughly 2.8 C - although this is the long-term equilibrium level. 3 C if we want a safer figure.
It certainly pays to keep in mind how aerosols appear to have been masking the effects of increased carbon emissions.
It is probably past the end point for me, but by no means past the end point of my concerns.
It probably pays for people to keep in mind that the 11 billion figure for the leveling out of the human population itself presupposes the continued advancement of third world countries such that their increased affluence results in higher living standards and a reduction in birth rates. If we insist upon some standard of “fairness” which keeps them in poverty, birth rates will remain high, and they will be unable to adopt new technologies which will result in lower carbon emissions. If this is the case, it will be impossible to keep global carbon emissions at any level which in any rational sense might be regarded as safe.
So far nearly all of them are having considerable difficulty keeping on the path towards meeting their obligations under the Kyoto Protocol - which was simply to halve emissions. Moreover, most of those nations are making use of loopholes - and “cheating” one fashion or another. But they are doing considerably better than the United States under the current administration - which has in fact done everything in its power to torpedo substantive international cooperation to lower global carbon emissions.
In any case, like you no doubt, I do not believe the present is a time for complacency. The G8 Summit was a qualified success of sorts, but I would recall the words of a statesman whom I admire greatly:
9 June 2007 at 5:04 PM
The RSS satellite measurements for the lower troposphere shows a considerable cool-down during 2007 so far. The flip from El Nino conditions to La Nina in mid-January seems to be the best explanation.
The RSS lower troposphere trend over the past decade (June 1997 to May 2007) is 0.0002C per year (ie. 0.000 given that the temperature figures are published with three decimal points.)
9 June 2007 at 5:34 PM
John Wegner (#49) wrote:
Wayne Davidson had asked you to contact NOAA about this back on 17 May 2007. I can only assume that you haven’t since they still have 0.20 C posted…
Please see:
NCDC: Climate of 2007- April Global analysis, Lower Troposphere and check their figure for the “RSS low-trop.”
Get with it, man! This error of theirs must be corrected with due haste!
9 June 2007 at 6:18 PM
Correction to #52
I (#52) wrote:
I believe that “lower carbon emissions” should have been “higher carbon emissions.”
The argument is that the population of the third world will continue to grow near its present rate for a more extended period of time if they are held back in terms of economic development and the adoption of new technology, but they will gradually advance - with a decidedly larger population - and as such, we attempt to impose unreasonably draconian standards for their carbon emissions and if we do not attempt to aid them in the adoption of new technologies, this will quite likely result in higher carbon emissions for them and for humanity as a whole.
9 June 2007 at 6:39 PM
Re: #45
Rob B,
The fact that the National Weather Service Mission Statement has enhancement of the national economy but not enhancement of the nation’s climate change preparedness suggests to me that NWS views the economy more seriously than they do climate change. NOAA’s NWS is in the Department of Commerce.
9 June 2007 at 9:01 PM
We are counting global tropospheric and surface temperature averages from an area that isn’t even a percent of the whole globe. The years between 1995-2006 all fit in with the error margin, with the only exception of 1996. i.e. 1998 wasn’t necessarily the hottest year, but neither can you definitely say that the period 2003-2006 was hotter than 1995-1998.
To quote CRU: “All the temperature values have uncertainties, which arise mainly from gaps in data coverage. The sizes of
the uncertainties are such that, although it is most likely to be the second warmest year, the global average
temperature for 2005 is statistically indistinguishable from, and could be anywhere between, the first and
the eighth warmest year in the record. Similar analyses in the United States rank the year as first (GISS)
and second (NCDC), but NCDC note that uncertainties arising from sparse observations or measurement
biases make 2005 statistically indistinguishable from 1998 as well as from other recent years such as 2002
and 2003.”
Even if the warming trend hasn’t totally stabilized in between 1995-2007, it shows unquestionable slowing down.
Global carbon dioxide emissions have increased at least ten fold from 1900 to 2000. In these twelve years between 1995-2007 more CO2 has been put in the atmosphere by humans than the total between 1850 and 1940. Yet the warming trend between 1920 and 1940 was stronger than it will be between 1990 and 2010.
Aerosols are used in a god of the gaps way to explain the post World War II cooling trend, approx. ->1970 yet the said aerosols were plentiful in the atmosphere in 1920-1940 when the climate was getting warmer.
For a layperson, this theory has so many gaps. It doesn’t seem logical.
9 June 2007 at 9:34 PM
climate skeptic (#37) wrote:
In post #54 I pointed out that the temperatures have not been level in the period from June 1997 to May 2007. In fact the trend has been +0.20 C/10yr for the past decade.
I know it is easy at least for some people to become fixed on a record high year (such as 1998) and then view any consequent drop as proof that the trend is negative or flat, but it just doesn’t work that way. A record high is generally followed by a fairly significant drop - but this isn’t grounds for dismissing the trend itself. You look at the endpoints - and the trend continues.
Moreover, at least according to some comparisons, 2005 may have actually had a higher global average than 1998. But I won’t quibble at present.
Looking at the HadCRUT2v Surface Temperature Record for 1979-2005, I see a trend of 0.17 +/- 0.04 C. As such, the trend from 1997-2007 for the RSS low-trop would seem to exceed the average trend from 1979-2005, but the difference isn’t statistically significant.
This is still a bit apples to oranges, since the longer trend is surface temperature whereas the shorter trend is lower troposphere, so lets get some other figures. Unfortunately, if you want me to include 2007 (doing 1997-2007), I have to stick with the lower troposphere. For winter (December through February), I have 0.22 C.
I am sure that we could look up some more figures, but the important thing is that the last decade has not been flat, nor has its trend actually been lower than that from 1979-2005. The shorter, more recent trend has exceeded the longer, but the difference is not statistically significant.
Now regarding the reason why the rise in temperature has not been as dramatic as the rise in carbon dioxide, the temperature rises as the logarithm of the CO2 ppm. Doubling the CO2 results in an increase in temperature of roughly 2.8 C - in the long-run. Now of course 2.8 doesn’t sound like much, but it must be remember that this isn’t on a particular day or a particular year, but an indefinite rise with cummulative effects. Likewise, it isn’t for a particular region, but for the entire globe.
And what are the cummulative effects?
Just with the Himalayas alone, we are talking about the glaciers having all but disappeared by 2100, a billion people facing severe water shortages and greatly reduced agricultural output. And it should be remembered that when they speak of global average temperature, they are including:
1. the ocean, where temperature will rise more slowly;
2. the southern hemisphere, where temperatures are rising more slowly; and,
3. the tropics where temperatures will rise more slowly.
NASA projects that by the 2080s, the dryer, warmer July-August average temperatures for Chicago and Washington DC will be 100-110 F. We are projecting stronger trends in the US south west and south east. It looks like the agricultural output of the south east will be severely affected. And I am not even beginning to bring up the effects of rising sea levels upon the coasts of the United States. But if you are interested, check out the news we have been having on glaciers for the past week or two. There has been a fair amount of it.
9 June 2007 at 9:55 PM
PS
In my last post, I noted that temperature rises as the logarithm of the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. However, I also noted that we aren’t dealing with a rise in temperature for a particular day, but a rise in temperature for the long-term, centuries, in fact. Moreover, this is global, not regional.
Given the changes we are seeing and given the climate record, in my view, as a good rule of thumb for estimating the effects, we should look at the CO2 level, not the temperature. Or alternatively, we can think of this long-term global average temperature and its effects on the the global climate system as being roughly equivalent to the Saffir-Simpson Scale for hurricanes or Richter Scale for earthquakes - except applied at a global level. It could extend from 0 - 6, with 0 being set at the pre-industrial average temperature for the past 10,000 yrs, in essence, all of recorded human history.
Maybe that will help give people a handle on this.
9 June 2007 at 10:04 PM
Re #47:
The PETM was a minor extinction event, and certainly not in the same league as the KT extinction that killed the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. See this chart. The PETM, at 55 Ma, is not even resolved as a blip in the global oceans (please note that “End Eocene” is 10 Myr after the PETM and definitely distinct). The PETM did seem to cause some extinctions in the deep ocean, but that was probably driven by deep water anoxia which wasn’t a problem for most of the rest of the ocean. In fact, the most remarkable thing about biodiversity during that period was diversification, i.e. the emergence of many new taxa, rather than extinction.
9 June 2007 at 11:27 PM
Thank you for the clarification. I got those numbers from following story, which is unfortunately no longer posted.
“Climatic rerun, only faster this time,” by Robert S. Boyd, McClatchy News Service, August 25, 2006.
Here’s the money quote:
For what it’s worth.
Do you think it’s reasonable to claim that as CO2 approaches 1000 ppm, things go very wrong with the biosphere?
10 June 2007 at 2:18 AM
Re: 49
I was interested to see bio-char (or let�s just call it charcoal) referred to here.
This is purely anecdotal, but I own a small steep woodland in Devon, England, which I run for conservation and a bit of oak.
Digging down the other day (for a sh*t pit) on a level patch, I came upon a 25mm layer of charcoal about 200mm down. This was almost certainly the remains of a charcoal burning operation, which would tie into the name of a bordering stream (Iron Mill Stream) so could have been used for smelting. Given the industrial revolution started about 150 years back and coal was bad news for charcoal burners, the stuff must have been sequestered in the ground at least that long.
Seems quite interesting. Thanks.
Theo H
10 June 2007 at 4:33 AM
Re: Stefan’s comment on number two
According to the AR4, achieving a mean expected warming of 2 degrees C relative to 1990 temperatures requires capping atmospheric concentrations of GHGs (in CO2e) at slightly over 500 ppm. Avoiding 2 degrees warming, defined as having an 83% probability not to exceed 2 degrees above 1990 levels, requires levels below 415 ppm CO2e, or roughly held at current levels. Achieving a mean expected warming of 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels requires capping emissions at 441 ppm, something that is extremely unlikely.
Drawing on the mitigation scenarios developed in the Stern Review, the only way that a 50% cut by 2050 would put us on a trajectory to cap atmospheric GHG concentrations at 500 ppm CO2e (or roughly 2 degrees warming relative to 1990 temps) is if global emissions are capped by around 2010. Waiting till 2020 to cap global emissions requires roughly 60-70% global reductions by 2050 to avoid exceeding 500 ppm CO2e.
It seems like your argument that halving global emissions by 2050 putting us on track for 2 degrees warming only holds if you define 2 degrees as relative to current (1990) temperatures and if you assume that the growth of global emissions is capped in the vary near future. Given the rapid growth rates of China and India, and the remaining political difficulty involved in crafting any binding constraints for non-Annex I countries, this seems an optimistic assumption indeed.
10 June 2007 at 4:50 AM
Re #37 by ‘climate skeptic :
Have a look at these temperature data plots at the global warming art website. Your argument that the data fails to demonstrate a warming trend is not credible.
10 June 2007 at 5:17 AM
In respect to BJC’s comment( (#26) on Pat N’s (#21) , who would cut off fireworks, I may be thought ill-educated and trollish to opine that because of our century-guaranteed snuggy blanket woven from carbon dioxide and from other emissions (still a-weaving exponentially), which traps infra-red radiation so marvellously, we ought to cease all swift chemical reactions, such as burning. Isn’t it the infra-red radiation which causes the atoms (or is that the molecules?–consider the hydrogeon atom) to dance?–that is,–heat? As natural processes the governments are doing what they,by nature, do, balance the largest groups threatening to disrupt the household rules (oiko-nomia, reified as THE ECONOMY,–no collective, by the way) off against each other, equilbriating so that as many proceesses as possible continue from here to there, from today into tomorrow. Throughout our two hundred thousand year history, when certain of our groupings failed, we have regrouped, sometimes from a diminished population base. So, since our gov’mints, nation-state , provincial, and corporate ain’t wukkin’ so cool it do becomes us tuh tek meesures inter oor ownliest hands. For, as the Han used to say, when a dynasty faltered and was not replaced for a century,–we have entered a time of troubles. Heat speeds up climate change,–no? What’s wrong with being cooler than thou?
10 June 2007 at 6:49 AM
to #54 - The NCDC data doesn’t include the latest month May and their data is for whole record from 1979. I was quoting June 1997 to May 2007 (the last decade.)
The May LT temp from RSS is just 0.089C above the 1979-2006 average, and is down 0.339C since January 2007.
All the data from RSS is at this link.
http://www.remss.com/pub/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_0.txt
10 June 2007 at 7:50 AM
Re #36, They are interesting articles on coal and coal types and peaking through energy amounts rather than total tonnage of coal which is obviously a batter measurement indicator. However what is the implication for climate change, not that much unfortunately. Even if coal does peak the USA and CHINA etc can still produce enough year on year coal to beyond 2050, ok it will cost more but with current thinking on fuel it will be many decades yet before we see peak coal effect climate change even if it does happen sooner than exected.
In his book HEAT George Monbiot goes through the UK’s energy balance sheet and with current available alternative technologies to fossil fuels plans a chart avert climate change beyond 2 degrees C. It was difficult to achieve was the conclusion of his book.
0.2 C per decade warming and hence 0.8 c come 2010, 1.0 C come 2020 and then 50 more years to reach 2 C. half Co2 emissions by 2050 would stave off 2 C warming but will it be a poorer energy world with simply less of it.
10 June 2007 at 8:21 AM
Re#46, I agree with the conclusion but the quoted figure for coal may be a gross overestimate. See http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/2559
10 June 2007 at 12:21 PM
RE#68, it seems to depend on the different definitions of coal ‘reserves’ and ‘resources’ - see the third IPCC report: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/125.htm
‘Reserves’ are defined as ‘economically recoverable resources’ - which depends on what is meant by ‘economically recoverable’. Resources and the resource base are estimates of the total amounts. There is more on this here.
10 June 2007 at 1:02 PM
A world of Ten Billion
pete best (#67) wrote:
Population will level out only with affluence in which an economy is advanced and requires a skilled labor force. Poverty will only be a delay at best while the poorer countries continue to experience high population growth, whereas an affluent population tend towards zero or even negative population growth. If poor countries are held back, the will advance, but much more slowly and with greater population growth - passing through an extended period of higher carbon emissions as their economies develop - and having a much larger population with higher total carbon emissions even as we approach carbon neutral per capita.
The big question in my view is: How do we support widespread affluence at a population level of roughly ten billion?
Energy
In my own view, which I know I share with many others, what we need is a multinational alternative energy “Manhattan Project.” Solar energy is one obvious choice, but there are others. One exists already for nuclear fusion, but it would have to be accelerated. Tapping into the flow of thermohaline, such as the gulf stream is another, and the same might be attempted with the jet stream. But in the case of the Manhattan Project itself, two different approaches to developing a nuclear bomb were employed simultaneously. I would suggest that the same should be attempted here. And other energy sources (such as tidal power and wind) could play auxiliary roles.
Water, Agriculture and Manufacturing
The next requirement will be fresh water followed by food. Australia has already begun a project of desalinization of water employing solar energy. This should be expanded. With regard to agricultural production and as part of both short-term and long-term solution to carbon dioxide levels, we may want to consider encouraging the widespread use of agrichar/biochar - particularly since it leads to the sequestration of carbon for centuries while transforming soil into a richer soil for use by agriculture. Manufacturing is largely a function of energy since recycling can provide the materials once energy becomes plentiful.
*
Despite the high requirements of supporting an affluent human population of ten billion indefinitely, there is no reason to think that it isn’t doable. But it will require considerable international cooperation.
10 June 2007 at 1:44 PM
Comment by pat n (56) — “The fact that the National Weather Service Mission Statement has enhancement of the national economy but not enhancement of the nation’s climate change preparedness suggests to me that NWS views the economy more seriously than they do climate change. NOAA’s NWS is in the Department of Commerce.”
Sounds fair enough, except why, in a strict division of labor, should/would the National Weather Service, opposed to other branches of NOAA, be involved with climate change/global warming which is a long ways from the task of figuring out if it’s going to rain in New York tomorrow or warning the trawlers of an Atlantic storm? (maybe they do… you certainly know better than me….)
10 June 2007 at 4:09 PM
David B. Benson (#49) wrote:
Jeepers!
That is a real resource on biochar/agrichar. Plenty of links - and well organized. Obviously what I am most interested in is the long-term carbon sequestration and boon to agriculture, but the other facets are interesting. For example, I didn’t know that the formation of biochar was oxygen-free.
Likewise, I didn’t know that it encouraged the growth of mycorrhizal fungi. For those who are unfamiliar with this, it is a large number of species of fungi symbiotes which have co-evolved with trees (and I would presume other plants) such several such species may exist in a symbiotic relationship with a given species of plant. They increase the water and nutrient uptake considerably. In fact, water uptake in some species of trees is increased by as much as a factor of a thousand. The trees quite literally could not survive without it. The actual roots of the plants will often appear quite stubby and short - but the mycorrhizal fungi act as extensions of those roots - something that one can strip off if one wishes to examine the actual roots. I have also read that biochar encourages the growth of symbiotic bacterial ecologies which promote the growth of plants. Once again, something which plants would in all likelihood be unable to survive without.
Combine this with a little genetic engineering of both bacteria and plants, and one will have plants which are far more hardy, being more resistant to heat stress and drought. Without something along these lines, we are likely to experience far more widespread and severe food shortages in the coming decades. We might have to expand investment in several branches of science, though. Oh well.
Reason for hope.
PS
I suppose this post could be considered an extension of #70: A World of Ten Billion. Incidently, the international cooperation which I suggested would probably be something for the G8, UN and World Bank.
Think big - why not? It looks like what we need at this point.
10 June 2007 at 4:18 PM
Rod B,
From the Mission Statement - NWS provides .. climate forecasts and warnings .. for the protection of life and property ..
With their 5,000 scientists and 120 offices NWS could have helped in public education about climate change and could have been evaluated climate and hydrologic change to apply to their models which are used in flood and low water forecasting and probabilistic outlooks. NWS has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on its “Advanced Hydrologic Prediction System (AHPS) which is now misleading the public on flood potential and low water potentials because climate change was dismissed by the NWS.
http://npat.newsvine.com/_news/2007/06/09/768338-climate-change-dismissed-by-the-national-weather-service-
10 June 2007 at 4:48 PM
Getting a bit off-topic here, but I know a bit about mycorrhizae… Something like 90% of all plants require a mycorrhizal relationship with one or more fungi in order to grow. As Timothy says, fungal hyphae dramatically improve the efficiency of the plant’s root systems. In forest ecosystems, mycorrhizal fungi may have associations with multiple trees and move nutrients from one tree to another. The world’s largest living thing is a honey fungus, Armillaria ostoyae, in the Malheur National Forest in Oregon. It covers 890 hectares (2200 acres) and is at least 2,000 years old.
10 June 2007 at 5:19 PM
The comments on biochar and rebuilding soils are very interesting. It’s also worth noting that industrial, fertilizer/water intensive agriculture does the opposite - soils are often fumigated with agents like methyl bromide, which essentially sterilize the soil, creating a low-carbon matrix. Plants can only grow in this matrix if external fertilizers are supplied - and 50% of agricultural fossil CO2 emissions come from natural gas-powered nitrogen fixation (the Haber process).
http://biopact.com/2007/06/research-confirms-biochar-in-soils.html
“We broadly categorise carbon in the soil as being labile (liable to change quickly) or stable - depending on how quickly they break down and convert into carbon dioxide,” he said. “Labile carbon like crop residue, mulch and compost is likely to last two or three years, while stable carbon like agrichar will last up to hundreds of years.”
“When applied at 10t/ha, the biomass of wheat was tripled and of soybeans was more than doubled,” said Dr Van Zwieten. This percentage increase remained the same when applications of nitrogen fertiliser were added to both the agrichar and the control plots. For the wheat, agrichar alone was about as beneficial for yields as using nitrogen fertiliser only.”
10 June 2007 at 5:41 PM
A word of advice to the climate skeptic who made comment number 37. It is a waste of time to talk to warmers about the trend of average global temperatures. Warmers can NEVER admit that temperatures are falling; they will never even admit that temperatures are not rising as fast as the IPCC predicts. What will happen, is that by 2020, or shortly thereafter, when we are in solar cycle 25, it will be clear that world temperatures are declining. Sometime before that, maybe around 2015, it will be clear that temparatures are not rising as much as predicted. The media, politicians, and the warmers will cling to their position as long as they can, since they have “nailed their colours to the mast”. However, eventually the data will be overwhelming, and first the politicians and then the media will desert the warmers; who will then simply fade away. So my advice is, save your breath, and talk about falling temperatures in other forums. Another climate skeptic.
10 June 2007 at 5:41 PM
Symbiosis
Gareth (#74) wrote:
I honestly don’t think it is off-topic. Rather it is symbolic - of the direction we should be going.
But now the question is: How can the international cooperation which I suggested in #70: A World of Ten Billion and #72 get started?
Well, I would begin preferably with some well-recognized scientists, assuming they could be found. They would be able to get the attention of major multidisciplinary science organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences in the US and the Royal Society in Great Britain. Efforts at identifying the problems posed by climate change and how climate change may be minimized could become the focus of interdisciplinary studies. This could include the proposal and analysis, and critical evaluation of new technologies.
Now one the science organizations have some sort of map of where we need to go and how to get there, getting the attention of governments will still pose quite a problem. Even getting the attention of newspapers may prove difficult. But fortunately there are already some big names who are interested in climate change. Celebrities, including Al Gore. Now unfortunately Gore’s popularity with the far right in the US is relatively low, but given the changes in the US political landscape this should prove to be less of an issue.
Moreover, Gore appears to be committed and approachable - and he has already done the highly successful “An Inconvenient Truth.”
Once those committed to the issue of climate change have the attention of the media and the public, the governments will follow. Then it is the UN, G8 and World Bank. Meanwhile, this works entirely within what we have in terms of the cultural/political landscape.
*
One point.
I would follow the advice of Alan Greenspan regarding economic development. We need transparency, requiring it of the countries which require assistance and providing transparency in order to underscore the fact that this is in the interest of everyone, that it is not the intention of the more advanced countries to take advantage of those countries which are less developed. Transparency should insure international cooperation.
Symbiosis.
10 June 2007 at 6:11 PM
Re#76, Wasn’t Sallie Baliunas predicting, in the late 90’s, that global temperatures would be cooling after 2000 due to the approaching sunspot minimum of 2006? Wasn’t 2005 also the hottest year on record? (2006 was the hottest year on record within the US).
That’s why skeptics love the cyclical explanation - just wait another decade - then the ‘cooling cycle’ will kick in. No matter how thin you slice it…
10 June 2007 at 7:23 PM
(”A World of Ten Billion” sequence, final)
Anyway, I would largely regard the IPCC as a trial run.
It dealt with many of the issues of climate change, but the governments had far too much control over what could be communicated to the public at large. In some ways it reminds me of the censorship that Hansen and colleagues have been experiencing at NASA.
Now obviously there is only so much that the science community can do prior to “going public,” thatis, going to the high profile individuals who are sympathetic, then - with the help of figures like Gore - to the public, and then to the governments. However, the IPCC has undoubtedly resulted in informal networks which can be leveraged within the context of existing projects. The rest? Well, at least within the context of the scientific community itself, this would largely be comparable to peer review and informal interdisciplinary studies.
It may be quite possible to do the the lion’s share before the politicians get involved. Once they get involved, the scientific community will have considerably less control over the direction which is taken. However, in large part this will be irrelevant if the appropriate framework exists before the politicians get involved. Moreover, having that framework and the core vision in place prior to going to the general public will help to preserve much of the control which the scientific community will have once the politicians are brought onboard.
Previous Posts in sequence: #70, #72, #77
10 June 2007 at 8:31 PM
Re my # 64 Post :
The link didn’t work (sorry). It is http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Temperature_Gallery
All the diagrams and plots on this site come with explanations and links to the original datasets.
If anyone wants to donate images or data to the site, information for contributors is here.
10 June 2007 at 8:52 PM
Deja Vu…
Jim Cripwell (#76) wrote:
Why am I suddenly reminded of creationists talking about the imminent demise of “evolutionism” or good, old-fahsioned Marxists talking the imminent demise of capitalism, or Objectivists speaking of the imminent demise of anything which isn’t Objectivist?
Could it be that…
… all the evidence is on one side, and somebody else is on the other - and he’s saying, “Sure, but some day, some day…” ? Or, “It only looks like I am wrong, but you just wait another thousand years and you will see I was right all along!”
I know, I know…
“Laugh while you can, Monkey Boy!” - John Wharfin, The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension
10 June 2007 at 9:54 PM
Craig Allen #80 wrote:
This is the big-ticket item: don’t look at what any one year is doing in isolation. It really isn’t any different from not automatically assuming that a particularly hot summer was due to global warming or that a particularly cold winter means there wasn’t any global warming in the first place.
Look at the five-year averages.
In fact, if you are looking for a long-term trend, you might want to look at the ten- or the twenty-year averages. But in this case the five-year average is pretty telling.
Things are looking up, up, up, and that’s really, really bad. In fact, the rate of the five year is higher than that of the past twenty-five.
Some will undoubtedly say, “What? A few fractions of a degree?”
But they gotta remember, this isn’t just one place on a particular day. This is global and a fair number of centuries into the future.
And the effects are cummulative.
In fact, the effects of each additional degree in the long-term global average are far greater than the effects of any of the degrees before it. Six degrees would result in a world that is radically different from anything that we’ve seen in well over fifty million years - and could put us within reach of a quarter billion, particularly with the various forms of positive feedback from the climate system in terms of the cryosphere and carbon cycle. But probably not all at once. More like centuries.
But we would be seeing some pretty dramatic stuff well before then. Heck, with what I am seeing in terms of the arctic cap and the accelerating glaciers in Greenland, Antarctica and the Himalayas (and nearly anywhere else there are glaciers), I think things are pretty dramatic right now - and there is every sign they will be getting more and more dramatic in each of the following decades - if one looks at the trends.
It will make for some interesting news, but the droughts and famines will probably make up for that - after a while.
11 June 2007 at 5:16 AM
RE response of #2:
Dear RC
Current warming rates are o.2 C per decade with the 20th Century having given us 0.6 C so far. so 2010/08, 2020/1.0, etc. hence come 2050 we would still have experienced some 1.4/5 or warming and with that added by the latent heat in the ocean, another 0.5 C I believe 2.0 c seems ineviatable.
Would you not agree ? Come 2050 we will still have some another 60 ppmv of Co2 making 450 ppmv overall. Add in the other greenhouse gases and thats around 500 ppmv is it not ?
I thought that 500 ppmv was heading for 3 C ?
Could you ecplain your thinking on stopping short of 2 C ?
11 June 2007 at 6:17 AM
Are we, and I mean the general public, being conned by talk of 50 or 60% reductions in CO2. My back of envelope calculations indicate that assuming a population of 9.4 billion by 2050 and a roughly equal share of CO2 emissions per person, citizens of the USA would need to reduced their CO2 output by 95% and those of the EU by almost 90% from current levels. This will need a drastic change in lifestyle. Is the truth being hidden deliberately or have I made a miscalculation.
11 June 2007 at 9:15 AM
Yes, I’m looking at the graphs, and that’s why I’m asking.
What interests me most is this one: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
it shows that the raise in global average temperature from 1910’s to 1940’s was approx. 0.5 Celsius. Then it shows a 0.2-0.3 Celsius decline in between mid 1940’s and mid 1960’s. 1940’s temperature averages were not reached again until 1980’s.
Yet, Global CO2 emissions have increased ten fold from 1900 to 2000.
Were the relatively small emissions of 1800’s and early 1900’s really the cause of the 0.5C raise in 1910-1940? (We have put more CO2 into the atmosphere in 1995-2007 than we did in 1800-1940). And if they were not, then there are certainly some other major factors in play (why is Mars experiencing global warming?). Also CO2 emissions in between 1940-1960 had more than doubled from early 1900’s, yet there was then a 2+ decade cooling trend. Could “aerosols” really cause such a drastic effect, or were there again other factors in play?
And the industries were not clean in 1910-1940 were they? Why didn’t aerosols have much any effect in those years?
If in 2017, 1998 remains the hottest year on record what will happen to the theories? Increasing amounts of unclean coal being burned in China and India setting the warming trend back? But the theory remains unquestionable, right?
11 June 2007 at 9:16 AM
In response to Timothy Chase in message 81, there is an enormous difference in the analogies he has chosen, and what I am considering. What I am talking about are hard, measured, experimental data; numbers that are reproducible and transparent, and that virtually all scientists agree are correct. For example, the average global temperatures put out monthly by Hadley/CRU (though there are some who query how good these are); and the arctic polar ice extent, also put out monthly, by NSIDC. As a matter of interest, despite 20 years of work, and an estimated 40 billion US dollars of expenditure, there is NO hard, measured experimental data that connects increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, and increased global temperatures. Another climate skeptic.
11 June 2007 at 9:16 AM
Of course governments of the world’s wealthy nations should do all they can to reduce GHGs, and get their people to do so. And they are certainly NOT doing nearly enough. The U.S. heel-dragging, I imagine, has been very demoralizing for the rest of the world.
But even if the wealthy governments were doing what they should, that doesn’t let individuals off the hook, or businesses.
So, it may be that, say, China, is now catching up to rich nations in total GHG emissions. Not only do we have to consider their per capita emissions (which are still much lower) vs. those of, say, Americans (which are much higher), but also the fact that a lot of China’s emissions are related to products that Americans buy. I hope the rich countries and their citizens take these factors into consideration.
Global warming and GHG reduction needs to be addressed at all levels, and by everyone.
11 June 2007 at 11:20 AM
#41; Almost certain that the notion at #41: “We can be so proud on what has been achieved in a mere 20 years time. Now lets define weather and climate so that the the next G8 meeting understands what we mean” would receive little response, it seems advisable to discuss the point in more depth, as the need for proper scientific terms will -presumably- come up sooner than later.
Establishing reasonable scientific definitions should not be so difficult, when there are many ten thousand trained men and women working full time in meteorological and climate science. At least what we have now is very insufficient, as briefly explained:
WEATHER
(webdictionary.co.uk): the meteorological conditions: temperature and wind and clouds and precipitation;
(Encarta. msn): the state of the atmosphere with regard to temperature, cloudiness, rainfall, wind, and other meteorological conditions.
(dictionary.net): The state of the air or atmosphere with respect to heat or cold, wetness or dryness, calm or storm, clearness or cloudiness, or any other meteorological phenomena; meteorological condition of the atmosphere;
CLIMATE
(en.wikipeada.org): Climate is the average and variations of weather over long periods of time.
(en.wikipeada.org), citing IPCC as follows: Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the â??average weatherâ??, or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). These quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, precipitation, and wind. Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system.
UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE (FCCC):
__Has not any definition on â??CLIMATEâ??, but says that
__â??CLIMATE CHANGE means the change of climate â?¦â??!!!!
NOTE:
(1) Both terms are laymen phrases.
(2) For scientific work, the referred weather definitions are of little help, as the â??meteorological conditionsâ?? at a specific time is a â??compositionâ?? of many dozen, if not hundred parameters.
(3) If weather is not properly defined it is hopeless to define climate as average weather.
(4) Defining climate as weather statistis, is not very helpful anyhow, as weather-statistics remain weather-statistics.
PS: Only recently this site discussed on : May 23rd, 2007 : Global Warming or Climate Change; which shows how important are correct and meaningful definitions:
__â??global warmingâ?? makes sense, as rising temperatures on a global basis can be explained as â??global warmingâ??; while
__â??climate changeâ?? as introduced by IPCC and FCCC is a hopeless term; because one question must be answered first in a meaningful way:
__What is â??CLIMATEâ?????
It is fantastic what James Hansen and his colleagues have achieved over the last 20 years without demonstrating that they are able to define in scientific terms what they are talking about.
Indeed an unbelievable success! A unique miracle!! Lasting for ever?
11 June 2007 at 11:26 AM
Re 85 by Climate Skeptic:
Essentially all the points you make have already been dealt with in this forum, some of them several times. You can find answers But making naive estimates based on eyeballing graphs is not going to get you anywhere.to each of the questions you ask by searching the previous topics.
No one claims that CO_2 and other greenhouse gases are the only factors. For example, it is generally agreed that changes in solar radiation played a signficant role early in the 20th century. There are also other factors such a natural variability. But there is one crucial conclusion in the IPCC reports that you should take seriously. There is no way to explain the warming in the least decades of the 20th century without including enhanced warming due to greenhouse gases.
With respect to whether or not aerosols could really make that much difference, the answer is yes.
If indeed, temperatures stabilize at 1998 levels or below, we will luck out, but there is really little reason to believe that. Those who harp on that issue should know it is a phony argu