CO2 equivalents
There was a minor kerfuffle in recent days over claims by Tim Flannery (author of "The Weather Makers") that new information from the upcoming IPCC synthesis report will show that we have reached 455 ppmv CO2_equivalent 10 years ahead of schedule, with predictable implications. This is confused and incorrect, but the definitions of CO2_e, why one would use it and what the relevant level is, are all highly uncertain in many peoples' minds. So here is a quick rundown.
Definition: The CO2_equivalent level is the amount of CO2 that would be required to give the same global mean radiative forcing as the sum of a basket of other forcings. This is a way to include the effects of CH4 and N2O etc. in a simple way, particularly for people doing future impacts or cost-benefit analysis. The equivalent amount is calculated using the IPCC formula for CO2 forcing:
Total Forcing = 5.35 log(CO2_e/CO2_orig)
where CO2_orig is the 1750 concentration (278 ppmv).
Usage: There are two main ways it is used. Firstly, it is often used to group together all the forcings from the Kyoto greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, N2O and CFCs), and secondly to group together all forcings (including ozone, sulphate aerosols, black carbon etc.). The first is simply a convenience, but the second is what matters to the planet. Many stabilisation scenarios, such as are being discussed in UNFCCC negotiations are based on stabilising total CO2_e at 450, 550 or 750 ppmv.
Magnitude The values of CO2_e (Kyoto) and CO2_e (Total) can be calculated from Figure 2.21 and Table 2.12 in the IPCC WG1 Chapter 2. The forcing for CO2, CH4 (including indirect effects), N2O and CFCs is 1.66+0.48+0.07+0.16+0.34=2.71 W/m2 (with around 0.3 W/m2 uncertainty). Using the formula above, that gives CO2_e (Kyoto) = 460 ppmv. However, including all the forcings (some of which are negative), you get a net forcing of around 1.6 W/m2, and a CO2_e (Total) of 375 ppmv with quite a wide error bar. This is, coincidently, close to the actual CO2 level.
Implications The important number is CO2_e (Total) which is around 375 ppmv. Stabilisation scenarios of 450 ppmv or 550 ppmv are therefore still within reach. Claims that we have passed the first target are simply incorrect, however, that is not to say they are easily achievable. It is even more of a stretch to state that we have all of a sudden gone past the 'dangerous' level. It is still not clear what that level is, but if you take a conventional 450 ppmv CO2_e value (which will lead to a net equilibrium warming of ~ 2 deg C above pre-industrial levels), we are still a number of years from that, and we have (probably) not yet committed ourselves to reaching it.
Finally, the IPCC synthesis report is simply a concise summary of the three separate reports that have already come out. It therefore can't be significantly different from what is already available. But this is another example where people are quoting from draft reports that they have neither properly read nor understood and for which better informed opinion is not immediately available. I wish journalists and editors would resist the temptation to jump on leaks like this (though I know it's hard). The situation is confusing enough without adding to it unintentionally.
11 October 2007 at 6:05 PM
Thanks for clarifying this term Gavin. Your explanation covers usage of CO2-e for atmospheric concentrations, which is what Tim Flannery was talking about, but it would probably be useful to explain its usage for emissions as well.
As I understand it, when referring to greenhouse gas emissions, “carbon dioxide equivalent” refers to the amount of carbon dioxide that would give the same warming effect as the effect of the greenhouse gas or greenhouse gases being emitted. It is normally used when attributing aggregate emissions from a particular source over a specified timeframe. It is used in this way at national and international levels to account for greenhouse emissions and reductions over time. Importantly, Article 3 of the Kyoto Protocol states targets for emissions reductions in terms of “aggregate anthropogenic carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of the greenhouse gases listed in Annex A.” [Annex A lists six gases: carbon dioxide (CO2); methane (CH4); nitrous oxide (N2O); hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs); perfluorocarbons (PFCs); and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6)].
Using this approach, for example, Australia’s net greenhouse gas emissions across all sectors in 2004 totalled 564.7 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (see http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/inventory/2004/pubs/inventory2004.pdf).The expected carbon dioxide equivalent emissions from burning different fuels can also be calculated using a standard methodology (see e.g. http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/workbook/pubs/workbook2006.pdf).
Also, it may be a useful point of clarification to note that some authors and inventories refer to “carbon equivalents” when discussing quantities or atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. Figures for “carbon equivalents” can be converted to “carbon dioxide equivalents” by multiplying by 44/12 to take account of the different molecular weights. The IPCC guidelines use “carbon dioxide equivalents” for GHG but “carbon equivalents” is more meaningful than “carbon dioxide equivalents” when discussing the amount of carbon stored in fossil fuels and sinks such as the deep ocean where the carbon is not in gaseous form.
I am not a climate scientist so could you please clarify whether my understanding is correct?
[Response: Yes, that is correct. When used for future emissions over a specific timescale - usually a century, you take the actual emission and multiply it by the Global Warming Potential (GWP) for that gas and that time period. This is good for the well mixed GHGs (CH4, N2O, CFCs) but breaks down for the short-lived species (NOx, VOCs etc.) that are ozone precursors or for aerosols. - gavin]
11 October 2007 at 6:21 PM
I don’t yet comprehend how the ‘dangerous’ level can be set so high.
My reasons are solely based on the Eemian intergalcial (Termination II), about 134 kya. At that time it seems that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere peaked at about 292 ppmv (Vostok Ice Core analysis only, average of the three studies on the NOAA Paleoclimatology site). During the Eemian the sea high stand was about 4 meters higher than today’s sea stand.
I conclude that, roughly, any concentration greater than about 280 ppmv eventually leads to sea stand rise, hence we are currently in peril of eventually seeing quite a substantial sea stand rise. If so, that will be quite a calamity, even if it takes centuries to reach the highest stand.
[Response: There were other differences during the Eemian - specifically orbital configuration changes that meant that NH summers (May-Sep) were much warmer than today. Even though global temperatures were only about 1 or 2 deg warmer than now, Greenland temperatures were more liek 3 to 5 deg C warmer. So if you are looking for predictions, look for cases where Greenland is likely to be that warm (most BAU scenarios by 2100 as it happens - see Overpeck et al, 2006 Science). -gavin]
11 October 2007 at 7:28 PM
Gavin, for the total forcing how do they get the 5.35 number? I’ve seen various number up to 6.2 (ie http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/Resources/gcc/6-5-3.html) or is it just observation?
Not so sure we haven’t commited ourselves to 450 ppmv- anything lower seems entirely unreasonable from a common sense point on how things are moving along. Also would be hard to define “dangerous” levels- to some we already hit that point, but I think ~2 C warming is the beginning of where “alarming ” is. Of concern now seems to be how feedbacks will react and give us more CO2 or more warming- we’ve gotten more humid from the water vapor feedback from the latest Willett et al (Nature) paper, the decline of CO2 sinks (Le Quere et al 2007). Looks like aerosols will mitigate some warming, but I suspect that even those would decline as we get “cleaner” which ironically could give us more warming.
[Response: “5.35″ comes from a fit to line-by-line radiation model results for different CO2 concentrations (Myrhe et al , 1998). - gavin]
11 October 2007 at 7:58 PM
Gavin,
Thanks for covering this. I’ve seen the statement by Flannery used in several places so far.
Chris
11 October 2007 at 8:02 PM
Just to clarify - does mean that the ‘danger level’ is 455ppmv CO2_e (total) rather than 455ppmv CO2_e (Kyoto)?
11 October 2007 at 8:15 PM
Sorry, I can’t follow the technical explanation too well. Are you saying that Tim Flannery has made incorrect claims that we are ahead of the predicted schedule based on his misreading of the draft report, or are you saying that the media did not accurately report what Flannery meant to say?
[Response: I think it’s clear that Flannery made incorrect statements. - gavin]
11 October 2007 at 8:25 PM
Thanks for giving the background to the recent statements on CO2-eq concentration, this has been raising many questions.
If I may add to your explanation though: The figure of 455 ppm CO2-eq comes from converting the value of 2.63 W/m^2 given in WG I Chapter 2, Table 2.12, for the total radiative forcing of “long lived greenhouse gases” to a CO2-eq concentration using the formula that you cite. In your calculation you added the indirect effects of CH4 on stratospheric water vapor but those were classed separately in the WG I report.
What to include, and what not, is, as you have implied, somewhat subjective, but the fact that different radiative forcing agents have very different degrees of persistence into the future, and that the shortest lived components are negative (i.e. cause cooling) is very policy relevant. If all anthropogenic emissions stopped completely tomorrow, total radiative forcing (and warming) would increase - not decrease - due to the rapid removal of aerosols from the atmosphere and the disappearance of their cooling effect. This fact underlies the difficulty that those constructing mitigation scenarios for the 21st century have in coming up with plausible ways of avoiding a warming of 2C.
Of course I agree fully with your final comments on those who leak material from draft IPCC reports. This is usually done inaccurately and out of context. In this case reference to the radiative forcing projections given in the Third Assessment Report shows that there is no basis for saying that long lived greenhouse gases are now 10 years ahead of the projections of a few years ago.
11 October 2007 at 8:38 PM
I’m not sure we’re all referring to the same quantity.
From the Stern Review summary:
“The risks of the worst impacts of climate change can be substantially reduced if greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere can be stabilised between 450 and 550ppm CO2 equivalent (CO2e). The current level is 430ppm CO2e today, and it is rising at more than 2ppm each year.”
The same report shows a 50% chance of a 2 C increase if with a 450 ppm stabilization.
If you’re referring to total forcings, then what is the 50% chance of a 2 C atmospheric level?
[Response: Stern used CO2_e (Kyoto) for today’s level, but CO2_e (Total) when discussing stabilisation scenarios. They shouldn’t have been compared like that. Using a standard sensitivity, 450 ppm gives about 2 deg C - so if you think that we are as likely to be greater than that as less than that (reasonable guess), then 450 ppmv is indeed the level that gives us a 50% chance of avoiding > 2 deg C. - gavin]
11 October 2007 at 8:54 PM
Could you comment on how the lifetime of aerosols effects all this.
In particular, as I understand it a reduction in fossil fuel use will lead to a reduction in emissions of aerosols (the majority of which have a cooling affect). Aren’t the atmospheric lifetimes of these aerosols far shorter than that of the warming gases. Won’t this result in a situation where as we reduce CO2 emissions, some of the current cooling effect will be reduced, while most of the current warming effect remains?
Does your analysis above assume that the total cooling effects of aerosols do not decline?
Also, thanks for all your great work.
Regards,
Michał
11 October 2007 at 9:28 PM
The low value of CO2eTotal is less comforting if the negative forcings arise from the same activities as the positive forcings (e.g. dirty coal combustion). Then measures that reduce CO2 emissions or clean up local air pollution reduce the masking effects on a short time scale, while long-lived gases remain in the atmosphere, so that CO2e would rise rapidly. This effect would seem to make the headroom between 375 and 450 somewhat illusory.
[Response: You are absolutely correct. I was just about to enter my own comment to this effect, but you have done it for me. David]
11 October 2007 at 9:53 PM
Data quality analysis as reported in IPCC WG1 Chapter 2 is not adequate for risk assement data used for decisions affecting large populations. In risk analysis, we are not talking about the fate of clouds, we are talking about the fate of people. We need data of known quality! Data with “wide error bars” does not qualify. At the very least, we need a numerical estimate of how wide those error bars are. That number is not in the text, I do not see a protocol for calculating such a number, or the raw data that could be used in such a calculation. I was on the ASTM Technical Committee for Data Quality for Human Health Risk Assessment. I know that numerical estimates of data quality are not easy. Worse, I know what a blow to the ego such an analysis can be, But, this site is not about “easy”. This site is about honest and correct.
If we do not have good estimates of the error bars, then we need to apply safety factors; as we did when we started doing human health risk assessments of National Priority List hazardous waste sites. Put in a safety factor, and 375 might well become the new 450. Certainly, Gavin might not like that when it is first presented to him. But, if we are considering something that affects 6 billion people, then being only 99.9999% certain says that we do not care about an event that kills three times more people than 911. If we are only 99% certain then, we can expect 70,000,000 to die as a result of our ignorance. How many people’s lives are we willing to lose because we did not do our homework on data quality?
I am not advocating zero risk. I am saying, “Let’s make decisions based on knowledge.”
For background material see http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/
11 October 2007 at 10:13 PM
I guess this has to be clarified. Was Flannery talking about forcing or greenhouse gas concentration? I think it was the latter. If that’s the case, as people at the Hadley Center have shown, we are already at a concentration of over 450ppm of carbon dioxide equivalents, which is dangerous. Yes, you have aerosols and other factors, but we have no clue how much of a cooling effect they’re actually having. We also know that they will probably be gone in the next 10-20 years. After that happens, the full forcing of greenhouse gases currently in the atmosphere will show, pushing us beyond 2C. It’s also important to mention that we have a 50% chance of avoiding 2C if we keep concentrations (of greenhouse gases minus the cooling) at current levels. Because of keeping these things out of discussion, people are setting absolutely wrong targets (i.e. halving world emissions by 2050).
11 October 2007 at 10:20 PM
Gold standard work as ever Gavin. I think the fact that this level is within reach is disturbing enough under any scenario, but the damage occurs when AGW realists like Flannery who is already pilloried by the usual suspects, reach too far beyond the data.
I think the IPCC estimates are biased conservatively, as usually is the case in science, but journalistic hyperbole does the issue a great disservice and makes weakens the effort to turn this thing around. We don’t need that.
11 October 2007 at 10:54 PM
Holly, I think the problem is the journalists have no one to verify any claims that their source is quoting from a discussion draft. The people who do know what’s in the drafts and comments have promised not to leak them.
The last round there was a lot of stuff in the press that didn’t turn out to be right.
12 October 2007 at 1:20 AM
Gavin:
Speaking of outliers.Pat Michaels complains today about peer review at RC in that learned journal ,The American Spectator-
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12155
[Response: Michaels doesn’t bother to notice that RC actually doesn’t have anything to do with Hansen (whose personal thoughts on climate are available here). Hansen’s (and my) peer reviewed output is available at http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov , and I don’t think that Jim is a slouch in that department. - gavin]
12 October 2007 at 2:37 AM
I’d really appreciate a comment of Gavin in the light of contributions #9, 10, 11 and 12. As Gavin himself stated in his response to contribution #1: GWP calculation for specific time horizonts is good for long lived GHGs but breaks down for short-lived species (e.g. aerosols).
12 October 2007 at 2:58 AM
1.) Thanks for this post, as it (once again) makes clear for those laymen like me,
- how difficult it is to put emerging chunks of research information into its place even for scientists who are not immediately involved
- how easily you can achieve a (not even intentional) distortion of research results into facts without proper context, with all the possibly disastrous impact on the broader public.
2.) I’d really appreciate a similar assessment of ‘thawing permafrost’ or ‘melting’ in general.
Several times I stumbled over the assertion, that there are no surprises to expect from thawing permafrost or, recently, accelerated melting in Greenland as well as in Antartica.
At least, those Dansgaard-Oeschger events did happen. And the record minimum arctic sea ice this year definitely shows what is meant by ‘highly nonlinear behaviour’. So I am curious why permafrost thawing should not involve some nasty surprises.
12 October 2007 at 3:56 AM
What is the forcing for C02 without any knock on effects such as increased water vapour?
[Response: “Forcing” doesn’t include those feedbacks - they make a difference to the sensitivity, not the forcing. - gavin]
12 October 2007 at 4:18 AM
Good article, but one fact that I think is missing is the choice of time horizon for the Global Warming Potentials (GWP) and the consequences for the calculation of CO2 equivalent emissions.
IPCC reporting obligations still require the use of the older IPCC Second Assessment Report (SAR) 100-year horizon GWP for national inventories, defining a quasi “standard” for comparable CO2 equivalent emissions / total greenhouse gas emissions.
But IPCC papers such as WG1 Chapter 2 (link in the original article, table 2.14, page 212) give different GWP for 20, 100(!) and 500 year horizons alongside the 100 year SAR values, making it hard for laymen (and even experts, sometimes) to find out which GWP to use for calculations.
12 October 2007 at 4:23 AM
Congrats Al Gore and IPCC!
12 October 2007 at 4:23 AM
Quick off-topic announcement…
… another bloody yank is walking away with the Nobel Peace Prize.
12 October 2007 at 4:26 AM
Congratulations to the IPCC and to Al Gore!
12 October 2007 at 4:27 AM
THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE FOR 2007
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 is to be shared, in two equal parts, between the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.
12 October 2007 at 5:15 AM
But a lot of the “negative” radiative forcing components have atmospheric residence lifetimes of ~week, so are irrelevant to a discussion of CO2_e levels in terms of reaching a stabilisation target.
Isn’t that obvious?
[Response: No. The reason why is that even with that short residence time, continual emissions mean that atmospheric levels stay elevated - contributing to long term changes. It is true that efforts to reduce aerosols (including black carbon) have immediate effects as opposed to CO2 emission cuts which take a while to make a difference to concentrations. - gavin]
12 October 2007 at 5:39 AM
Congrats on winning the Nobel peace prize to Al Gore, the IPCC, and all of you folks that have contributed towards the research and the reports. AGW-naysayers will sooner or later run out of their excuses.
12 October 2007 at 7:25 AM
Mixing sulphates and CO2 in CO2_e(total)?
Don’t they have vastly different time constants of how long they stay present in the atmosphere?
I see problems here.
12 October 2007 at 7:33 AM
Response to #24 - I accept that. On a narrow point of what the instantaneous forcing is equivalent to, then, yes, you obviously have to include the short-lived aerosols.
However, if we ever get to a stable level of CO2, we won’t be emitting sulphate aerosols any longer, or burning vast areas of rainforest (emitting black carbon). In the context of how close we are to various stabilisation targets, then, I think it makes sense to discount short-lived agents whose release is associated with anthropogenic sources of GHGs.
Of course, this also means that you can have an overshoot scenario. In CO2_e terms you could go over the stabilisation target, but move back down to it by reducing levels of the shorter-lived GHGs such as CH4 and NOx. In that sense the non-CO2/CFC part of the CO2_e is not committed to the same extent. (And the fact that CO2_e(Kyoto) ~455ppmv is not quite as alarming).
If it helps, I’m thinking of a timescale for stabilising GHG levels by 2050.
12 October 2007 at 7:34 AM
Please address these simple questions for me, as an intelligent layman concerned about the future of our planet and our children:
1. Even the food we produce and eat is not carbon-neutral, considering the huge amounts of fossil fuel used for producing fertilizers,irrigation,transportation,refrigeration,cooking, etc that go into the food production-consumption chain.
2. Where is the carbon sink that can absorb the CO2 of other man-made consumption processes like automobiles, electricity, aeroplanes,trains, airconditioning, heating,manufacturing, mining etc. which are colossal and their effects cumulative?
3. It appears to me that we are doomed like the mythical ICARUS whose wax-fixed wings melted as he showed off his flying before the sun. In short, no amount of fossil-fuel burning - no matter how less - is ultimately sustainable from the point of view of preventing accumulation of CO2 and waste-heat in the environment, and an eventual over-heating and melt down of the planet.
4. Possibly, human knowledge, wisdom, compassion etc. - and a big dose of humility - may show us the path for a sustainable future, based on essential human needs and not human greeds, as Gandhi pointed out long time ago. Has anyone modelled such a future for some 10 billion humans/animals living on this earth - the life-style they can live without destroying the planet ?
I look forward to learning on the above issues.
12 October 2007 at 7:59 AM
Fair is fair. Shouldn’t Al Gore send a thank you note to all the right-wing nutjobs who have abandoned the scientific high ground and left him standing there alone. I mean after all, without climate change (which to be fair, he was among the first to embrace), he would just be another washed up politician. Now he has an Academy Award, a Nobel Peace Prize and bookies have cut the odds on his becoming President from 10:1 to 8:1. He couldn’t have done it without the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, Senator James Inhoff, Rush Limbaugh, The Cato Institute, Exx-Mob etc. Come on guys step up and take a bow!
12 October 2007 at 8:06 AM
Re different time constants, I believe that is considered when calculating CO2_e.
Thanks, Gavin, for this clarification — I hadn’t checked the numbers for the Stern Review to see if they were internally consistent. Much steeper reductions would be needed to stabilize at 450 ppm if we’re already at 430 ppm, except that we’re already at 460 ppm.
You can see why some of us are confused.
12 October 2007 at 9:06 AM
RE: 12 Aerosols from combustion sources will probably not be reduced to climatologically insignificant levels before 2050. That said, any forecasts need to take into account that their influence will be reduced a few percent every year. Thus, we will get to the 450ppm threshold sooner (say 2030 and not 2050) rather than later as the well mixed GHGs continue to increase in concentration. Tropospheric ozone will also decrease, helping a little bit. Due to the long lead times in developing and installing new energy sources, it is doubtful in my mind that we still have time to avoid the 450ppm level. Taking that into consideration, a prediction today that we are committed to passing a dangerous threshhold is not unreasonable.
12 October 2007 at 9:25 AM
Re #15:
I pointed out the error concerning RC in Pat Michaels’ American Spectator article to him and he told me that he contacted the Spectator about it to have it corrected. So, presumably (hopefully) that will happen.
-Chip Knappenberger
12 October 2007 at 9:56 AM
How good are the negative and positive forcing predictions in the emission scenarios climate modelors use? Hansen’s paper on where we are is good, but how predictable is the future? Specifically, how good are predictions about the timing of the clean up and then phase out (or beginning of CO2 sequestration) of coal fired power plants? Do the scientists involved think they have a good handle on how this will play out or is it a huge source of unpredictability in terms of future temperatures? What if this story’s actions play out in China and Russia? Do these governments have a plan they haven’t shared? Do the industries that seem to run (at times) our governments have a plan they haven’t shared? Should climate modelers be pouring over the minutes of board meetings?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21198255/
810,000 tons of pollutant reductions, 79% reduction in sulfur emissions, 69% reduction in nitrous oxides. Two opposing forcings being reduced simultaneously. Sorry, shouldn’t have had that extra cup.
12 October 2007 at 9:58 AM
Now the mean radiative forcing since 1850 is 1.6W/m2.
We can say that the correspondant temp increasing is 0.8°C.
We can say also that there is some 0.4-05°C “in the pipe”.
Thus about 1.25°C in some decades.
The consecutive sensitivity is something as 0.78°C.m2/W.
With this sensitivity, for 450 ppm of CO2, we get a temperature increase of 2.63W/m2 * 0.78°C.m2/W = 2.06°C.
OK?
My problem is the “0.4-0.5°C in the pipe” which depends on oceanic thermal inertia.
If this inertia becomes very very great, the ocean keeps the heat and the temperature increase no more.(at least as far as complete absorption of CO2)
In this perspective what do you think about the SH ocean cooling since 2003?
12 October 2007 at 10:11 AM
re 14
“Holly, I think the problem is the journalists have no one to verify any claims that their source is quoting from a discussion draft.”
IMHO, another ongoing problem with the media is the lack of verification due to budget cut-backs. No more double and triple checking. Worse, in a very competitive “what have you got now?” market designed around sound bites and 30-second info-clips, the need to be the first to run with a story is subsuming accuracy in favor of profit.
This is one of the reasons the climate “skeptics” are able to keep their game running.
12 October 2007 at 10:15 AM
To complete #33
The SH ocean cooling is showed on this graph with Hadley data:
http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/2380/compthnetohsrl7.jpg
you can see the difference between NH land and SH ocean.
In this context what do you think about this study of Russel and the influence of southern hemisphere westerly winds on the ocean mixing?
http://www.ocean.com/article.asp?locationid=5&resourceid=6940&ProdId=&CatId=9&TabID=&SubTabID=
SO, I don’t contest GHG effects, but if there is a greater oceans mixing the warming should be weaker.
12 October 2007 at 10:27 AM
Ahhh, so what is being said here is that all things considered via +ve and -ve forcings currently add up to Co2_e of 375 ppmv of net forcing. Does this mean that we need to continue polluting to soem degree or does coal do both for us anyway regardless?
12 October 2007 at 10:43 AM
> SH ocean cooling
This? http://crlweb.metri.re.kr/data2/ab312.pdf
“….the mechanism triggering cooling over the region north of the Ross Sea is changes in the ocean circulation over the subdued warming region. Because the cooling in a warming climate is highly localized, it is important to analyze the oceanic processes on regional scales. Here we examine oceanic changes, focusing on the regional processes underlying the regional coolings in response to increased atmospheric GHGs forcing in the CCSM3…. ”
Scary.
12 October 2007 at 11:04 AM
Yeah, “just Hansen” is warning of sea level rise, if you ignore the other 46 co-authors from this paper:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2007/Hansen_etal_1.html
12 October 2007 at 11:16 AM
Congratulations to Al Gore and the IPCC. Well done!
American right wing talk radio is spinning up the lies and usual misinformation about Global Warming and Climate Change. Neil Boortz carried on for an hour this morning about how it’s all a lie forged by the anti-Corporatists. Meanwhile, in North Georgia there only remains about 3 months of water in most of the reservoirs. These people can’t believe their own eyes, much less scientists.
12 October 2007 at 12:03 PM
Question: I have heard skeptics make the claim that many models use a future co2 rise of 1% increase per year, which is higher than co2 is actually rising. I assume they are confusing co2 increase with co2_e increase when they make this claim (?)
[Response: 1% CO2 growth is just a standardised scenario that modellers use so that everyone does the same run, like 2xCO2 - it’s not a prediction. There are lots of more ‘realisitic’ scenarios that are done that have growth rates closer to observed and include all the other factors (like methane, aerosols etc.). - gavin]
12 October 2007 at 12:04 PM
re 14
“Holly, I think the problem is the journalists have no one to verify any claims that their source is quoting from a discussion draft.”
re 35
“IMHO, another ongoing problem with the media is the lack of verification due to budget cut-backs. No more double and triple checking. Worse, in a very competitive “what have you got now?” market designed around sound bites and 30-second info-clips, the need to be the first to run with a story is subsuming accuracy in favor of profit.”
I doubt it is entirely that innocent. If you know any journalists at all, then you are fully aware that advocacy reporting is the purposeful objective of many.
[Response: I know many journalists and that is as far from the truth as it is possible to be - especially when it comes to science issues. - gavin]
12 October 2007 at 12:20 PM
Very strange bedfellows. If Richard Lindzen, Pat Michaels and John Christy served on the IPCC at one time or another, then aren’t they also being recognized along with Al Gore?
12 October 2007 at 12:34 PM
Catman306,
Capitalists tend to be rational creatures. They will continue to ignore reality as long as it is profitable. As long as those royalty checks from Exx-Mob. keep roling in, they can save up to buy the house on the hill and they don’t need to worry if the rest of the town floods. I think it is important for them to realize that they have handed a very powerful issue to their political enemies. It’s gotten their nemesis Al Gore an Oscar and now a Nobel Prize. Bookies have reduced his odds of becoming president from 10:1 to 8:1. The Truth is a powerful weapon even when it is inconvenient.
12 October 2007 at 12:34 PM
Can someone read through this article regarding CO2 future emissions and what cuts are required to see if it is of merit.
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12775-zero-emissions-needed-to-avert-dangerous-warming.html
It seems to be contradicting what is being said here in terms of termperature rises by 2050 and what emissions cuts are needed. 90% minimum
12 October 2007 at 12:38 PM
re 29
“…Shouldn’t Al Gore send a thank you note to all the right-wing nutjobs who have abandoned the scientific high ground…”
re 40
“…right wing talk radio is spinning up the lies…”
I am not scientific and I am one of those you are trying to convince. But when you (and others) use language like that (or find it necessary to whitewash or deny tenure to disagreeing colleagues) I tend to wonder whether you fear your view is indefensible.
The anti’s include reports from the many scientists, including from Canada and Europe, (your colleagues) that point out logical discrepancies that the “for’s” never seem to address other than by denigrating name calling. So who am I supposed to believe, the anti’s, or the name-callers?
The “other” viewpoint should have equal prominence in the news, and I mean equal. But it doesn’t. That fact alone raises red flags.
The “we must prevent the earth from warming” viewpoint predominates in the news, yet no one has ever explained to me why. I remember from elementary school how the earth once had no ice at the poles and the fossil record in northernmost land shows it was tropical, yet the earth wasn’t flooded. Why?
No one has explained why the current warming trend isn’t just another harmless 200-yr cycle. Do we deny cyclical warming and cooling trends?
No one has explained to me why the news a generation ago was constantly lamenting a cooling earth with the same fervency they now lament its warming. Were they wrong then and right now? Or wrong now and right then? Or neither?
On the other hand, that some slight warming has been detected I can accept, but given that, why does it follow that “man” has to do something about it? Why can’t we just live with it?
That is why the subject is debatable, it has nothing to do with “right-wing” which I thought was a political term (and I don’t like politics).
[Response: None of your objections have any validity, I’m afraid - that’s why when they get brought up over and over again, even though they have been debunked dozens of time, people get frustrated. I suggest that you look each of these points up over at Coby Becks guide, or the New Scientist Climate Change Myths page (linked from the ‘Start Here’ page). If you still think these are truly debatable issues, come back and we can discuss. - gavin]
12 October 2007 at 1:11 PM
Gavin — Thank you for the response to my comment #2.
Vinod Gupta (28) — These topics, while interesting, are rather off-topic for Real Climate. There are many alternative sites listed in the sidebar under the heading Other Opinions. Some of those may be of more assistance to you.
But in addition, I encourage you to follow
http://biopact.com/
for new developments regarding bioenergy and the relationships to clean potable water, food and animal feeds.
12 October 2007 at 1:13 PM
Speaking of Hansen, he’s been pilloried in certain quarters for over-predicting sea-level rise for this century. But see this article and this release regarding a new paper (not actually published yet AFAICT, but the GRL draft is available for those who have that subscription):
“Greenland is melting at record speed
“The inland ice on Greenland is vanishing much faster than scientists previously believed. This can be seen from new research results from the Danish National Space Center.
“Each year, in the south eastern part of Greenland alone, the glaciers produce a mass of icebergs which is equivalent to a gigantic ice cube measuring 6-1/2 km on all sides. And the reduction of the inland ice is accelerating. At the moment, four times as much inland ice is disappearing compared to the beginning of the decade.
“‘If this development continues, the melt water from the inland ice will make the world’s seas rise by more than 60 cm this century’, says senior researcher Abbas Khan of the Danish National Research Center, who was responsible for the research project. The results were obtained in co-operation with the University of Colorado and have just been published in the international research magazine Geophysical Research Letters.
“The researchers have measured the rate of melting with special, highly sensitive GPS stations placed on the mountains along the inland ice. When a quantity of inland ice disappears, the pressure on the surrounding mountains eases and they therefore rise slightly. This can be measured by the GPS stations. The measurements show that the mountains along the fast glaciers in south east Greenland are rising by 4-5 cm a year. Meanwhile, the rim of this inland ice will be 100 m thinner a year.”
12 October 2007 at 1:23 PM
A question - Why do GWPs vary with the time scale used time constant used? Wouldn’t the radiative forcing of the molecule, multiplied by it’s average lifetime in the atmosphere, give a GWP that is independent of time (as long as the time scale is long enough)? Or is it that we’re only looking at a time frame that is much longer than average lifetime of the gases?
12 October 2007 at 2:06 PM
Vinod Gupta: #28 There are answers. 1. We all eat vegan diets, with the plant foods grown organically. 2. We get all our power from solar, wind, geothermal, waves, etc. No fossil fuels at all. This can be done. All we need to do is do it.
12 October 2007 at 2:35 PM
Re 42; it may be six of one and half a dozen of the other. I’ve seen journalists make a mess of reporting on another complicated issue because they simply did not know much about the issue; and it would take time to develop an understanding of it. How would a journalist know whether Flannery is wrong or not, unless they’ve studied the specific science or can consult someone knowledgeable?
But you also do get the newspapers like Canada’s National Post, which has an agenda of pushing denialism.
12 October 2007 at 4:11 PM
Question: Is the fact that the melt of Arctic sea ice has progressed faster than IPPC projects meaningful?
If so, are not the IPCC projects possibly behind the curve?
12 October 2007 at 4:23 PM
Stormy (52) — Yes and in my humble opinion, yes to your second question…
12 October 2007 at 4:49 PM
Let’s use Lou Dobbs’ recent comment. “Some argue the science around global warming is questionable.” And in one fell swoop denialists gain equal standing in big media.
13 October 2007 at 10:28 AM
Has Tim Flannery clarified which CO2 equivalent he was quoting in the light of these criticisms?
(BTW, I ‘converted’ a strong AGW sceptic to an AGW believer by buying him Flannery’s book)
13 October 2007 at 11:17 AM
Steve, I read that AlterNet piece and emailed the link to the Contributors here asking if they can check it. AlterNet’s thread is full of garbage. But the article looks unedited (unpaired quote marks so the reader can’t tell what’s a real quote; “Artic” [sic].
I really want to see something better than that to support that story’s claims.
Moulins the size of Niagra Falls?
and this chunk is not checked by anyone for facts or punctuation:
[a melt water lake 500 metres deep causing the glacier “to float on land. “These melt water rivers are lubricating the glacier…]
I’d guess that’s the thickness of ice over top of the meltwater that’s below the ice. Can’t be as stated.
I suspect gross failure of fact checking at AlterNet.
13 October 2007 at 12:17 PM
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL030905.shtml
13 October 2007 at 12:36 PM
Re: Nobel Prize (OT)
Since IPCC got the Nobel Prize, I guess that means that all scientists contributing to the IPCC’s work were honoured. And of course that includes the people at RC. So congratulations to you!
Although the political situation with respect to AGW seems as dismal as ever, I think this calls for a little celebration.
13 October 2007 at 1:29 PM
I want to confirm my understanding.
Calculations of atmospheric GHG levels include assumptions about the lifetime of various greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This value is decreased by the negative GWP of aerosols, not including their lifetimes but rather the assumption that pollution levels will continue high. If fossil fuel emissions are cleaned up more or less rapidly than assumed, this will change assumptions about atmospheric GHG levels.
13 October 2007 at 3:30 PM
Karen, the estimated ‘lifetime’ of the GHG changes, see the link I posted a few responses earlier.
But that’s not because of changes in aerosols. The aerosols (some of them) reduce warming by reflecting incoming sunshine, so they’re a “minus sign” versus the GHG “plus sign” contribution — sulfates from burning high-sulfur diesel and coal, for example.
They wash out within a few years — they have a shorter lifetime.
But lifetime of sulfates doesn’t subtract from lifetime of greenhouse gases. The _effect_ of sulfates subtracts from the effect of the other at any particular point in time, but their lifetimes differ.
13 October 2007 at 4:07 PM
#52-53, Arctic is key, yet very little attention is given to present dramatically underestimated Polar Amplification effects. Imagine this, a vast new body of open sea water, still open, never yet filmed or reported in person, no human contact makes it detached as if this melt happened on Europa. “Out of sight out of mind” is more important to change, than presenting clashing scientific personalities, irrelevant they are, given that we have failed to measure the magnitude of this warming.
13 October 2007 at 4:52 PM
An interesting perspective from our neighbor Venus:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20071013/sc_space/strangemoleculefoundinvenussatmosphere
It would make sense that an anharmonic molecule would have broader absorption lines.
13 October 2007 at 5:14 PM
Re 46 Lee Menningen
To assert that so called “logical discrepancies” raised by skeptics never seem to be addressed, that no one has ever explained to you why “we must prevent the earth from warming”, or why the current warming trend isn’t just another harmless 200-yr cycle, or why the news a generation ago was constantly lamenting a cooling earth, or why it follows that “man” has to do something about it indicates that you have not been very thorough in your own research and reading.
Apparently you have some work to do. I recommend you start here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
13 October 2007 at 5:46 PM
Dick Veldkamp (#58) wrote:
From what I have been reading the political situtation regarding climate change has improved a great deal - just not in the United States and a few other select countries. Countinental Europe? It gets taken seriously. Asia, Africa? For the most part it gets taken a great deal more seriously. United States? Not so much.
But that will undoubtedly change. After a while.
13 October 2007 at 7:13 PM
Lee Menningen, Re:46, It would appear that my point was lost on you. I will spell it out: By embracing antiscience, conservatives have given a formidable weapon to their opponents. Al Gore has wielded that weapon to his advantage. Now, as we start to talk about mitigations and solutions, many conservatives–the ones I call the nutjobs–are still arguing about whether warming is occurring. They have left empty the place at the table where they could present their ideas and solutions. It would appear that either you have not been paying attention or you have some poor sources of information. However, the question of whether we are causing warming is now beyond debate. The conversation has moved on to what we should do about it. I would recommend using the resources on this site to come up to speed so you can discuss the situation intelligently.
Oh, and re 42–have you ever even known a journalist?
13 October 2007 at 7:16 PM
Re. #52, see Realclimate’s article covering the IPCC AR4 WG1 Summary for Policy Makers, which states:
So one would expect the IPCC sea level rise projections to be “behind the curve”, as you put it - it would be odd if they were not.
13 October 2007 at 9:00 PM
Of course, the atmosphere doesn’t care whether the GHGs are emitted by humans or by nature responding to the initial warming humans are causing. If it were just a matter of humans reducing their emissions, we’d probably be more sure about being able to avoid a “tipping point.”
However, if nature’s emissions in response to the current warming (including warming that’s already in the pipeline) are themselves slated to increase in a spiralling fashion, causing more warming, which causes more of nature’s emissions, which causes more warming and so on, then who knows, we may have already passed the tipping point, since CO2_e (Total — both from human emissions and positive feedback from nature) of more than 450 may be a done deal (for some point in the future) no matter how much we reduce. And then there’s the reducing albedo/warming positive feedback loop.
The longer we wait to reduce our GHG emissions, the more it’s becoming a Russian roulette game with our life-support systems.
13 October 2007 at 9:02 PM
I’ve been a fan of both RC since it startyed, and Tim Flannery for even longer. Here in Australia his name is as recognisable as Gore’s on the subject of climate change but he has been a much bigger political thorn to John Howard.
I also like the fact that RC will disagree with it’s supporters when they think their supporters have screwed up a technical point. I don’t have the patience to follow the math and attempt to judge who is technically correct, from my point of view both RC & Tim are credible scientific sources so I will wait for the IPCC.
Quoting from the “implications” above - “It is even more of a stretch to state that we have all of a sudden gone past the ‘dangerous’ level“. Here I have equated “dangerous” to “tipping point” and if we are going to be subjective I’m putting my money on Tim since even the rabid doomsday alarmists grossly underestimated the recent extent of ice loss in the Artic.
14 October 2007 at 4:32 AM
Re 64 (Dick V)
When you consider that each year: 4m die of malnutrition, 3m of HIV/Aids, 2m from lack of clean drinking water, I think you will find that those not living in a comfortable Western society have more immediate concerns. This IS happening NOW - not something predicted by computer models. How is it that these are all problems we could do so much more to address, but instead the international focus is on the more glamorous and popular priorities of Al Gore?
14 October 2007 at 5:10 AM
PHE, Your concern for the poor is touching. What have you done about it?
Do you think that the poor will fare well in a warming world? The only place where I can think of where they have an advantage is Rio de Janiero and Salvador, where the favelas are on hills, while the expensive real estate is along the beach. Moreover, the way to help the poor is to facilitate growth in developing nations and poor regions within so-called developed nations. This growth will be derailed by climate change–which by the way IS happening NOW.
If you would like a suggested itinerary for viewing the plight of the world’s poor, I can suggest travel tips.
14 October 2007 at 6:13 AM
Some practical consequences of CO2 equivalence.
1) methane flaring - either seeping from coal mines or perhaps 80% of the gas at an oil wellhead. Some carbon abatement schemes reward this flaring (note moles CO2 = moles CH4) but I think no GHGs at all is even better ie reinject rather than flare.
2) nitrous oxide from fertilizer - rather than tax the farmer on N20 emissions I think it should be included in an upstream carbon equivalent cap or tax payable by the fertilizer manufacturer. This worsens the existing food vs fuel trade-off but it’s consistent.
14 October 2007 at 6:55 AM
Just returning to one of the points made in the original posting : Quote “the full definition of CO2-eq concentration is lower and therefore 450 ppm CO2-eq (total) is still within reach while 450 CO2-eq (Kyoto-gasses only) is not”.
1. Somehow we did get into a mode of thinking of stabilisation (UNFCCC calls for stabilisation; most model runs stabilise GHG concentrations). There is, however, a very reasonable alternative, i.e. peaking profiles that first “overshoot” an certain target, but further reduce concentrations after the peak is reached. There are already several papers published of authors showing the benefits of such strategies. Allowing for such overshoot implies that 450 is within reach both definitions.
2. Given the fact that S/aerosols emissions are likely to be reduced (see e.g. comment 10) either for health/air pollution reasons and as a “co-benefit” (;-)) of climate policy implies that the two definitions will slowly converge over time. The CO2-eq (Kyoto) has “accididently” already accounted for the negative feedback of reducing S/aerosol impact; the more correct CO2-eq (total) definition has not. Therefore, the error made by Stern (using CO2-eq Kyoto for now; and CO2-eq total in the future), for instance, is less bad as it looks like from current forcing levels. Finally, according to (nearly) all scenarios of emission modellers in both cases we need to allow for overshoot to be able to get to 450 ppm CO2-eq (total) in the end. The reason is the inertia in reducing emissions.
3. There are several scenarios published in literature that account for this - showing that 450 ppm CO2-eq is in reach, even including the removal of S/aerosols forcing - including an article we have published ourselves in Climatic Change earlier this year.
P.S. The clear description of the CO2-eq concentration concept at the beginning of this post is pretty helpful. There is quite a bit of confusion on the CO2-eq concentrations (Kyoto vs. total) but also on CO2-eq concentrations vs. CO2-eq emissions. In recent IPCC discussions we decided to use W/m2 for forcing instead of ppm CO2-eq in order to avoid people (mistakingly!!!) using the arguments against the use of GWPs in CO2-eq emissions against the proposed forcing levels. There was a very obvious downside to this, however, as the group of people that had already got to know the meaning of certain CO2-eq concentration numbers (450 ppm co2-eq for instance) found themselves now in doubt on the corresponding W/m2 numbers.
14 October 2007 at 7:08 AM
Off topic request:
Gore’s film has been criticised by a UK court (don’t know how many scientists were attending). Most of the criticism is aimed at the way the information is framed but there are some items that appear to be at odds with the post on RC about the science in the film being being quite accurate.
http://newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html
While I’m aware that RC does not usually concern itself with the political side of the debate, might some of the fact-based findings of the court (which found the film was broadly accurate) be worth a post?
[Response: You can expect to see something from us on this very soon. - mike]
14 October 2007 at 7:26 AM
Re #64 More pressing problems than AGW?
We have no disagreement here. I think we should also address malnutrition, tropical diseases, lack of drinking water etc. But AGW will most probably makes all the aforementioned problems much worse, so we should be concerned about AGW as well.
I don’t buy the Lomborg dichotomy, that we should choose between either solving AGW or the other problems. By the way, Lomborg is now acknowledging that AGW exists! But it’s just not serious, really, probably even a good thing.
14 October 2007 at 7:29 AM
re: 61
I believe you are right, and that ice free arctic water in the summer is closer than you think.
Taking the look at Cryosphere today, the ice has yet to recover significantly, and we are now at 3 million sq. km. below the long term average (off the bottom of the chart).
Scientists are now whispering in the hallway (but not to the media) that we could have an ice free arctic by 2013. This will result in greater release of green house gasses by the melting of the permafrost, not to mention the possible release of methane-hydrates if the arctic ocean as it gets warmer.
The denialists will still say this is part of normal varibility, and they will probably still say it even when half of Florida is under water.
14 October 2007 at 9:12 AM
Re 65 PHE: “How is it that these are all problems we could do so much more to address, but instead the international focus is on the more glamorous and popular priorities of Al Gore?”
Why is it that you and your ilk, sir, continually attempt to portray the argument as an either or situation? You also seem to expect the public to conveniently ignore the fact that those in government and industry who take the lead in obfuscation on climate change are hardly leading the charge to address HIV/AIDS, malnutrition and drinking water. Seems like a classic case of deliberate misdirection to me.
14 October 2007 at 9:31 AM
Re: 65
I find that pitting one issue against another in this style, most popularised by Bjorn Lomborg, quite depressing.
The fact of the matter is that the proposed solutions to many of the world’s problems would act synergistically.
Contraction and convergence of CO2 emmissions would necessarily result in a redistribution of wealth from rich to poor nations. Furthermore the coupling of this transfer with tools to accelerate sustainable development, i.e. universal primary education, but specifically targeted at girls, and free access to birth control would result in a reduction of sexually transmitted diseases and a reduced fertility rate.
To set up these problems against one another is to miss the point. It does allow us to dither. It is also quite something to hear the rich west go on about it when going on about it is pretty much all we have been doing for the last 50 years or so.
14 October 2007 at 9:39 AM
Lee Menningen wrote: The “other” viewpoint should have equal prominence in the news, and I mean equal.
No, when the “other” viewpoint is demonstrably objectively wrong, it should not be given “equal prominence in the news”.
This is the case with the “viewpoint” that global warming is not happening, or is not caused by human activities, or is unlikely to have any serious negative consequences — it’s a “viewpoint” that is simply wrong, untrue, and incorrect. It is a “viewpoint” that should not be given any prominence in the news, except perhaps to note in passing that there remains a tiny group of people (some of them being paid propagandists for the fossil fuel industry and its political allies) who insist on denying the reality of anthropogenic global warming in spite of the overwhelming and utterly conclusive scientific evidence of its reality and its dangers.
And yet this objectively wrong “viewpoint” is, in fact, often given equal or greater prominence in the “news” with the actual reality that global warming is happening, is caused by human activities, and is likely to have very serious negative consequences not only for the entire human species but for life on Earth.
So, you are doubly wrong: what you are asking for is wrong; and you are also wrong to complain that you are not getting what you are asking for, since the “news” already gives unwarranted “prominence” to the objectively wrong viewpoint that you refer to.
14 October 2007 at 9:44 AM
This may be a repeat as the fist attempt didn’t go.
Re: 69
I find the pitting of these issues against one another, most popularised by Bjorn Lomborg, a depressing spectacle.
Let us leave aside for the moment the exemplary behaviour of the richer nations in fighting the problems of food and water scarcity and the HIV pandemic. No doubt had climate change not hijacked the minds of the benevolent classes these issues would by now be consigned to history.
The fact of the matter is that the solutions would happen to be rather synergistic.
Contraction and convergence would by necessity result in a massive transfer of wealth from rich to poor nations.
The decarbonization of society will by necessity result in improved public health, as we eat better and do more physical work.
The sustainable development of poorer nations, paid for by this mechanism, primarily starting with universal primary education especially for girls, and freely accessible family planning, would result in great health advances, a reduced fertility rate, reduced population and therefore resource demands.
The fact that we have pretty much failed to address these issues at least on one continent should be worrying in the face of climate change, because after all the brunt of the effects on disease, food supply, water supply, and land supply will be felt not by the rich but the poor.
14 October 2007 at 10:44 AM
Re 75 concerned: “This will result in greater release of green house gasses by the melting of the permafrost…”
It’s already happening. The closing segment on yesterday’s CBC Radio Quirks and Quarks science program was on permafrost melting.
[2007-10-13 podcast mp3 file available here: http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/podcast.html ]
In the segment, When The Permafrost is No Longer Permanent, physical geographer Dr. Scott Lamoureux of Queens University reports that annual average depth of permafrost melt on Canada’s Melville Island in the high Arctic has increased from aprox. 50 cm to over 1 meter in depth, leading to sloughing of entire hillsides. Plant biologist Dr. Merrit Turetsky of Michigan State University reports Increases in CO2 and methane off gassing have also been observed, although it turns out much of the CO2 is then taken up by new plant growth at the tundra surface.
14 October 2007 at 10:56 AM
Jim Eager> Why is it that you and your ilk, sir, continually attempt to portray the argument as an either or situation?
Probably because in reality, it is mostly either-or. Doubling (or more) the cost of electricity to mitigate AGW may be bearable for you personally, but for many it means no electricity at all in their shortened lifetime.
I can understand questioning whether this is correct, but why do you (and others here) so question the sincerity of those of us who believe this?
14 October 2007 at 1:18 PM
Steve Reynolds asked: “I can understand questioning whether this is correct, but why do you (and others here) so question the sincerity of those of us who believe this?”
Steve, if someone brings up a concern for the poor whenever the need to mitigate climate change is mentioned, is it not fair to ask what they are doing to improve the lot of the poor in the absence of such mitigation? As I see no bold proposals coming from those most vocal in their protests, is it not fair to question their sincerity?
In any case, the “choice” between development and climate change mitigation is a false dichotomy. If we concentrate on the latter at the cost of the former, poor nations will continue to grow in population and burn dirty fuels, spoiling our efforts. If we concentrate on development while ignoring climate change, the effects of climate change will frustrate our efforts. These are two sides of the same coin.
14 October 2007 at 3:02 PM
#75, 2013? It all depends on this years refreeze, as an example from time immemorial, pack ice offers a reprieve from winds, facilitating freezing of its interspersed open water. If there is a wide open body of water, this refreeze is more difficult. there are winds, currents, tides and huge waves to overcome before the surface freezes, but there is also sea surface temperatures and its temperature profile from the surface downwards. In a wind storm mixing of the underlying water occurs. If it is much warmer than the air above this impedes
the freeze up even further. Finally there is the cloud seeding biology factor,
usually from creatures living under the ice cover, no ice no seeding production.
2013 may not be too far off. So far I’ve seen near by sea water in relatively calm winds survive open even when temperatures dipped to -13 C (location 74 43N 94 57W). Whatever mini pack ice patches there was, freezing occurred in between the old ice cakes.
But the question of when it wil the Arctic Ocean be wide open is not as important as to why it melted so fast this year. I suggest hot anticyclones
as one of the reasons, the evidence about that seems quite clear. The long standing ongoing yearly momentum in a downward melting trend seems unstoppable.
14 October 2007 at 3:04 PM
In economics there is a continual churning of prices. In the not so distant past I can remember buying gasoline for a $1.10 a gallon. It has more than doubled. Other things are cheaper, which is why there has been far less inflation than the doubling of a pervasive commodity in the economy might suggest would happen. The fact that other things are cheaper is a big reason why higher gasoline prices have not resulted in lower demand for gasoline.
So it is not necessarily true that a doubling of electricity cost to mitigate AGW will have a negative impact on the overall economy. Nothing happens in isolation. There are robust economic opportunities - unless one is dumber than the rock Larry Kudlow is dumber than - in mitigating global warming.
14 October 2007 at 3:15 PM
Re #73 AIT judged by UK Court - useful links
A summary of the verdict is:
1. The main claims of AIT are undisputed and solidly backed by science (curiously, all newspapers forgot to to mention this part)
2. There’s a couple of details which are a little outside the consencus view.
The New Scientist looked at the ‘errors’ in AIT:
http://www.newscientist.com/blog/environment/2007/10/al-gores-inconvenient-truth.html
And Tim Lambert already wrote a good piece about the issue. See here:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/an_error_is_not_the_same_thing.php
14 October 2007 at 3:28 PM
Re 82 (Ray L). Al Gore is the one making the strongest arguments and winning the acolades. How does he demonstrate his sincerity? Carbon offsetting does not count. I agree with AGW compaigner and journalist George Monbiot on this - that it is the equivalent of the medieval buying of indulgences. If Gore can resist flying to Oslo to receive his Nobel prize in person, I would have a bit more respect for him. If he genuninely believes the threats he is claiming, it would be a powerful symbol to receive it by video link. Let’s see.
Of course, a lot is being done to deal with problems in the developing world. But it seems the international establishment (with Oscars, Nobel prize, etc) is putting more emphasis on what is PREDICTED to happen sometime in the future than disasters of today. However much you accept AGW is real and happening today, the idea that impacts will be greater than today’s tragedies or natural disasters (of any time) is little more than speculation.
14 October 2007 at 3:33 PM
I’m sitting here in Africa frizzling away in higher and higher temps each year.
It is my opinion that the powers that be - governments, the UN, the super wealthy, the world’s movers and shakers - WANT global warming, and they want it quickly and they are promoting, encouraging and advancing it.
Why? OIL of course. The melting of the polar regions - north and south will open up huge oil reserves for easy access. The Northwest passage linking Asia and Europe has melted and is open for shipping. Shipping of OIL from the melting Siberian tundra oilfields….
Media coverage is a pretence. I am sick to death of the northern hemisphere nations thinking they own the world and can mess it up at will.
Thousands of scientists can sit and ponder the problem for the past decades and the decades to come. “At least we tried…” is what the govts will proclaim. The solution is simple: International laws need to be passed that will prohibit the use of gas guzzling, huge emitting vehicles to be manufactured; industry emissions must be cut to minimal - there are laws governing every aspect of our daily life. Why not to save our planet? People must be told - if you do not stop flying you will not have an earth to live on in 10 years time. Not 100 years time - not 50 years time. 10 years time… And if you don’t stop consuming like gobbling monsters you will wipe your one and only home, the earth, off the face of the universe.
But above all - it does not take a thousand scientists to work out the most simple of all. It does not take a genius to arrive at the most easy solution. FORESTS. I will say it again - FORESTS. 24% of the earth’s surface used to be covered by forest. Not just rainforest - but all forest - arboreal, equatorial, arctic, etc. All that is left after our plunder and consumption is 6%. I will say it again - 6%. A fourth-grader knows that trees suck up carbon. No trees + more carbon = disaster. So simple solution - INTERNATIONAL LAW - NO MORE FOREST DESTRUCTION - PLANT MORE TREES. Every person, even those living on a suburban plot in a city must plant trees. Factories and industries must plant trees. USE EARTHWORM COMPOST TO FERTILISE THESE TREES (and get rid of waste at the same time in an ecologically mindful way). SIMPLE..
Oh, and refreeze the arctic with liquid nitrogen (could this be done?????) Money and economics should not be an issue. Money is a man-made phenomenon, as is economics - money and what the cost would be cannot be of the slightest concern in this most dire calamity facing us.
So, this sounds like unscientific claptrap? Well, I’m from Africa - what do I know?
14 October 2007 at 3:52 PM
re post 83:- I have seen somewhere that 2 anti-AGW ‘experts’ advising in this case were Bob carter & prof ? Philip? Stott (london). I am trying to find out who put pro-AGW arguments.
And re my earlier posts, back on topic, has Tim Flannery clearly stated which CO2 equivalent he used ? & Why, or has he conceded that he was not 100% correct?
I just want to know the truth - having great respect for him and the RC team.
14 October 2007 at 5:12 PM
Tim Flannery’s statement and statements in a similar vein from Al Gore that we need to “save the future of this civilization” - a direct quote - seem likely to push climate science from “important research” to abetting “hysteria.” At what point will the credibility of good people be ruined beyond repair by all of this.
14 October 2007 at 5:46 PM
Ray Ladbury> Steve, if someone brings up a concern for the poor whenever the need to mitigate climate change is mentioned, is it not fair to ask what they are doing to improve the lot of the poor in the absence of such mitigation?
Yes.
Ray> As I see no bold proposals coming from those most vocal in their protests, is it not fair to question their sincerity?
No. That assumes that the best solution will come from ‘bold proposals’. I see the people of China and India making faster progress in improving their lot than just about any people at any time in the history of the world. I can and do help them by investing in their development and buying their products.
My (not so) bold proposal for the people of less rapidly developing areas (including our commenter from Africa) is to emulate China and India. My opinion is that involves massive reductions in government corruption.
Ray> If we concentrate on development while ignoring climate change, the effects of climate change will frustrate our efforts.
Maybe it is because I do not see AGW being quite the immediate crisis that many here do, I think there is time for the rapidly developing peoples to become rich enough to solve their pollution problems (and becoming rich appears to automatically solve population problems).
I expect there are benefits to helping to educate the people of slowly developing nations (education is something difficult for a government to steal, and it reduces population growth).
14 October 2007 at 6:19 PM
Re. #76, Jim Eager:
It’s even more hypocritical than that implies: the primary reason the US Government gave for not ratifying the Kyoto Protocol was precisely the fact that the protocol contained no target for developing countries to reduce their emissions. In other words, unless the poorest nations had to pay part of the price of tackling the problem from the very start of the agreement, the US wasn’t willing to pay any of it.
See for example, Wikipedia, which states:
14 October 2007 at 6:29 PM
Nice post, and it’s nice to see the IPCC being recognized for their work despite the constant attacks they get from all sides. Keep in mind that they take the most conservative viewpoint, scientifically speaking.
Journals and editors are busy and understaffed, but instead of jumping on IPCC leaks, they might instead want to spend more time looking at the recent scientific literature - which does attempt to address the issue of carbon cycle feedbacks, which seems to be the underlying theme here.
Regarding CO2 equivalents usage: (quote) “There are two main ways it is used. Firstly, it is often used to group together all the forcings from the Kyoto greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, N2O and CFCs), and secondly to group together all forcings (including ozone, sulphate aerosols, black carbon etc.). The first is simply a convenience, but the second is what matters to the planet. Many stabilisation scenarios, such as are being discussed in UNFCCC negotiations are based on stabilising total CO2_e at 450, 550 or 750 ppmv.”
One point: due to the windows in the CO2 IR spectrum, can’t reducing the levels of some of the ‘window-filling’ gases have an effect that lies outside the “CO2 equivalents” notion? Thus, by reducing methane and nitrous oxide and CFC’s, we keep the CO2 windows open - an effect which is underestimated by the ‘CO2 equivalents’ measure?
So, as I understand it the most recent IPCC report didn’t consider two issues due their uncertain nature: carbon-cycle feedbacks in a warming world, and ice-sheet dynamics. Hopefully they’ll attempt to address this in their new report. That might be something worth reporting on.
Considering that in the past, CO2 and methane emissions have been triggered as a secondary effect of a warming planet, to what extent are we risking this under the above-mentioned stabilization scenarios? Do we really know at all? Considering the amount of carbon stored in permafrost and shallow sea sediments, and also considering the accelerating warming in the Arctic, and the potential for similar effects in the Antarctic, can we be sure these ’stabilization scenarios’ would really be stable?
Here are some news reports on papers addressing the carbon-cycle feedback effect:
Melting Russian Permafrost Could Accelerate Global Warming, ENS 2006
Polar ocean is sucking up less carbon dioxide, Nature News 2007
This seems pretty important. Imagine if a 50% reduction in fossil fuel CO2 emissions had no effect on the rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere due to a combination of ‘natural’ CO2 release and weakened CO2 sinks - that’s worrisome.
14 October 2007 at 7:01 PM
OK, I see the need for a “CO2 equivalent”, but is CO2 itself all that simple to measure and simply report? It seems easy to just measure CO2 content at various places, but the concentration varies from place to place, with altitude and season, etc - Could someone give a primer on that, and also rebutt criticism from skeptics about a major CO2 monitoring station being near a Hawaiian volcano which often belches CO2, etc? Thanks.
14 October 2007 at 8:03 PM
Re. #87, Bob Clipperton, the pro-AGW arguments were put by Peter Stott.
14 October 2007 at 8:07 PM
I would like to offer congratulations to Tim Flannery for drawing attention to the importance of the contribution of fluorocarbons to rising global warming emissions. I eagerly await the Synthesis eport figures, but this really should come as no surprise as the IPCC established that halocarbons have been a very significant and rapidly growing slice of the emissions in 2005 - 13% relative to pre-industrial levels of greenhouse gases and 23% relative to 1970 levels - see below.
Accumulation in the atmosphere of all refrigerants apart from CFCs are growing at alarming rates (see http://agage.eas.gatech.edu/data.htm ), yet these very powerful greenhouse gases are much neglected in discussions of the causes and solutions of global warming.
If the 20 year GWP timeframe for these gases were used (which is much more closely related to the atmospheric lifetimes of HCFC-22 and HFC-134a) the CO2-e values would be dramatically higher than currently accepted, and I would welcome some further comment from real climate on this issue.
Huge opportunities exist to control the use and emissions of these dangerous gases by introducing an appropriate mix of polices to provide incentives for the development and uptake of technologies, and an effective carbon-equivalent price signal to create incentives to invest in low-GHG refrigeration and air conditioning products, technologies and processes, as recommended by the IPCC. Ammonia, carbon dioxide and hydrocarbons offer a wide range of solutions to reduce HCFC and HFC emissions, and there need to be much great efforts taken worldwide to reclaim the existing refrigerant bank.
Much greater attention to these issues is urgently required from all stakeholders in the climate change debate.
Brent Hoare
[from p.25 of the Technical Summary of the IPCC Special Report on Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System Issues related to Hydrofluorocarbons and Perfluorocarbons, 2005]
2.4 How much do the halocarbon gases and their replacements contribute to positive radiative forcing of the climate system relative to 1970?
The direct radiative forcing due to increases in halocarbons from 1970 to 2000 was 0.27 0.03 W m2, which represents about 23% of that due to increases in all of the well-mixed GHGs. The contribution to direct radiative forcing due to HCFCs is presently dominated by HCFC-22, while that due to HFCs is dominated by HFC-134a and HFC-23, with the latter being emitted mainly as a byproduct of manufacture of HCFC-22. [1.1, 1.5] 10
14 October 2007 at 8:13 PM
petefontana, re 88. What do you suppose will happen in a world with 11 billion people if we lose the ability to grow wheat? Potatos? What if precipitation becomes unpredictable and falls predominantly in destructive, impulsive events? What if it does not fall at all for years in many places? Ask Australian farmers about their futures.
All of human civilization has evolved during the past 10000 years–a time of exceptional climatic stability. Remove that stability, and do you think that will be a boon to that civilization. There is an old saying: If you can keep you head when all around you are afraid, you probably don’t understand the situation.
14 October 2007 at 8:32 PM
Tim Flannery’s statement and statements in a similar vein from Al Gore that we need to “save the future of this civilization” - a direct quote - seem likely to push climate science from “important research” to abetting “hysteria.” At what point will the credibility of good people be ruined beyond repair by all of this.
petefontana, I realize this is off topic, and I understand if this post doesn’t make it to the board. I’ve been lurking here on and off for a while and over at other blogs so I can get a handle on the history and basis of this whole debate that should be past debate. I can understand the frustration people here feel with the politicization of the science. Politicization of an issue so fraught with economic interests and implications is inevitable and unavoidable. It’s the reality we face.
Policy analysis is my profession and I can tell you that developing policy is maddeningly complicated and hair-pullingly frustrating. I compile (I don’t do it) the research; I have a sense of what should be done based on the research, but then the politics, resources, competing interests, etc., come into play and affect the policy process. Ultimately, if it isn’t in “the plan”, if it isn’t part of “the vision” - of the party in power or the administration - and no matter how convinced the analysts might be based on the science, it doesn’t matter what the science says. The politicians have the final say in what gets written.
Conversely, if it is in the vision, it’s possible to twist the research to say what you want it to say or support whatever policy you want to put forward. Argh! I’ve seen both happen in my time.
Part of me doesn’t like to see scientsts become politically active because then they lose a certain aura of objectivity and that adds an additional layer of complexity to the whole process. It’s also painful to see scientists used as pawns in a game they might not completely comprehend. That said, I can appreciate that scientists are citizens and have concerns based on the research they are conducting. I also don’t like to see laypeople get the science wrong and overstate case, for that also affects the policy process and political will and just adds to the aura of uncertainty. Earnest laypeople with an incomplete understanding of the science can throw a spanner in the works, so to speak.
Policy makers need the very best unbiased science at hand in order to take us from the science to the best most effective policies and legislation and then on to the implementation and enforcement.
Ultimately, if there is no political will, all the best most objective science will go nowhere. That’s what some are working to accomplish. Kill the political will that might exist already and/or prevent it from materializing.
14 October 2007 at 8:41 PM
Re. #91, Neil Bates.
The Hawaiian volcano is covered on Gristmill.
I’m not sure how the global mean concentration is calculated though.
14 October 2007 at 9:25 PM
Man, is it going to get hot in the next 200 years. Once those landmasses start heating up, combined with the sea level rise and co2 levels that will keep those feverish temps in place, e don’t stand much of a chance. I personally believe both the ocean currents will stop and the ice shelf will fall into the ocean, you people are way too optimistic. The globe is warming, and we are in big, big trouble.
14 October 2007 at 9:51 PM
A major point which appears not much commented on is most of the GHG equivalent consists of gases with relatively short atmospheric lifetimes. Thus their effect diminishes with time. This is caught in GHG potential over specific time periods, which captures both the IR activity of a gas and its atmospheric lifetime. For example, quoting from the Wikipedia on greenhouse gases:
“Methane has an atmospheric lifetime of 12 ± 3 years and a GWP of 62 over 20 years, 23 over 100 years and 7 over 500 years. The decrease in GWP associated with longer times is associated with the fact that the methane is degraded to water and CO2 by chemical reactions in the atmosphere.”
14 October 2007 at 10:04 PM
There is a very long and important monograph which describes how volcanic and other effects were dealt with (and shown to be minimal in any case) and Mauna Loa. Unfortunately this has disappeared from the net when it was published (I think in the Journal of Climate), but an image is available via the wayback machine. You can find a description of the publications here
14 October 2007 at 10:07 PM
Sorry, the link to the wayback machine image here
14 October 2007 at 10:23 PM
Congrats to the IPCC contributors here on the Nobel — I wanted to say this earlier but the site was unreachable for a while, which I hope means a lot of people were trying to get there.
Predictably, in Australia, we are already seeing letters in the press saying the Nobel was not deserved. HOWEVER: The Australian’s letters page in the same edition includes not one bit two corrections of a letter claiming that the recent adjustment of long-term US temperature data showed global warming wasn’t happening. This is a new one: The Australian is usually happy to let factual errors favouring the denial cause stand:
Anyone up for nominating the denial crowd for an Ig Nobel ?
15 October 2007 at 12:41 AM
Re. #91, Neil Bates and the excellent responses by Dave Rado and Eli Rabett.
A week and a half ago I was on the summit of Mauna Kea looking across to Mauna Loa and the location of the Mauna Loa Observatory. I, too, was wondering about the impact of eruptions on their measurements. But the observatory is at elevation of 3400 meters on the northern flank of Mauna Loa ( 4169 meters), and the eruptions of the past few decades have been on the south side of Mauna Loa and below 1000 meters. And the trade winds normally blow strongly from west to east, so the vast majority of emissions from the eruptions do not reach the observatory.
Yes, there are some CO2 emissions from the summit caldera of Mauna Loa, but as seen from the articles referenced by Dave Rado and Eli Rabett, the observatory is well aware of them and have taken that into consideration in their measurements. Of course, when Mauna Loa erupts again from its summit, all bets are off.
15 October 2007 at 12:51 AM
Surly and Ray Ladbury, thanks. In my not so spectacular doctoral studies, I took away one thing of value. - It was this, science is special. The practice of it is wonderful and almost noble. I would rather die honest, than live crooked.
15 October 2007 at 3:58 AM
Re:- #87 & #92
Dave,
I deliberately put question marks before ‘Stott’ because I know there are several scientists in the UK of that name*. Unfortunately, I can’t recall where I saw that a Stott was advising on the anti-AGW case so I assumed it was Phillip Stott - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Stott
If this was the case, it must have been confusing for the judge - a case of Stott vs Stott.
* I think there is another scientist ‘Stott’ in Reading University besides the 2 mentioned here.
15 October 2007 at 5:06 AM
An outcry from Africa (#86) and nobody responds. Are we able to listen to others and response to their suggestions? What about the discrepancy between the view of podwalker (#86) and the alleged helpful growth proposal of Ray Ladbury (#70)? Will growth really cure the problems? (See for instance AR4 WG3 Chap. 1 Fig. 5 and the paper by Raupach et al. PNAS 104, 10288-10293 2007 who equate CO2 emissions growth to GDP and population growth and showed that true decabonization of growing economies still lack to be demonstrated.) And what if those who we are pretending to help with our cure oppose it? Wouldn’t it be better to ask them first?
I think all of the propositions of podwalker are worth to be considered (with the exception of the liquid nitrogen freezing the polar Arctic Ocean).
15 October 2007 at 5:54 AM
Bob Clipperton
It’s even more confusing than this! P Stott and P Stott are on opposite sides of the debate. The only way to tell them apart is to realize that Peter Stott is a climatologist and knows what he is talking about, and Phillip Stott doesn’t.
15 October 2007 at 6:32 AM
#104 Bob Clipperton,
I think the Stott at Reading University may be the same Stott as at the Hadley Centre. Reading has a large meteorology & climate section, and has close ties with the Met Office (and thus the Hadley Centre). This was especially true when the two were just down the road from each other. However I apologise to both if I’m wrong.
15 October 2007 at 6:37 AM
[[Doubling (or more) the cost of electricity to mitigate AGW may be bearable for you personally, but for many it means no electricity at all in their shortened lifetime.]]
Who in the world is proposing doubling the cost of electricity? Where did you get that idea?
15 October 2007 at 7:03 AM
What is the net forcing in MJ integrated across the planet and over 100 years of 1000kg CO2 emitted today.
15 October 2007 at 8:47 AM
Group, the Hansen et al paper referred to in post 39 above I have now read, thanks to the poster. For a non-expert like me it is difficult keeping up to date but I try, and reading RC every week helps me do that. Thanks to the Group and all (yes, all) posters.
The paper was up dated in march 2007 : have there been any further developments since that date which are likely to significantly impact on the comments in section 6 or elsewhere in that paper, please? If you dont feel able to respond could you point me in the right direction please.
15 October 2007 at 9:00 AM
Surly and Ray Ladbury, thanks. In my not so spectacular doctoral studies, I took away one thing of value. - It was this, science is special. The practice of it is wonderful and almost noble. I would rather die honest, than live crooked.
Pete Fontana, in my similarly non-spectacular doctoral studies, I came to realize that there are a few honest politicians and a few dishonest scientists. The former make me feel my job is worth doing while the latter make us all knock our heads against walls.
15 October 2007 at 9:22 AM
RE # 69 & “When you consider that each year: 4m die of malnutrition…”
Aside from the point some of that malnutrition is from lower crop yield due to global warming even now….
The bigger point for me at least is that through GW we are NOW killing people now and well into the future. Some of our today’s emissions may last in the atmosphere up to 100,000 years in the future.
When people die from natural causes, naturally occuring droughts & storms & disease vectors, and from their unwise behavior that’s only a sin of omission on our part (IF we could have prevented that). But anthropogenic global warming is fully a sin of commission.
And victims of harms feel much more indignation if the harm has been caused by people rather than nature - even when the harm is at the same level.
What we need is a victim-oriented (& you’d think policy-maker) approach (of avoiding harms from global warming) to balance out the scientific approach (of avoiding false claims about global warming happening & causing harms).
15 October 2007 at 9:23 AM
Just for my own enlighenment. the formula for CO2-e as given above as
Total Forcing = 5.35 log(CO2_e/CO2_orig)
where CO2_orig is the 1750 concentration (278 ppmv).
This is equal to F= 5.35(lnCO2-e lnCO2-orig)
In other words we’re subtracting the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere at the start of the industrial era,(278ppm)from the present, which is taken at the zero point as far as forcing is concerned. So what we are computing is the radiative forcing since the preindusrial period.
I suppose this is done because the systems( carbon exchange between ocean and atmosphere et al) were pretty much in balance until this time.
15 October 2007 at 9:46 AM
Lawrence Brown, Don’t forget the logarithms–they’re important. The subtraction of the logarithm just means we are interested in the incremental heating, which is what WE have contributed.
15 October 2007 at 10:01 AM
Surly and petefontana, Since we all share the distinction of undistinguished doctoral studies, I thought I’d share, too. My wife worked for a while for a certain agency that is concerned with environmental quality. One day her boss was in despair over the fact that the 800 page report he was compiling would just be ignored by the political hacks making policy. My wife, ever the practical type, said, “It’s not our job to tell the politicians what to do. It’s our job to do the science so that when the politicians fail to do what’s right, the government gets sued and the proper policies get put in place.”
It is extremely unfortunate that people continue to think that they can spin physical reality to their liking. What is even more unfortunate is that where risk is concerned, an unknown risk is of at least as much concern as a high risk. Risk management and science often have opposite tendencies. Science tends to state its conclusions conservatively. However, uncertainty with regard to the effects of climate change is not our friend here. Until we can reduce the uncertainty, it is prudent to assume that the worst case CAN occur.
15 October 2007 at 10:53 AM
Re 81 Steve Reynolds: “I can understand questioning whether this is correct, but why do you (and others here) so question the sincerity of those of us who believe this?”
Because I have seen this disingenuous, false dichotomy tactic used over and over in any number of public policy debates, almost always by those with an agenda that has nothing what ever to do with the alternatives put forth. Because, as Ray wrote, global climate change is happening NOW, and because it can only exacerbate the disruption, misery and death caused by HIV/AIDS, malnutrition and lack of potable water.
15 October 2007 at 11:09 AM
I’d like to see another “total” — some total that would take into accou