The following editorial was published today by 56 newspapers around the world in 20 languages including Chinese, Arabic and Russian. The text was drafted by a Guardian team during more than a month of consultations with editors from more than 20 of the papers involved. Like The Guardian most of the newspapers have taken the unusual step of featuring the editorial on their front page.
RealClimate takes no formal position on the statements made in the editorial.
Copenhagen climate change conference: Fourteen days to seal history’s judgment on this generation
Today 56 newspapers in 45 countries take the unprecedented step of speaking with one voice through a common editorial. We do so because humanity faces a profound emergency.
Unless we combine to take decisive action, climate change will ravage our planet, and with it our prosperity and security. The dangers have been becoming apparent for a generation. Now the facts have started to speak: 11 of the past 14 years have been the warmest on record, the Arctic ice-cap is melting and last year’s inflamed oil and food prices provide a foretaste of future havoc. In scientific journals the question is no longer whether humans are to blame, but how little time we have got left to limit the damage. Yet so far the world’s response has been feeble and half-hearted.
Climate change has been caused over centuries, has consequences that will endure for all time and our prospects of taming it will be determined in the next 14 days. We call on the representatives of the 192 countries gathered in Copenhagen not to hesitate, not to fall into dispute, not to blame each other but to seize opportunity from the greatest modern failure of politics. This should not be a fight between the rich world and the poor world, or between east and west. Climate change affects everyone, and must be solved by everyone.
The science is complex but the facts are clear. The world needs to take steps to limit temperature rises to 2C, an aim that will require global emissions to peak and begin falling within the next 5-10 years. A bigger rise of 3-4C — the smallest increase we can prudently expect to follow inaction — would parch continents, turning farmland into desert. Half of all species could become extinct, untold millions of people would be displaced, whole nations drowned by the sea. The controversy over emails by British researchers that suggest they tried to suppress inconvenient data has muddied the waters but failed to dent the mass of evidence on which these predictions are based.
Few believe that Copenhagen can any longer produce a fully polished treaty; real progress towards one could only begin with the arrival of President Obama in the White House and the reversal of years of US obstructionism. Even now the world finds itself at the mercy of American domestic politics, for the president cannot fully commit to the action required until the US Congress has done so.
But the politicians in Copenhagen can and must agree the essential elements of a fair and effective deal and, crucially, a firm timetable for turning it into a treaty. Next June’s UN climate meeting in Bonn should be their deadline. As one negotiator put it: “We can go into extra time but we can’t afford a replay.”
At the deal’s heart must be a settlement between the rich world and the developing world covering how the burden of fighting climate change will be divided — and how we will share a newly precious resource: the trillion or so tonnes of carbon that we can emit before the mercury rises to dangerous levels.
Rich nations like to point to the arithmetic truth that there can be no solution until developing giants such as China take more radical steps than they have so far. But the rich world is responsible for most of the accumulated carbon in the atmosphere – three-quarters of all carbon dioxide emitted since 1850. It must now take a lead, and every developed country must commit to deep cuts which will reduce their emissions within a decade to very substantially less than their 1990 level.
Developing countries can point out they did not cause the bulk of the problem, and also that the poorest regions of the world will be hardest hit. But they will increasingly contribute to warming, and must thus pledge meaningful and quantifiable action of their own. Though both fell short of what some had hoped for, the recent commitments to emissions targets by the world’s biggest polluters, the United States and China, were important steps in the right direction.
Social justice demands that the industrialised world digs deep into its pockets and pledges cash to help poorer countries adapt to climate change, and clean technologies to enable them to grow economically without growing their emissions. The architecture of a future treaty must also be pinned down – with rigorous multilateral monitoring, fair rewards for protecting forests, and the credible assessment of “exported emissions” so that the burden can eventually be more equitably shared between those who produce polluting products and those who consume them. And fairness requires that the burden placed on individual developed countries should take into account their ability to bear it; for instance newer EU members, often much poorer than “old Europe”, must not suffer more than their richer partners.
The transformation will be costly, but many times less than the bill for bailing out global finance — and far less costly than the consequences of doing nothing.
Many of us, particularly in the developed world, will have to change our lifestyles. The era of flights that cost less than the taxi ride to the airport is drawing to a close. We will have to shop, eat and travel more intelligently. We will have to pay more for our energy, and use less of it.
But the shift to a low-carbon society holds out the prospect of more opportunity than sacrifice. Already some countries have recognized that embracing the transformation can bring growth, jobs and better quality lives. The flow of capital tells its own story: last year for the first time more was invested in renewable forms of energy than producing electricity from fossil fuels.
Kicking our carbon habit within a few short decades will require a feat of engineering and innovation to match anything in our history. But whereas putting a man on the moon or splitting the atom were born of conflict and competition, the coming carbon race must be driven by a collaborative effort to achieve collective salvation.
Overcoming climate change will take a triumph of optimism over pessimism, of vision over short-sightedness, of what Abraham Lincoln called “the better angels of our nature”.
It is in that spirit that 56 newspapers from around the world have united behind this editorial. If we, with such different national and political perspectives, can agree on what must be done then surely our leaders can too.
The politicians in Copenhagen have the power to shape history’s judgment on this generation: one that saw a challenge and rose to it, or one so stupid that we saw calamity coming but did nothing to avert it. We implore them to make the right choice.
Re 244 Foxy –
What are the chances that an asteroid (larger than _) does not strike in the next 300 years?
Not that we shouldn’t be on the lookout and develop options to deal with it, but I think the chances are low enough to be concerned about other problems.
“Doing something is not always “better” than doing nothing. Mitigating climate change could even cause even more suffering in the end. No-one truly knows whether it would or not.”
That’s a perfectly fine position to take before studying the issue. But the issue has been studied. Mitigation needn’t be all that bad, really.
Re 222 Paul –
“because the cost is unbearable until the technology catches up.”
Yes, but the technology is a long way towards that, and financial pressures contribute to the rate of innovation – that’s how the market should work, after all, and a policy that puts a price signal on emitting activity reflecting the public cost should make make the whole system work better.
“that was a nice verbal trick!” – 235
If I were a professional writer, it could be considered a trick of the trade.
Re: 244. “Like all individuals, at some point the human race will become extinct. What difference does it make if it’s in 100 or 100,000 years? If you can answer that, then you can say what to do about anthropogenic climate change.”
You watch too much television. Dwelling on potential catastrophe as an excuse for apathy and inaction is just exactly what the people who want other people to be mindless consumers want. Potential catastrophe is the reason we don’t build in flood plains and put smoke alarms in our houses. It’s why we try to establish treaties to eliminate nuclear weapons. It’s why we try to see climate change for the threat it is and try to do something about it. It’s only natural that we try to protect our investment in the future – such as our kids and grand kids.
And hey, I can say what to do about anthropogenic climate change whether I’ve answered your question or not.
This is off-topic and apologies for bringing it up here (not really sure where else to do this though).
There was an article in The Australia today about the new supercomputer, nick-named “Blizzard”, unveiled in Germany:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/germany-unveils-worlds-largest-weather-supercomputer/story-e6frgakx-1225809331773
I haven’t heard anything about this before. It sounds impressive and I’m guessing that it will provide a quantum leap in the level of detail available in the climate model projections.
Just wondering if Real Climate will be doing an article on this and what it means to climate science in general.
195 – Barton Paul Levenson – “BPL: I think solar and wind have it beat out on both counts.”
If we could take care of the materials problems on those two technologies, I think the technologies would dominate electricity generation for the rest of mankind’s future. I think solar is especially important because of its application in space.
207 – “what is your solution?”
Intensive materials research.
If we could get most or all of the rare materials out of solar technology, mankind would never have to worry about energy again. Wind technology also has a few rare materials that needs to be removed and replaced.
“Doesn’t the fact that there are countries (e.g. Japan) that use much less energy per person than the U.S., but have a higher standard of living than the U.S., suggest that reducing energy usage can be accomplished?”
The short answer is no. There are a lot of factors going into America’s standard of living decline. For example, America has been flooding it’s monetary supply for decades through high deficit spending (recklessly so). The labor markets have been flooded with cheap labor. America also has significant trade imbalances. The list is a very long one….
To answer your question, America has different energy requirements than Japan. The population density of Japan is around 884 people per square mile. The United States has a population density of around 86.5 people per square mile. In other words, America requires a different sort of infrastructure than Japan. I would also point out that America does not have the highest energy consumption per capita in the world. There are nations with higher per capita energy consumption. Iceland and Canada are the two best examples, and they are higher for obvious reasons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita
“There is a variety of potential renewable energies that could be developed, so which ones are limited by materials (be sure to consider recycling and emerging improvements)?”
Almost all of them. Windmills, geothermal, solar panels, and other renewable technologies have been around for a very long time, and all of them have technical challenges to deal with.
“If there are renewable technologies that would ultimately be limited by materials, does this mean that they shouldn’t be used at all?”
All of them are currently being used. Ethanol is currently being used, and it’s snake oil.
How do we power the entire world without fossil fuel technology? That question is the most fundamental question to ask right now. People can not simply ignore the problems with renewable technologies. These problems have to be solved, or the modern world may very well face a train wreck. The solution to global warming is not going to be one simple step as many seem to believe. The solution to global warming is thousands of steps. Re-gearing the energy infrastructure of the world is very dangerous, and one of the largest problems in the global warming debate is that possible solutions are not being debated enough.
Science 13 November 2009:
Vol. 326. no. 5955, pp. 924 – 925
DOI: 10.1126/science.326.5955.924
Prev | Table of Contents | Next
NEWS OF THE WEEK
CLIMATE CHANGE:
No Sign Yet of Himalayan Meltdown, Indian Report Finds
Pallava Bagla
Are Himalayan glaciers beating a rapid retreat in the face of global warming? That would seem to be the case, according to a flurry of recent reports by BBC and other mass media. But the picture is more complex—and poses scientific puzzles, according to a review of satellite and ground measurements released by India’s Ministry of Environment and Forests earlier this week. The report, by senior glaciologist Vijay Kumar Raina, formerly of the Geological Survey of India, seeks to correct a widely held misimpression based on measurements of a handful of glaciers: that India’s 10,000 or so Himalayan glaciers are shrinking rapidly in response to climate change. That’s not so, Raina says.
I’ve been invaded by denialists using this as the ultimate truth. It reminds me of the case in Iceland, manipulated by Crichton. Any thoughts?
[Response: Some discussion here. – gavin]
Global concern over climate change dips, but rising in India. Indians are ”very concerned” about climate change, believe that the main responsibility to address global warming issues rests with the government.
http://www.newsgaze.com/news/global-concern-over-climate-change-cools-off-but-rising-in-india/
One aspect of the editorial that is interesting is that it sets a limit on the amount of carbon that can still be burned. That limit may be too high but the concept has interesting implications. For example, if we are not going to mine all the coal in the US, then it might be prudent to recognize that may fewer miners die in coal mining in Wyoming than in Kentucky or West Virginia. http://www.msha.gov/stats/charts/coalbystate.asp
Would it not be more humane to end mining in the East now? Would it not be better to also export coal to China rather than have them mine their own with their even higher death toll? It is not really a matter of energy security anymore if we are not going to burn everything. So, humane concerns might take a greater roll.
Or, one could ask how to maximize energy output for that mass of carbon. In that case, ending coal mining and oil production in favor of natural gas for the fossil fuel end game could be the way to go.
Or, we might look at cost. Oil is cheap to produce is some places. Setting the world price of oil below $15/barrel would keep oil production going only where it is cost effective. That way our transition off are carbon is kept cheap on the carbon side.
Once we decide that we won’t burn everything, there many considerations that policy might address that are not addressed under current assumptions that all fossil sources are fair game.
I personally don,t give a s**t who generates my electricity , or how it is generated , AS LONG AS NO CO2 IS RELEASED INTO THE ATMOSPHERE.
If somebody can supply nuke generated ‘lektricity at the same cost or cheaper than coal fired I will happily sign up. OK boys and girls , leave it to the market.
Long live capitalism !!!
[Response: It’s an assessment report not an encyclopedia nor a introductory textbook. There is a reason why they have citations. – gavin]
Well, hold on a minute, Gavin. Earlier in this thread someone said in repose to the quote we’re discussing:
“That hardly says the tree data suggests the temperature goes down when the local temperatures actually goes up.”
and you said:
[Response: Yes, it says exactly that. – gavin]
Now you have implicitly admitted that that sentence is unclear, and the only way to make sense of it is to go read the citations.
[edit]
[Response: The statement is clear to people who know what is being discussed. If you don’t find it clear, then read the references. Really, it’s not that hard. – gavin]
#210 Titus
Conspiracy? Well, not quite, but you certainly have confirmed your ignorance on the issue and lack of reasoning.
Do some reading:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths
http://www.ossfoundation.us/the-leading-edge/projects/environment/global-warming/summary-docs/leading-edge
If one follows your logic “56 newspapers in 45 countries” = Conspiracy, then we would also have to accept the fact that the all the math books that are the same in each school are a conspiracy to teach math. My, my… the horror…
Human life, like all life on planet Earth, will eventually become extinct. Does it really matter, really, one way or another whether that happens to us, or 400 or 40,000 years from now? Or to some poor smuck and his family dying in misery 4 billion years from now? With or without AGW, or it’s very worst case scenarios, we are an irrelevant and immeasurably small quantum blip in the universe. One second after the last human dies, nobody will know the difference or care. It’s an eternal round in its nth iteration..
This is a helluva one-time-only climate experiment going on: lets burn those fossil fuels as fast, furious and completely as we can.
Look at the latest Hubble Deep Field. You really see anyone out there who knows or gives a damn?
That being said, great site Gavin, et.al. Keep up the good work.
Paul: Reducing emissions means reducing energy use
BPL: Absolutely not true. It means reducing emissions. There are energy sources that don’t emit carbon dioxide, or not serious amounts of it: wind, solar, geothermal, ocean thermal, wave, tidal. Biomass emits only what it takes out of the air in the first place, so is carbon-neutral. It’s a myth that decarbonizing means deenergizing. It doesn’t.
EL: Re-gearing the energy infrastructure of the world is very dangerous,
BPL: Not NEARLY as dangerous as not doing so.
Gavin,
You did well on CNN last night – much better than Bill Nye the Science Guy! :)
What I cannot understand is Christy stating that he is not funded by oil interests. He is linked to the following organizations according to ExxonSecrets.org: (http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=903)
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Source: CEI website, 3/04
Cato Institute
Source: Cato Institute website 4/04
Independent Institute
Source: Independent Institute Press Release 7/28/03
George C. Marshall Institute
Source: Marshall Institute Website (2006)
Heartland Institute
Source: Heartland Institute – HeartlandGlobalWarming.org
Even if he was never paid for his services (doubtful) he still is speaking on behalf of these well-oiled organizations.
Furthermore, he claimed that “hide the decline” was referring to hiding a cooler temperature which is flat our wrong. So he either isn’t following the news about this (if so he should not be speaking about it) or he is knowingly supporting false claims.
This is from http://www.haloscan.com/comments/tf2777/article24135_htm
Global warming is also a problem because of eventual massive sea-level changes.
It is extremely easy to figure out the long term sea-level changes.
So easy I will figure out one part (the East Antarctica ice-sheet) for you.
What is not so easy, is to determine, how much, by when,..
The largest ice-sheet is the East Antarctica ice-sheet:
The area covered by the East Antarctica ice-sheet = 13,700,000 km2.
Average depth of the ice-sheet = 1.6 km.
Volume of the ice-sheet = Area x Depth = 21,900,000 km3.
Area of Ocean = 71% x Area of earth = 71% x 510,000,000 = 362,100,000 km2.
This implies the increase in the height of the sea (if the entire East Antarctica ice-sheet melted) is:
= 21900000/362100000 = 0.06048 km = 60.48 meters (200 feet).
If the West Antarctica ice-sheet melts you get another 8 meter (26 feet) rise.
If the Greenland ice-sheet melts (which is already happening) you get another 6.5 meter (20 feet) rise.
In total, if it all the ice melts, the sea-level rise is about 80 meters (262 feet).
It will take a long time for the ice sheets to melt, but when they do, that land you have in Manhattan isn’t going to be worth a dime.
Imagine taking a boat to the 26th floor of a, by then, totally worthless Empire State Building.
Can’t see that this is a long term problem worth taking precautions against,.. no sir,…no problems here.
Can’t see that having most of the world’s cities flooded would be a problem.
See what the U.S. Geological Survey says: http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/
It would be nice if we could rely exclusively, immediately on genuinely renewable energy – wind, solar and other “pure” renewables.
But the pragmatist has to step in and ask the difficult questions. The wind doesn’t blow all the time, nor the sun shine. We need baseload power, and we need on-demand power from peaking power plants. In short, we need a complicated mix of energy sources.
Where does nuclear come in? From a practical point of view, it is the only energy source that is a mature technology and can replace coal very quickly and cheaply.
Hydroelectric is great, but has severe geographic limitations.
One day, we will have huge wind and solar installations. But it is going to take time, both simply to physically build them, and to improve the technology.
Think of nuclear as a stop-gap. A way of meeting our increasing energy demand at a time when we want to decommission thousands of dirty coal plants. I don’t think nuclear is “better” than renewables. I think it is infinitely better than coal, and probably considerably better than coal with CCS.
When does the (most accurate) climate model predict the next Ice Age? Next LIA? Next MWP?
“It would be nice if we could rely exclusively, immediately on genuinely renewable energy – wind, solar and other “pure” renewables.
But the pragmatist has to step in and ask the difficult questions.”
Linus Torvaldes is a pragmatist. Therefore since BitKeeper was what was required, even though it was heavily restricted in its license, he used it and therefore made all kernel code contribuors use BitKeeper.
R M Stallman is an idealist. BitKeeper wasn’t Free And Open Source Software and therefore could NEVER be the right solution.
Many “pragmatists” backed Linus, dismissing RMS as a whacko and completely out of touch.
Someone in FOSS who had NEVER agreed to the BitKeeper license reverse engineered the protocol (just as all IP laws allow to happen: even DMCA, even though protocols cannot be copyrighted) and the owner of BitKeeper then removed summarily all license for use of the software in the Linux Kernel development.
Disruption. Cats and Dogs living together. Etc.
Problems that occurred because the pragmatist CHOSE UNWISELY.
Git was produced (the name coming because Linus’ mate was the owner of the BitKeeper code and even though the owner of that code didn’t have a single valid reason to be annoyed at the protocol sniffing, he was and Linus thought sticking up for a mate was more important than what was right) and eventually work on the Linux Kernel continued with some severe interruption.
Git is licensed under a FOSS license.
The idealist CHOSE WISELY. But was ignored by “pragmatists” who sneered “He doesn’t understand the *real* world, up there in his ivory tower…”.
And since when did principles become negotiable?
“When does the (most accurate) climate model predict the next Ice Age? Next LIA? Next MWP?”
In the future.
If I’d said “next ice age in 60,000 years”, what would you do? Stall for time until that date passed to see if you can go “SEE! YOU WERE WRONG!”?
Two fingered:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/01/nuclear_power.html
“Alex J wrote: “But at this point, I think humanity will pretty much deserve what it gets.”
Be that as it may, humans are not the only sentient beings on Earth.”
And those who DIDN’T deserve it but were human too will get what SOMEONE ELSE deserves.
It’s not like the Rapture here, you know, Alex. Good and bad will be stuffed. And the bad, being bad, will be better equipped to survive at the expense of others. You know, the ones who DIDN’T deserve it.
195 BPL: You are wrong.
Nuclear power is the safest kind, bar none, for everybody.
Deaths per terrawatt year [twy] for energy industries, including Chernobyl. terra=mega mega [There are zero sources of energy that cause zero deaths, but not having the electricity causes the far more deaths because not having electricity is a form of poverty.]
fuel……… ……..fatalities… …..who……… …….deaths per twy
coal……… ………6400…… ……workers……….. ………342
natural gas….. ..1200…… …..workers and public… …85
hydro…….. …….4000….. …….public………… …………883
nuclear…….. ………31…… ……workers………… ………….8
Nuclear power is proven to be the safest. Source: “The Revenge of Gaia” by James Lovelock page 102. As you can see, psychological problems are preventing the wider use of nuclear power. Chernobyl is included in the above.
Downloaded from:
http://www.alternet.org/environment/54682/?page=5
“Health, hazard, and quality of life near wind power installations How Close is Too Close?
Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD* March 1, 2005
A nacelle (generator and gearbox) weighing up to 60 tons atop a 265 ft. metal tower, equipped with 135 ft. blades, is a significant hazard to people, livestock, buildings, and traffic within a radius equal to the height of the structure (400 ft) and beyond. In Germany in 2003, in high storm winds, the brakes on a wind turbine failed and the blades spun out of control. A blade struck the tower and the entire nacelle flew off the tower. The blades and other parts landed as far as 1650 ft (0.31 mile) from the base of the tower (Note that all turbines discussed in this article are “upwind,” three-bladed, industrial-sized turbines. “Downwind” turbines have not
been built since the 1980’s.) Given the date, this turbine was probably smaller than the ones proposed for current construction, and thus could not throw pieces as far. This distance is nearly identical to calculations of ice throw from turbines with 100 ft blades rotating 20 times per minute (1680 ft)”
And the above is only the so-called tip of the iceberg. If interested, just google “dangers of wind turbines” – there’s plenty of sites to choose from to learn about the dangers. The noise alone is inescapable – like water torture.”
[No source of energy is risk free, but the poverty caused by not having energy is a really big killer.]
Did you know that coal ashes and cinders contain enough uranium to fully fuel our nuclear power plants? See:
http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/coalmain.html
Coal also contains arsenic and lead.
Don’t listen to coal company propaganda on their only competitor.
Dave K says:
10 December 2009 at 4:14 PM
About Nuclear. yes, that is the best alternative for now. A large percentage of North America emissions are from the production of electricity.(not SUV’s)
If not for Three Mile Island and the resulting Hollywood created hysteria around it(China Syndrome) we could have been in a much better carbon shape by now.
China Syndrome wasn’t related to 3 mile island, it was just a coincidence, I remember watching the movie at the cinema and the next day the news of 3 mile island broke.
Didactylos,
I would prefer to see the transition period consist of natural gas combined cycle to get away from coal,
at least for the short term reductions. New plants should at least meet the same emission standard
a combined cycle plant. It also avoids the controversy over nuclear.
Yes, it’s a fossil fuel, however, Britain used it to achieve significant emission reductions.
They will give time to allow renewables to build up and possibly nuclear if nothing else pans out.
Edward Greisch (273), I didn’t read all of the detail, but hydro fatalities seem way odd. Are they including all of the people who die in (drunken or otherwise) boating accidents in the reservoirs, e.g?
Can someone here explain the IPCC Simplified expression for radiative forcing? I am a novice and I’m trying to get my arms around this.
CO2 F = ln(C/C0) = 5.35
F= ln(C/C0) + ß (C – C0) = 4.841, ß = 0.0906
F= (g(C)-g(C0))
where g(C)= ln(1+1.2C+0.005C2 +1.4 x 10-6C3) = 3.35
CH4 F= (M – M0) – (f(M,N0) – f(M0,N0)) = 0.036
N2O F= (N – N0) – (f(M0,N) – f(M0,N0)) = 0.12
CFC-11a F= (X – X0) = 0.25
CFC-12 F= (X – X0) = 0.32
f(M,N) = 0.47 ln[1+2.01×10-5 (MN)0.75+5.31×10-15 M(MN)1.52]
C is CO2 in ppm
M is CH4 in ppb
N is N2O in ppb
X is CFC in ppb
Particularly this:
f(M,N) = 0.47 ln[1+2.01×10-5 (MN)0.75+5.31×10-15 M(MN)1.52]
[Response: There is an overlap between bands for CH4 and N2O and so the calculations of the forcings from increases there aren’t independent. The f(M,N) formula is to compensate for that. These equations aren’t difficult to code in your favorite software, though be careful with the units and the exponents (which have dropped out of your text above). – gavin]
Re#270:
>>>In the future. If I’d said “next ice age in 60,000 years”, what would you do? Stall for time until that date passed to see if you can go “SEE! YOU WERE WRONG!”?
That’s silly. I was wondering if the model saw any of the major and minor non-manmade cycles of the past continuing further in the future – or does it predict Ice Ages stop for example.
As far as finding a “SEE! YOU WERE WRONG!” for the model, we don’t need to go far at all. The difficult part is finding a “see, we were right!”. That’s the problem for those extrapolating the doomsday scenarios from it.
Adam, I can’t explain it — but if you paste say just the last line of that (“Particularly this:”) into Google — the whole long string — you get nine hits.
Seven are to science sources; two are to ‘other’ discussions claiming to refute thermodynamics.
Have you looked at any of those already?
“When does the (most accurate) climate model predict the next Ice Age? Next LIA? Next MWP?”
In the future.
Prediction is very difficult, especially when it involves the future.
Neils Bohr
All the GCM models that are used to make these projections rely on 2 basic premises.
1) That there is a positive water vapour feedback
and
2) as the Earth warms- causing further grenhouse gases to accumulate in the atmosphere, more long wave radiation (heat) will be trapped.
In fact Tropospheric water vapour levels are falling, or at bast have remained constant. Whilst actual measurements of outgoing long wave radiation show increased amouts escaping into space.
These real-World observations seriously undermine the basis of GCM projections.
[Response: Well they might if they were true. But both your assumptions are not assumptions but results, and your information about water vapour changes is just wrong. -gavin]
Rod B, hydroelectric dams don’t fail often, but when they do, the consequences are severe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure
I imagine the balance of fatalities are during construction.
Rod B says
Very unlikely, since that wouldn’t make sense. It is not energy-related. Actual hydropower fatalities include things like the Barrett Chute accident.
(How fire can be domesticated)
Completely Fed Up said:
Yes! You make my point for me. There are thousands of “studies” out there, that will support whatever cuckoo theory you want. It takes a lot of time and effort to find a properly sourced study that actually adds up.
I am all for giving help to poor countries, maybe we should do that anyway!
However, from my personal expeirience money given to such countries does not get through to those who need it, corruption and gansterism are these countries governments.
So what is going to be done about that?
Gavin,
In regard: your response to my post, number 223.
No. I did not read the study; I have no subscription to Nature. However, I did read the abstract, so I was aware of the period of the cycle. I also read (as much as my college German would allow) an abstract on the website of the sponsoring agency, http://www.nwo.nl/nwohome.nsf/pages/NWOP_7YDC49, which says that the extant moisture apparently fell at the beginning of the Holocene, about 11,000 years ago. Therefore, we are nearing the end of the cycle. Perhaps not such a grasp at straws as you thought.
By the way, one should avoid ending sentences with prepositions where possible.
Comment by J — 11 December 2009 @ 8:52 AM:
I don’t think it takes a climate model to predict that, as long as anthropogenic CO2 forcing continues at or above the current rate, no big or little ice age will occur and the warm period will be world wide, not just regional like the medieval one.
Steve
“Yes! You make my point for me. There are thousands of “studies” out there, that will support whatever cuckoo theory you want.”
Including yours…
“Prediction is very difficult, especially when it involves the future.
Neils Bohr”
Well, it’s not “now” and the next one can’t be “in the past”, so “in the future” is all we’ve got.
We can predict the future will turn up.
So far as I can tell, nobody has shown that the climate is not a sequence of random fluctuations. But it sure looks random to me. In this frequency spectrum, global surface temperature looks just like pink noise on a scale of decades, and white noise on shorter time scales. Can anyone point me to a proof that climate is not random fluctuations?
[Response: Milankovitch. – gavin]
>>288 Steve
Your view that humans have forever stopped the Ice Age cycle and all other mid-term cycles is interesting. ( Would have been especially pertinent to the 70s science, re: “The Coming Ice Age”)
But I would still like to know if the (most accurate) climate model predicts another Ice Age, LIA, MWP, or other of the past non-manmade cycles.
I am fully committed to the Copenhagen process as I have written here.
There’s a really nice post here:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/12/trust_scientists
Quoting from the end:
So, after hours of research, I can dismiss Mr Eschenbach. But what am I supposed to do the next time I wake up and someone whose name I don’t know has produced another plausible-seeming account of bias in the climate-change science? Am I supposed to invest another couple of hours in it? Do I have to waste the time of the readers of this blog with yet another long post on the subject? Why? Why do these people keep bugging us like this? Does the spirit of scientific scepticism really require that I remain forever open-minded to denialist humbug until it’s shown to be wrong? At what point am I allowed to simply say, look, I’ve seen these kind of claims before, they always turns out to be wrong, and it’s not worth my time to look into it?
Well, here’s my solution to this problem: this is why we have peer review. Average guys with websites can do a lot of amazing things. One thing they cannot do is reveal statistical manipulation in climate-change studies that require a PhD in a related field to understand. So for the time being, my response to any and all further “smoking gun” claims begins with: show me the peer-reviewed journal article demonstrating the error here. Otherwise, you’re a crank and this is not a story.
Snorbert says, “By the way, one should avoid ending sentences with prepositions where possible.”
And of course we all know Churchill’s response: “Young man, your impertinence is a thing up with which i will not put!”
#262 Shelama
One little problem with not caring is human suffering. Or are you into that?
Consideration: Let’s say nobody cares and we let it all go to hell in a handbasket. 40 years from now, someone is hungry and finds a girl named Shelama. They don’t want to eat Shelama all at once but really like fresh meat. So they cut off an arm from Shelama and then cauterize the wound with a burning chunk of wood so Shelama does not bleed out.
Is that really something you are okay with? Or do you just not care when it happens to someone else?
268 J
Study first, then ask questions. There are short and long term natural variations that occur within the overarching forcing parameters.
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/forcing-levels
PLEASE USE REAL NAMES IF YOU ARE NOT IN DANGER OF BEING STALKED. Doing so shows that you have enough integrity to stand behind your words. Not doing so indicates the opposite may be true.
Comment by EL — 10 December 2009 @ 11:27 PM
I pretty much agree with what you are saying, but you damage your case when you make the pronouncement that using less energy isn’t a solution and is even damaging. Energy conservation is obviously not even close to being a primary solution, but it is the low hanging fruit in the mix. This is most important in the U.S., the nation with the largest and probably most wasteful energy consumption.
In the mix of ways to reduce CO2, it is wise to start with the ones that produce the most immediate effect at the least cost, and this is energy conservation in transportation, homes, and business. I practice what I preach, so I know the costs and benefits.
Steve
If not for Three Mile Island and the resulting Hollywood created hysteria around it(China Syndrome)
Causality FAIL
The China Syndrome – release March 16, 1979
Three Mile Island Incident – 4am, March 28, 1979
Following the Three Mile Island Incident, Michael Douglas (the producer) actually pulled the move from some theaters.
Jeff Masters over at Weather Underground has a post today about a new weather pattern observed over the Arctic – “The old atmospheric patterns that controlled Arctic weather–the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and Arctic Oscillation (AO), which featured air flow that tended to circle the pole, now alternate with the new Arctic Dipole pattern. The Arctic Dipole pattern features anomalous high pressure on the North American side of the Arctic, and low pressure on the Eurasian side. This results in winds blowing more from south to north, increasing transport of heat into the central Arctic Ocean.” (http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/entrynum=1398)
A whole new positive feedback to investigate…
Comment by Jim Bouldin — 11 December 2009 @ 11:37 AM:
Ha! Prediction is even more difficult because- “The future ain’t what it used to be” (Yogi Berra).
Steve