… a strategy to avert an otherwise imminent failure in climate policy is being published by the London School of Economics and Political Science’s Mackinder Programme and the Institute for Science, Innovation & Society at the University of Oxford today (Tuesday 7 July).
How to Get Climate Policy Back on Course argues that the only policies that will work are those which focus directly on improvement in energy efficiency and the decarbonisation of energy supply (called the “Kaya Direct” Approach in the report) rather than on emissions, which is an outcome of these processes.
Professor Gwyn Prins from LSE and the report’s coordinating author said: ‘Worthwhile policy builds upon what we know works and upon what is feasible rather than trying to deploy never-before implemented policies through complex institutions requiring a hitherto unprecedented and never achieved degree of global political alignment.’
The report argues that the recent Japanese ‘Mamizu’ climate strategy is the world’s first to start down this real world course in sharp contrast to the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, the UK Climate Change Act and the US Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade legislation. Professor Steve Rayner, Director of InSIS at the University of Oxford, said: ‘The world has centuries of experience in decarbonising its energy supply and Japan has led the world in policy-driven improvements in energy efficiency. These are the models to which we ought to be looking.’
The paper’s twelve co-authors come from leading research institutes in Europe (England, Germany, Finland), North America (Canada, USA) and Asia (Australia, Japan). ….
Doug Bostromsays
#400 Derek (and thank you Hank for importing the link):
My prediction is that if this policy suggestion shows signs of spreading its infection, it will cost the fossil fuel industry more lost sleep. As well, quite a bit of money for the work of hastily constructing a whole new counterargument for why stasis is the most prudent course to adopt, or rather maintain.
It may be impossible for PR professionals to concoct a self-consistent set of rationales explaining why this scheme as well as C&T will equally threaten to eviscerate the middle class, bring industry to its knees and end modern life as we know it. The stress of simultaneously supporting wildly disparate sets of reasons for inaction may well result in straining their PR beyond elasticity, opening further gaps in their logic.
I’m sure the flacks are even now beginning preliminary work on this challenging task.
Meanwhile, leaving aside the fossil fuel industry’s increasing level of anxiety over their cash fountain, we are reminded that changes in our own habits and redirection of our industrial capacity can actually result in beneficial change. For the general industrial world, it directs attention to new markets as well the opportunity to expand existing markets. For the world of energy consumers, a refocus of attention on conservation and more intelligent consumption is an unalloyed good.
A bit more, from dotearth:
Lessons from Japan: An international group of analysts focusing on climate policy says we can look to Japan for lessons in how policies can accelerate a move away from carbon-heavy fuels and toward more efficient use of energy. The authors, led by Steve Rayner of Oxford University and Gwyn Prins of the London School of Economics (known for a provocative critique of the Kyoto Protocol), say the last thing one would do is invent layers of regulatory bodies requiring international accord and transparency in arenas like energy policy, where countries traditionally go it alone. As Professor Prins put it in a statement, “Worthwhile policy builds upon what we know works and upon what is feasible rather than trying to deploy never-before implemented policies through complex institutions requiring a hitherto unprecedented and never achieved degree of global political alignment.” Japan has come under criticism from some environmentalists, particularly in Europe, for its approach to the next steps under a climate treaty. But the country has stood by its policies, given the name “Mamizu,” which translates to “ genuine clear water.” The approach is based on what can clearly be accomplished, rather than relying on indirect strategies for cutting emissions or boosting energy efficiency, including trading systems for emissions credits.
G Elliott, perhaps you have to first get climate scientists to understand this. Too many times you hear them or posters on this blog lauding China for boosting its renewable share, when her coal capacity is rising too.
MrPetesays
Re: Hank (#399) — go up a couple of comments (to #101, the one Moore is referring to in the #104 comment you quoted). He says:
Re: 100. Yes you are correct – usually, as aslak Grinsted [#26] says the non-linear trend filter is close to triangular, and is very similar to the result of low pass filtering with a period of 2M-1.
You asked why we did not point out this in the original paper – the answer is we were not aware (in 2005) that it was so commonly essentially a triangular filter.
dhogazasays
G Elliott, perhaps you have to first get climate scientists to understand this. Too many times you hear them or posters on this blog lauding China for boosting its renewable share, when her coal capacity is rising too.
In other words, we must condemn them for not being perfect, because we are, of course.
James Lanesays
Hank Roberts says:
Last note from Moore I can find says:
~climateaudit.org/?p=6473#comment-348236
“… If you strongly think its actually 21 years then please do go ahead and contact the editors. I have not followed this argument at all, so if if I wrote I would be simply quoting your own findings anyway.”
Earlier (comment 104) Moore said:
Re 102. I just looked at the synthesis report and I am not sure that they have even used the method we are talking about – the caption just says 15 year smoothing was used. The Eos paper was not referenced at all in the report. If you are so sure that he used the SSA method with M=11, why don’t you contact the publishers yourself? I certainly hope that if they have used M=11 that they change the caption to 21 year smoothing.
PaulMsays
Stefan, the caption is incorrect. It says ‘smoothed over 15 years’. There is no possible ambiguity of interpretation of this. 29 years are involved in your smoothing, so it should say ‘smoothed over 29 years’.
[Response: I think we have to agree to disagree here. It is quite common to characterise filters by their half-power width (as is indeed very familiar for Gaussian filters), since this is more informative about their response than citing the number of points involved in the calculation. -stefan]
Doug Bostromsays
Further to the London School of Economics report, news of G8 failure to progress on climate accord:
“The world’s major industrial nations and emerging powers failed to agree Wednesday on significant cuts in heat-trapping gases by 2050, unraveling an effort to build a global consensus to fight climate change, according to people following the talks.”
“[Response: I think we have to agree to disagree here. It is quite common to characterise filters by their half-power width (as is indeed very familiar for Gaussian filters),”
Indeed, Physics abounds with FWHM measurements of the width of a bandpass.
“If the conditions that established the acceleration continue, then sea level will rise 34 cm over the
21st century. Long time constants in oceanic heat content and increased ice sheet melting imply that the
latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates of sea level are probably too low.”
Is it saying that IPCC probably have underestimated sea level rice (as I think) or is it saying something else?
Thanks Martin, It seems clear that she means that IPCC underestimates… however, how trustworthy an extrapolation by constant acceleration is… is… I guess debatable. For one thing it seams like the deviations gets smaller closer to today… what would that do with the analysis?
Charliesays
I have found 3 different versions of the Copenhagen Synthesis Report on the web. The Adobe file properties window shows modified dates of 6/17, 7/1, and 7/7/2009. climatecongress.ku.dk is the 7/1 modified version.
Is there any sort of version number, errata, or change record on this report?
Is there any way of telling versions apart other than looking at Adobe file properties?
How would I know if the version I’m using really is the latest version?
Phil. Feltonsays
Re #409 Mark says:
8 Jul 2009 at 3:33 pm
“[Response: I think we have to agree to disagree here. It is quite common to characterise filters by their half-power width (as is indeed very familiar for Gaussian filters),”
Indeed, Physics abounds with FWHM measurements of the width of a bandpass.
Full
Width
Half
Maximum
Agreed, it’s standard practice in optics when describing the bandwidth of optical filters.
Hank Robertssays
Charlie, Google finds lots more copies of the file than just three.
It’s always a mistake to copy rather than point, but people do it a lot.
If you point to the actual links you’re wondering about people can look.
If you ask the people at the official site, they can identify the current version.
If you have Acrobat Pro (not ‘Reader’) it has a Compare PDFs tool.
Stefan, the caption is incorrect. It says ’smoothed over 15 years’. There is no possible ambiguity of interpretation of this. 29 years are involved in your smoothing, so it should say ’smoothed over 29 years’.
[Response: I think we have to agree to disagree here. It is quite common to characterise filters by their half-power width (as is indeed very familiar for Gaussian filters), since this is more informative about their response than citing the number of points involved in the calculation. -stefan]
I find your recommended half-power period for the SSA filter using M = 15 (29 weights) to be 45.9 years. The half-amplitude period, which is perhaps more useful outside of electronics, is still 33.0 years. See graphs of the amplitude response here.
Wouldn’t it then be more appropriate to call your filter 33- or 46- year smoothing, depending on the measure, rather than 15? Or do you get different values?
Here’s the press release for the report Derek mentions:
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/ERD/pressAndInformationOffice/newsAndEvents/archives/2009/07/climate%20poliyc.aspx
Brief excerpt follows:
… a strategy to avert an otherwise imminent failure in climate policy is being published by the London School of Economics and Political Science’s Mackinder Programme and the Institute for Science, Innovation & Society at the University of Oxford today (Tuesday 7 July).
How to Get Climate Policy Back on Course argues that the only policies that will work are those which focus directly on improvement in energy efficiency and the decarbonisation of energy supply (called the “Kaya Direct” Approach in the report) rather than on emissions, which is an outcome of these processes.
Professor Gwyn Prins from LSE and the report’s coordinating author said: ‘Worthwhile policy builds upon what we know works and upon what is feasible rather than trying to deploy never-before implemented policies through complex institutions requiring a hitherto unprecedented and never achieved degree of global political alignment.’
The report argues that the recent Japanese ‘Mamizu’ climate strategy is the world’s first to start down this real world course in sharp contrast to the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, the UK Climate Change Act and the US Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade legislation. Professor Steve Rayner, Director of InSIS at the University of Oxford, said: ‘The world has centuries of experience in decarbonising its energy supply and Japan has led the world in policy-driven improvements in energy efficiency. These are the models to which we ought to be looking.’
The paper’s twelve co-authors come from leading research institutes in Europe (England, Germany, Finland), North America (Canada, USA) and Asia (Australia, Japan). ….
#400 Derek (and thank you Hank for importing the link):
My prediction is that if this policy suggestion shows signs of spreading its infection, it will cost the fossil fuel industry more lost sleep. As well, quite a bit of money for the work of hastily constructing a whole new counterargument for why stasis is the most prudent course to adopt, or rather maintain.
It may be impossible for PR professionals to concoct a self-consistent set of rationales explaining why this scheme as well as C&T will equally threaten to eviscerate the middle class, bring industry to its knees and end modern life as we know it. The stress of simultaneously supporting wildly disparate sets of reasons for inaction may well result in straining their PR beyond elasticity, opening further gaps in their logic.
I’m sure the flacks are even now beginning preliminary work on this challenging task.
Meanwhile, leaving aside the fossil fuel industry’s increasing level of anxiety over their cash fountain, we are reminded that changes in our own habits and redirection of our industrial capacity can actually result in beneficial change. For the general industrial world, it directs attention to new markets as well the opportunity to expand existing markets. For the world of energy consumers, a refocus of attention on conservation and more intelligent consumption is an unalloyed good.
A bit more, from dotearth:
Lessons from Japan: An international group of analysts focusing on climate policy says we can look to Japan for lessons in how policies can accelerate a move away from carbon-heavy fuels and toward more efficient use of energy. The authors, led by Steve Rayner of Oxford University and Gwyn Prins of the London School of Economics (known for a provocative critique of the Kyoto Protocol), say the last thing one would do is invent layers of regulatory bodies requiring international accord and transparency in arenas like energy policy, where countries traditionally go it alone. As Professor Prins put it in a statement, “Worthwhile policy builds upon what we know works and upon what is feasible rather than trying to deploy never-before implemented policies through complex institutions requiring a hitherto unprecedented and never achieved degree of global political alignment.” Japan has come under criticism from some environmentalists, particularly in Europe, for its approach to the next steps under a climate treaty. But the country has stood by its policies, given the name “Mamizu,” which translates to “ genuine clear water.” The approach is based on what can clearly be accomplished, rather than relying on indirect strategies for cutting emissions or boosting energy efficiency, including trading systems for emissions credits.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/more-ideas-for-breaking-climate-deadlock/
Details on “Mamizu” here, from the horse’s mouth:
http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/asospeech/2009/06/10kaiken_e.html
G Elliott, perhaps you have to first get climate scientists to understand this. Too many times you hear them or posters on this blog lauding China for boosting its renewable share, when her coal capacity is rising too.
Re: Hank (#399) — go up a couple of comments (to #101, the one Moore is referring to in the #104 comment you quoted). He says:
In other words, we must condemn them for not being perfect, because we are, of course.
Hank Roberts says:
Earlier (comment 104) Moore said:
Stefan, the caption is incorrect. It says ‘smoothed over 15 years’. There is no possible ambiguity of interpretation of this. 29 years are involved in your smoothing, so it should say ‘smoothed over 29 years’.
[Response: I think we have to agree to disagree here. It is quite common to characterise filters by their half-power width (as is indeed very familiar for Gaussian filters), since this is more informative about their response than citing the number of points involved in the calculation. -stefan]
Further to the London School of Economics report, news of G8 failure to progress on climate accord:
“The world’s major industrial nations and emerging powers failed to agree Wednesday on significant cuts in heat-trapping gases by 2050, unraveling an effort to build a global consensus to fight climate change, according to people following the talks.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/09/world/europe/09prexy.html?_r=1&hp
“[Response: I think we have to agree to disagree here. It is quite common to characterise filters by their half-power width (as is indeed very familiar for Gaussian filters),”
Indeed, Physics abounds with FWHM measurements of the width of a bandpass.
Full
Width
Half
Maximum
If some one that was there could help me to grasp the last part of
P01.09
Recent global sea level acceleration started over 200 years ago?
Svetlana Jevrejeva(1), J Moore(2), A Grinsted(3), P Woodworth(1)
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1755-1315/6/1/012026/ees9_6_012026.pdf?request-id=9ccc45a6-0072-4013-892a-d117fc28a7bc
“If the conditions that established the acceleration continue, then sea level will rise 34 cm over the
21st century. Long time constants in oceanic heat content and increased ice sheet melting imply that the
latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates of sea level are probably too low.”
Is it saying that IPCC probably have underestimated sea level rice (as I think) or is it saying something else?
Might give a hint:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005GL024826.shtml
I would be grateful…
Magnus, a complicated story. Read the full paper:
http://www.glaciology.net/Home/PDFs/jevrejeva_GRL08_recent_sea_level_acc_started_200yrs_ago._pdf.pdf?attredirects=0
I don’t precisely understand it either.
Thanks Martin, It seems clear that she means that IPCC underestimates… however, how trustworthy an extrapolation by constant acceleration is… is… I guess debatable. For one thing it seams like the deviations gets smaller closer to today… what would that do with the analysis?
I have found 3 different versions of the Copenhagen Synthesis Report on the web. The Adobe file properties window shows modified dates of 6/17, 7/1, and 7/7/2009. climatecongress.ku.dk is the 7/1 modified version.
Is there any sort of version number, errata, or change record on this report?
Is there any way of telling versions apart other than looking at Adobe file properties?
How would I know if the version I’m using really is the latest version?
Re #409
Mark says:
8 Jul 2009 at 3:33 pm
“[Response: I think we have to agree to disagree here. It is quite common to characterise filters by their half-power width (as is indeed very familiar for Gaussian filters),”
Indeed, Physics abounds with FWHM measurements of the width of a bandpass.
Full
Width
Half
Maximum
Agreed, it’s standard practice in optics when describing the bandwidth of optical filters.
Charlie, Google finds lots more copies of the file than just three.
It’s always a mistake to copy rather than point, but people do it a lot.
If you point to the actual links you’re wondering about people can look.
If you ask the people at the official site, they can identify the current version.
If you have Acrobat Pro (not ‘Reader’) it has a Compare PDFs tool.
RE #407,
PaulM says:
8 Jul 2009 at 7:07 am
I find your recommended half-power period for the SSA filter using M = 15 (29 weights) to be 45.9 years. The half-amplitude period, which is perhaps more useful outside of electronics, is still 33.0 years. See graphs of the amplitude response here.
Wouldn’t it then be more appropriate to call your filter 33- or 46- year smoothing, depending on the measure, rather than 15? Or do you get different values?