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.
Mesa, 404: You still don’t understand what giorgio did.
“If the time ordering is, for example, such that the negative adjustments are predominately in the first half of the history, and the positive in the second half, then presto chango a trend appears.”
And that trend is exactly the trend that Giorgio is calculating. Please look at his code.
He made a histogram of the trend that is created by the adjustments.
Didactylos.
There have been some great, and extensive, discussions of nuclear power on The Oil Drom. Go read those threads. It comes down tp this: They are too exepnsive compared to what you can build out in other forms of energy production, they take too long to build, and the long-term issues are not close to being settled. Add to that hte lack of appropriate sites due to lack of water and/or tectonic stability, and nuclear becomes a specific site-only solution.
Korea is an example of a good sites for nuclear because it has very, very few other natural resources and is tectonically stable.
The numbers just don’t work just don’t work for a major contribution from nuclear. We would need on the order of 400 in the US alone. Do the math on costs and time.
Oh, by the way, I’ve not read the comments above thoroughly, but if you are not including decommissioning costs – which are at least equal to construction – then you aren’t really discussing nuclear.
It would cost 4.8 trillion to build 400 nuclear plants, yet for 1/5 of that you could give every household in the US more than $8,700 to go towards retrofitting their homes, adding solar, etc. If you do this as a DIY national build out in which small towns, cities and neighborhoods (think in terms of Dunbar’s Number) can work together to either help build for each other or pool their money/resources to create local solutions. Since one can build a 1kw wind generator or a small solar array for $1k, with $8k you could get virtually the entire nation significantly closer to being energy neutral, provide direct. real economic stimulus and create a massively distributed, thus far more resilient, energy grid while giving people energy independence. I discussed this briefly and inexpertly two years ago. http://aperfectstormcometh.blogspot.com/2008/03/build-out-grid-vs-household-towards.html
Cheers
@435 – “And I think this little example shows you why people like me, with scientific backgrounds, don’t get a very comfortable feeling from the degree of introspection and rigor of the climate science community.”
i couldn’t agree more! see the arrogant response gavin gave to me on #31. when faced with data and questions that challenge their hypothesis (and their financial nest eggs) they act like children.
fortunately real people of science are entering this arena and will push the bullies out. only then will we truly understand climate change and get answers to our tough questions.
Mesa: I inferred your assumptions from your other posts. Am I wrong?
If I have confused you with someone else, then I do apologise.
Why don’t you read the GHCN paper yourself, too? If I could follow it, you should have no problem at all.
Hank #438: I’m sorry, but I’m not following your argument. You list some comments to this site, but so far as I know, it’s not possible for me to delete comments from this site. As to my blog, I don’t see any missing posts. I frequently correct errors in my essay. Are you referring to my correcting factual errors pointed out by readers?
Now please try to avoid being rude. I have little time for rude people.
Then feel free to post elsewhere. I have little time for people who continue to misrepresent the safety, cost and nuclear proliferation risk of nuclear energy, and continue to promote the utter lack of scientific veracity and the political and financial inadvisability of applying an energy conversion scale of the order of 250 MeV, to a energy conversion problem of the order of 35 meV, while utterly neglecting outstanding condensed matter physics and material science problems of energy scales of the order of the triple point of water, and at most does not exceed a few multiples of the boiling point of water. The energy scale of nuclear reactions is completely out of scale with the run of the mill every day energy conversion scales civilization is confronted with TODAY, that have yet to be even fully understood at the quantum mechanical level. This sort of fundamental misunderstanding needs to be confronted head on, and even rudely if necessary, because I refuse to drink the nuclear koolaide and high energy dogma that you present so naively here, without any corroborating evidence whatsoever.
I think I may need to revoke my comment about feeling nostalgic for debates with nuclear zealots compared to debates with those who deny the existence of global warming. The “arguments” of the nuclear zealots are as ill-informed, repetitive, and tiresome as ever.
According to Edward Greisch, because I argue that wind and solar are preferable to nuclear, I must be paid by the coal industry, an industry which I have argued should be shut down. Right.
According to Didactylos, because I point out that wind and solar are already growing at record-breaking double-digit rates year after year, and are indeed the fastest growing sources of electricity in the world, while nuclear is barely holding steady, and that therefore wind and solar are “mature technologies” that are already being widely deployed at industrial, utility scale, so that talk of using nuclear as a “stop-gap” until wind and solar “are ready” is contrafactual and rather silly, then I must be driven by irrational emotion. Check.
Same as it ever was.
Nuclear zealots exaggerate (or invent) “problems” and “obstacles” for the growth of renewables (while generally displaying ignorance of what is actually happening with wind and solar today), while they simultaneously ignore the very real problems and obstacles of nuclear power (which are recognized by more responsible, realistic proponents of expanding nuclear power like the folks at MIT). They consistently accuse anyone who raises any objections whatsoever to nuclear power of being driven by irrationality and emotion, or even of being “anti-science”. They consistently offer the false dichotomy of nuclear vs. coal — in which they basically argue that nuclear is the only alternative to coal because nuclear is the only alternative to coal (classical begging-the-question fallacy), so that anyone who advocates wind or solar should have to defend the pollution and safety problems of coal. Again and again they simply ignore facts — e.g. the multi-year construction delays and the multi-billion dollar cost overruns and safety problems that continue to plague “new generation” nuclear power plants just as they did earlier generations — and rely heavily on argument by assertion, endlessly repeating bromides about “nuclear is the only answer”, “nuclear is safer than wind turbines” and other silliness.
Look, I get it. I know what it is to be a “fan”. And nuclear power has its “fans”, for sure — the folks to whom it is a matter of “nuclear is THE answer!!! — what was the question?”
But I will reiterate what I said above. Nuclear power is neither a necessary nor particularly effective solution to the problem of reducing GHG emissions from electricity generation. It is too expensive, and it takes to long to build, compared to other solutions.
I am fairly certain, given the entrenched political power and wealth of the nuclear power corporations, that in the USA many billions of taxpayer dollars will indeed be squandered on the nuclear industry — the current energy/climate legislation contains such provisions, which are generally viewed as a necessary “compromise” to get Republican and “moderate” Democrat support (along with funding for “clean coal” and increased off-shore oil drilling).
And out of that, a few more nuclear power plants may indeed be built and eventually go online to produce some electricity. But they will do little or nothing to reduce GHG emissions in the time frame that such reductions are needed, and they will in fact misdirect money and resources that could far more effectively be spent elsewhere.
Meanwhile, during the years that those power plants are being built, wind and solar will continue to grow at exponential rates as they already are, and by the time those nuclear power plants come on line they will not be economically competitive, and the taxpayers and the rate payers will be stuck with the bill. (Indeed, under current financing proposals, the tax payers and the rate payers will have already paid the bill before, and whether or not, the plants ever go online.) It will be a huge waste of resources, and we will have to deal with whatever problems of toxic waste, vulnerability to terrorism and so on come with those power plants, with little or no payoff in terms of reducing GHGs.
Ron R. writes,
Insinuating much and then backing off from the direct statement, eh? I’ll give a hint: when Lonnie Dupre isn’t pulling that rope, how does that boat go?
Reactor mishaps that can kill neighbours within hours, or, I suspect, at all, are something Dr. Teller, and some other smart people in the Reactor Safeguard Committee, searched for in 1950, and found. As a result, reactor designers outside the former Soviet Union learned the lessons of Chernobyl at that time. It could blow up, but no reactor near me can. The reactors powering this computer are less explosive than so many blocks of wood.
(How fire can be domesticated)
JimM wrote: “I do want to point out the absolutely shameful fear mongering that the anti-nuclear folks perpetrated on the public back in the day, which ultimately resulted in stomping out the nuclear industry in the US.”
That comment is historically inaccurate, although it is a commonly repeated pro-nuclear myth.
It wasn’t the greenies or the “anti-nuclear folks” who “stomped out the nuclear industry” in the US.
The nuclear industry was “stomped” by Wall Street investors who recognized that nuclear power was an economic failure.
What has prevented nuclear power plants from being built in the USA for decades is not the protests of “anti-nuclear folks”. Indeed, they haven’t had much opportunity to protest against any proposed new nuclear power plants, because new nuclear power plants have not been proposed. And the reason for that is that private capital recognizes a money-losing proposition when they see one, and have not been willing to invest in nuclear power.
Which is still the case today. Private capital is unwilling to invest in nuclear power because it is an economic failure. That is why the nuclear industry is demanding that the taxpayers and the rate payers absorb all the costs, and all the risks, up front — that the public will pay essentially ALL the costs of new nuclear power plant construction, even if the plants are never completed and/or never go online.
Meanwhile, private capital is pouring in to wind and solar deployment and development, and into related technologies (e.g. storage and smart-grid technologies) that enable wind and solar to grow even faster.
The argument over nuclear and the recitation of pro-nuclear mythology that blames nuclear power’s economic failure on “irrational greenies” can go on and on, and probably will. The reality is, that nuclear power is not going to make a significant contribution to reducing GHG emissions from electricity generation, no matter how much taxpayer money is squandered on it.
And by the way, for fans of the state-owned, state-run French nuclear power industry, please consider a couple of points.
First of all, the USA already operates many, many more nuclear power plants than does France. And the USA, not France, produces the most electricity from nuclear power of any nation in the world. So, those who would like to see nuclear power grow should cite the USA as an example for France to follow, not the other way around.
Second, those who cite the Frence AREVA nuclear technology as an example of the new generation of nuclear power plants that will supposedly be faster and cheaper to build, and safer to operate, should note that the two AREVA power plants being built in Finland and France are — surprise, surprise — years behind schedule, billions of dollars over budget, and plagued with serious safety problems. Other jurisdictions (e.g. Ontario) have already canceled plans for “new generation” power plants because of skyrocketing costs and the unwillingness of the plant builders to make any commitments as to either the final cost or the date of completion.
So, to summarize, over the past 100 yrs the GHCN adjustments are about the same size (.5F) as the actual temperature rise (this by the way is also well documented on the NOAA web site/not in dispute http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html). This is also the period of large CO2 increases. Therefore, the case for an historical (as opposed to fundamental/theoretical/modeled) link between CO2 and temperature rise over the past 100 yrs is essentially predicated on the validity of the adjustment procedure(s). This is why there is so much discussion about the exact procedures used. Again, they may be fine and robust, but we should be clear about the incredibly critical role played by these adjustments in making the historical case.
All the dunderheaded disinformation, deceit, delay, denial and disasterous decisionmaking of the past 8 long dark years are in the past. With a little luck people with feet of play will overcome the arrogance, wanton greed and stupidity perpetrated by the Masters of the Universe among us, the most avaricious and self-righteous ones who widely proclaim their greed-mongering is God’s work.
What mental disorder describes those among us who proclaim themselves Masters of the Universe doing the work of God?
Years of hard work by people with feet of clay all come down to this week in Copenhagen. The “now or never” week is at hand for the children, global biodiversity, life as we know it, the integrity of Earth and its environs. This week is the moment that the Masters of the Universe cannot avoid any longer; all of the human family are bound in this long-awaited momentous week. The time for action has come, finally. The opportunity held in this blessed moment must not be missed.
If anyone thinks of something that I can do to assist any of you to reasonably, sensibly, responsibly and humanely realize the goals of the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference, please send word to me.
Steve Salmony
Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Gavin I have a quick question. I’m not denying that the amount of CO2 humans release in the athmosphere is scary. But after reading a lot about global warming/climate change, I just cant understand how this can possibly be more urging than all the chemicals that are put in our food, consummables, etc that make male fertility and testosterone levels plummet, cancer skyrocket. Mercury levels that poison people, especially kids who end up with autism, ADD, decreased cognitive abilities. For north americans/europeans, how can GW be more urging than saving humans from being sick? Where are the scientists? Because from my analysis of carbon treaties, they dont turn out to have the claimed effect of decreasing the release of mercury and other heavy metals and do nothing about bad chemicals.
Did,
Subsidies? How about the fact that the damage caused by fossil fuels isn’t reflected in the price? Does that count?
Did,
My sense of proportion is just fine, thank you. I know coal causes more immediate deaths. I was responding to the idiotic proposition that nuclear is the safest of all forms of power, which is just plain not true. There’s also the problems that nuclear costs more to build, takes longer to build, and produces materials which can been used in devices meant to blow up cities.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C-Nuclear_components_bolster_JSW_results-0106094.html
“The company currently claims around 80% of the world market for large forged components for nuclear plants, notably the largest reactor pressure vessel sections, steam generators and turbine shafts.”
” At JSW’s Muroran plant on Hokkaido it has 3000- to 14,000-tonne hydraulic forging presses, the latter able to take 600 tonne steel ingots, and a 12,000 tonne pipe-forming press. At present, its capacity is only four reactor pressure vessels and associated components per year.
In December, JSW announced that it will triple its capacity for manufacturing heavy forged components for nuclear power plants by mid-2012.”
According to http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat2p2.html the US has 336 GW of existing coal fired plants. To replace them at 1.1GW a pop, would require 20 years and take all Japan Steel Works future production plus the other 20% produced by their competitors(and that’s assuming they triple their production as well).
Unfortunately, according to http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat2p4.html, there are ~16.6GW of additional coal generating capacity planned for 2012, and similar amounts in future years in the US, which would absorb all the forging capacity to replace with nuke as well.
Meanwhile, according to http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/newsarticle.aspx?id=26492, China is planning to add 120-160GW of new nukes in the next 20 years, which will also be competing for forging capacity, fuel & recycling, nuclear waste disposal, etc,etc. I suspect the demand on nuclear resources will drive prices up and preclude nuclear being “… the only really responsible and viable primary generation source if you really want to reduce greenhouse emissions and reliance on coal and oil…” Even if we were willing to add reliance on (limited) foreign manufacturing for our electrical power to our reliance on foreign oil for transportation.
“Really save the planet” says:13 December 2009 at 2:58 PM
“Gavin I have a quick question. I’m not denying … [blah-blah, woof-woof redacted]”
Really shoddy. That FUD gambit has been seen here many times, and much better expressed, too, faulty though it is. Sporting the ultra-frayed and worn out “oh, teacher, I have a sincere question” entry line, too.
Fresh faces on RC ought to spend some time doing a little research into standards and practices before blowing a perfectly good pseudonym with a tragically defective first appearance.
“Because from my analysis of carbon treaties…”
Steve Salmony, # 461: What mental disorder describes those among us who proclaim themselves Masters of the Universe doing the work of God?
It would be most appropriate for you to look in the mirror when you say that.
BPL (423), you keep quoting prices for electricity in California that I have never been able to find and you have never verified. The California Renewable Energy Sources Act of 2009 (2008 draft) called for $0.125 to $0.132 per kWhr wholesale tariffs from wind farms to power companies. It calls for an 8c or 9c per kWhr (again wholesale) only for uncommon “high wind” efficient wind farms and only for years 6-20 of a 20-year contract. Even this comes from the infamous California regulatory commission well known for pricing things erratically — though to be fair this may have come from the legislature instead —- though, yet again, not always your paragon of rationality.
Edward Greisch, I read the 2005 SciAm article.
Here is another view:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuel-recycling
Some comments on your article though.
“With this approach, the radioactivity from the generated waste could drop to safe levels in a few hundred years, thereby eliminating the need to segregate waste for tens of thousands of years.”
This is misleading as that would only apply if the power was generated but once. Assuming that this technology became a ongoing thing and in fact expands (how many nuke plants was it that McCain wanted to build?) you’d essentially have the same problem, continuous, or overlapping nuclear waste that would go on indefinitely. True there would be less of it with the fast reactor mentioned but multiply that by the number of new plants that you want to build in response to climate change and you’re back to the same problem.
“The combination of fission products and transuranics is unsuited for weapons or even for thermal-reactor fuel.”
But not for “dirty bombs” eh?
“The third stream, amounting to about 92 percent of the spent thermalreactor fuel, would contain the bulk of the uranium, now in a depleted state. It could be stashed away for future use as fast-reactor fuel.”
Or turned into silverware, per Dan Quayle.
You might also see “bhoglund”‘s comments at the bottom of the article.
Does every thread on RealCLimate have to degenerate into a pro/anti fission slug fest? I suggest taking all that to
http://bravenewclimate.com/
Didactylos #449 said in response to my comment:That’s just to placate paranoid people. In the event of an actual release, medication would be distributed. No doubt you can find documentation for your local emergency service plans, or the FEMA plans, or wherever they are hidden away.
You apparently did not read my comment. I acknowledge that KI would be available, the point is that that would not be sufficient to protect against other radioactive releases like strontium 90.
I asked:Additionally I wonder what would have happened to nuke plants if the economic meltdown that we hear was close to being total if not for the bailout had occurred. Let’s just say that everything suddenly fell apart. What would happen to these plants?
You answered:Even if a meltdown were somehow induced, the design of all modern reactors precludes a severe runaway reaction. Even if the largest possible explosion were somehow generated, the containment building should remain mostly intact.
Sure, until the radiation eroded the concrete wall then all bets would be off. Remember I’m talking total meltdown of society. Whatwould happen to those plants when the water stops flowing to cool the core due to some accident or other?
Gary Thompson #453, in your comment #31 you demonstrated ignorance on the very basics of climatology. Gavin called you on that. It is you, not he, that’s the arrogant twit. Crack a textbook or shut the hell up.
Mesa #460, same message. Are you aware that USA != world?
“For north americans/europeans, how can GW be more urging than saving humans from being sick?”
Well according to spending powers: we’re all far more interested in blowing up humans.
I suppose it stops them being sick…
“Where are the scientists?”
Would’t *doctors* be a better way to get people better, rather than work out whether it’s going to be nice weather? After all, it’s the climatologists who are used up on the science of AGW, and they aren’t really trained for healthcare…
But I suppose if you want to Really Save the Planet, you’ve already set up a large fund to the Red Cross and WHO, yes?
It’s really quite decent of you do to that. Well done.
“Insinuating much and then backing off from the direct statement, eh?”
If someone is insinuating, how can they back off from the direct statement? They can refuse to MAKE the direct statement you want to interpret the insinuation as, but that’s not backing off, is it.
Unless you’re a telepath and know what they were thinking…
Ray Ladbury:
433.
Ed Every says, “Believer/Denier? A scientist would never put himself in either camp – ever.””
No, a scientist would allign him or herself with the evidence, which is what the climate scientists (more than 90% of whom agree that we are warming the planet) have done. The evidence is undeniable – which is why the anti-science side in this debate are termed denialists.
Well then it’s settled. The ayes have it. Who will notify Nature?
It is likely that there are very good reasons for the world to cut CO2 emissions. But if someone wanted to hand reluctant nations and groups (many) a basis for resisting CO2 emission limits, a statement like that could do the trick.
Sloppy science or overreaching “scientific” statements in instances like this can be worse than no science. Once the world’s ear is gained and lost it can take years to regain it.
If a scientist finds that his personal interest in the outcome of his research is the primary driver of his effort and eclipses the importance of the science itself, then there is a conflict and his opinions should not be represented as uncolored scientific findings.
Rather than refer to the CO2 increase by pretending science knows its scary consequences (“Global Warming”, “Pre-mature wrinkles”, “IQ Decline”) it should simply be called what it is “CO2 Jump.”
The dramatic, uncontested jump in CO2 (about 50% in 150 years) is what’s really scary – not poorly supported projections of its consequences. The huge CO2 jump we created is not in question. There is no quarrel with the notion that it moves us into an unprecedented situation with truly unknown consequences.
If 1850 the effect of CO2 levels was unknown. But if some group proposed back in 1850 to suddenly increase the CO2 level by 50%, they would have been stopped forcefully.
It is not necessary or advantageous for even the most interested parties to pretend to know the consequences with certainty in order to prevail. Man’s reckless binge and the resulting CO2 Jump is more than scary enough.
Stick to what we know. Just call it what it is.
I have a question rising from post #132:
>>Finally – the recent Nature paper about how carbon dioxide’s global warming potential is 30 to 50% higher than first estimated – is this talking about the long-term potential? If so, I’m confused as I thought that long term effects were more than double (100%) short term (Charney), and I thought Dr. Hansen suspects paleoclimate data indicates maybe 4 times as much. Therefore 30 to 50% would be really good news. I’d love to see a RC post on this.<<
Should I be thinking of GWP as 12 years of methane in the atmosphere having a positive forcing equivalent to 79 times that as CO2 would have over 20 years, and 33 time that as CO2 would have over 100 years?
Alternatively, should I be thinking of the following: If methane has a GWP of 33 over 100 years, does that mean that of an initial 1 kg emission, there are still molecules of methane in the atmosphere after 100 years from that original emission (surviving past the average shelf-life of 12 years), and they are now equivalent to 33 times the forcing of CO2?
Is my first assumption correct? Are neither correct?
Thanks,
Pete.
Generally speaking and consideration of a solution without consideration of its future costs and at least a nod towards future economic capacity in context of changes resulting from latitudinal shift and other relevant factors is naive at best.
I continue to encourage any who see nuclear as a reasonable solution to consider security, economy, and the potential for the erosion and breakdown of the geopolitical system as it pertains to weapons grade plutonium increasing becoming available on the black market as monetary economic capacity is impinged upon.
If we are to consider a nuclear solution, then at least let it be 4th gen nuclear as that has the most advantage over the disadvantages.
In the mean time, consumption reduction is an easy target.
Post #132 brought up a question for me…
Should I be thinking of GWP as 12 years of methane in the atmosphere having a positive forcing equivalent to 79 times that as CO2 would have over 20 years, and 33 time that as CO2 would have over 100 years?
Alternatively, should I be thinking of the following: If methane has a GWP of 33 over 100 years, does that mean that of an initial 1 kg emission, there are still molecules of methane in the atmosphere after 100 years from that original emission (surviving past the average shelf-life of 12 years), and they are now equivalent to 33 times the forcing of CO2?
Is my first assumption correct? Are neither correct?
Thanks,
Pete.
Kevan, that chart you copied has a caption you left off that belies what you say about it:
http://www.hashemifamily.com/Kevan/Climate/#Data%20Massage
http://www.hashemifamily.com/Kevan/Climate/Hocky_Stick.gif
You say in your caption there:
“Figure: Data Massaging: Agreement in the Last Fifty Years. Here we see several global temperature estimates coming into agreement at the same time. The measurements agree with one another in the past fifty years ….”
That’s not what it shows.
The proxies end at various years, the earliest ends in 1965, the latest in 1992; the black line that continues to 2004 is the instrumental temperature record.
That’s not what the explanation at the site you took the chart from supports
Each colored line is identified in the original caption as drawn from a published proxy record. Those colored lines end,years ago: 1991, 1980, 1965, 1960, 1992, 1980, 1995, 1979, 1990.
The cites are given. None of those files were “massaged” as you claim. If you’d given the original caption and links to the papers, people would be able to see that what you say you imagined happened can’t be true.
You can go to the original source, contact the creator of the chart, and ask about your take on it — it tells you where, right on the page you took it from:
“Please refer to the image description page on Global Warming Art for more information
* http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison_png ”
You can go to the original papers– he provides the citations for them– and see when the proxies ended and look for any sign anyone was “massaging” their data to publish.
I recommend you go back to Tamino’s thread and _read_ it, now that you’ve had some time out.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/riddle-me-this/
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
This site requires a response by someone in the science blogs. A browse through the first 15 or so indicates to me it is mostly old papers already dealt with (or even not published) and opinions, not papers. so it most likely a furphy, but some one who knows the papers would be better to check this and post a refutation.
Back on topic, i.e. COP15 I did a piece on adoption of cap & trade v. direct progressive tax.
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/summary-docs/leading-edge/2009-dec-the-leading-edge
In the absence of anything else that makes more sense, at this time, I am strongly advocating direct tax over cap and trade.
It is my opinion that adoption of cap and trade may lull the world into thinking it has done something more, rather than less meaningful in relation to potential emission reduction of Co2.
This is a touchy area because so many now believe that we have to pass cap and trade to save civilization as we know it.
First, I would say, we will not save civilization as we know it due to the inertial response mechanisms pertaining to current levels of atmospheric Co2.
Second, adoption of cap and trade, which looks merely to be a reinterpretation of Kyoto Protocol (which did not reduce any emissions but rather allowed for continued increases) may have the result of making everyone feel comfortable that they have done the best they could when the opposite may very well be the case.
Weigh atmospheric Co2, emissions pace, and policy inertia, and policy development entwined with special interests, and the problem seems evident.
G.R.L. Cowan #458 said Insinuating much and then backing off from the direct statement, eh?
Splitting hairs. If people die within hours of a major nuke accident I called that instant. Sorry, Ok, how about this, “pretty quick”.
About that picture of the guy pulling the boat, um ok, because he took a Russian nuke powered ice breaker to the north pole means that all of Greenpeace’s anti-nuclear sentiments must be wrong? Your straining here. I don’t know Lonnie’s story. Maybe that was the only ship he could catch a ride on. I happen to drive a carbon fueled vehicle as I suspect you do. Would I drive a non-carbon fueled vehicle if I could afford one, of course. But it’s not available to me at present.
Re 460:
1) Global temperatures have risen about 0.5 C over the past century- much more than 0.5F
2) the 0.5F “adjustment effect” is for US only, globally the effect of the adjustments is much less, about 0.2C / century for the trend in maximum temperatures (and no effect on the trend for minima) according to Easterling and Peterson Atmospheric Research 37 (1995) 19-26
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V95-3YRS4V8-8&_user=542840&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1134193233&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000027659&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=542840&md5=f581438a79f4781b2e01d7b7534eccec
3) The reasons and methods for adjustments have been well described and documented and are completely objective.
The AP just released their own investigation that concludes that the climate science still stands…although some of the emails do detail some rather… errr “questionable”… ethics. The AP study stated that the ethics were at the extreme side but just barely in bounds and not out of bounds for either the publishing scientists whose work holds up over time or on the other hand, for opposing climate contrarians.
The AP study stated that there was no evidence of climate studies being falsified (which is a bombshell on its own as these emails were the most indicting of all those (10,000 or so?) not released).
I think the AP would have had a motive to blow the thing wide open and declare all the climate science a sham if anything (if true)…it would have been the story of the century, made them famous and sold lots of copy…but that’s not the conclusions they reached.
In the scientist’s defense, especially Mike Manns, it stated that Mann did release a study raising scientific questions about areas of the climate work he and others were doing. (“Northern Hemsisphere Temperatures….Inferences, Uncertainies and limitations, 1999). This is hardly the history of a dogmatic, ideologue who is weighting the data trying fool the public.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gRa5F7Lv_zO0ZKaHmbQENlyV3KdgD9CHUS980
“At JSW’s Muroran plant on Hokkaido it has 3000- to 14,000-tonne hydraulic forging presses, the latter able to take 600 tonne steel ingots, and a 12,000 tonne pipe-forming press. At present, its capacity is only four reactor pressure vessels and associated components per year.” – 465
A human population living at U.S. levels of energy waste, drawing all it’s energy from nuclear would require some 220,000 nuclear power plants to be built world wide.
Construction rates would then have to be 2200 reactors per year over the next 100 years, and given a 100 year reactor life (twice the current rating), that rate of construction would have to be sustained infinately.
JSW may triple it’s production capacity by 2012, but it will be short by a factor of 183.
We are all pleased however that Iran is well on it’s way to building the 300 nuclear reactors that it needs under such a regime.
Mesa@460, now just a wee minute.
1)the trend in Roman M.’s analysis is positive during only PART of the period over which warming has been observed. In fact, the greatest warming is seen when the adjustment trend is strongly negative!
2)The trend is positive (and has the same slope) during the pause in warming from 1944-1974.
3)And of course there is the fact that you guys conveniently ignore the commensurate trends seen in satellite data over the same period–and those are independent of GHCN.
4)And again, you ignore all the mountains of phenological and ice-melt data showing that we are warming.
I’m sorry, but you have to be either mendacious or a special kind of stupid to contend seriously that the planet is not warming.
449 Didactylos –
“Any other industry would kill to have such an amazing safety record!”
Great irony!
Given “Really save the planet’s” post, it is pretty clear why he is concerned about decreased male fertility and decreased cognitive ability. Run along, concern troll.
gary thompson foams:
“fortunately real people of science are entering this arena and will push the bullies out. only then will we truly understand climate change and get answers to our tough questions.”
Real people of science!!! You mean like the ones who have been issuing death threats against climate scientists???
Gonna push the big bad climate science bullies out are ya?
Game on big talker. Or are you gonna come gun me down on campus after you’re done with the climate scientists?
Ricki (Australia) — Try here:
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/poptarts-450-climate-change-denier-lies/
Ed Every, You choose not to contest my assertion that there are mountains of evidence supporting the contention that we are warming the planet, and really no evidence contrary to this contention. So what is one to call someone who rejects all that evidence other than a denialist?
If people are stupid enough to reject science because scientists tell the truth about anti-scientists, then getting them to accept the truth about anything is hopeless.
One answer to our energy problems…
Pee power!
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/07/08/urine-power.html
http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/CC/article.asp?doi=b905974a
China: Climate Change or Hot Air?
The mainland earns billions in carbon-offset sales. But by taking credit for projects that would have been built anyway, it may not be playing by the rules
On the wooded hills outside the city of Harbin in the northeastern province of Heilongjiang, Chinese developers are building towering wind turbines that will spin day and night to
http://www.visitchn.com/2009/12/china-climate-change-or-hot-air.html
Despite contrarians salivating over stolen E-mail sentences they don’t want to understand, even more, them loving not explaining that private E-mails are not intended for the public… Despite a Copenhagen conference
which will likely fail not because of dumb repetitive contrarian statements, but because AGW hits hard non powerful countries and regions the most, therefore AGW is not important…..for the time being.
Meantime back on planet Earth:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg
it was warm in the Arctic lately, so warm that ice coverage was affected. Proving sea ice more capable of expressing reality than a well paid oil lobbyist, or a contrarian making a reputation out of dismantling the ever powerful Climate Scientist Mafia.
The next time a person claims it has been cooling during the last 10 years, that person is dumber than an Arctic ice sheet (the least expansive ever during the last 3 years), or has sadly no cognitive capacity to read graphs.
riki if the guys run all over the net refuting rubbish we will miss out here
while i agree that national newspaper rubbish needs to dealt with, i would just leave the blogs , forums to their own stupidity .
491 Ladbury:
.Ed Every, You choose not to contest my assertion that there are mountains of evidence supporting the contention that we are warming the planet, and really no evidence contrary to this contention. So what is one to call someone who rejects all that evidence other than a denialist?
If people are stupid enough to reject science because scientists tell the truth about anti-scientists, then getting them to accept the truth about anything is hopeless.
I’m not won over by the notion of research by ballot. Imagine if our understanding of the physical world had been established by ballot over history. Research must be judged on merit alone. Politics has no place in science.
Re 467 Jen
“Steve Salmony, # 461: What mental disorder describes those among us who proclaim themselves Masters of the Universe doing the work of God?”
…
“It would be most appropriate for you to look in the mirror when you say that.”
1. People who feel they are doing good things may or may not actually be doing good things. Salmony was refering to the later case.
2. What came to my mind upon reading Salmony’s comment was the … I believe it’s called The Fellowship (not of the rings, unfortunately) – the people who brought us the national prayer breakfast, as I recalll – These people (who include at least a couple of senators, I think) are CREEPS. They think the invisible hand of the free market is the hand of God. They have a weird habit of referencing Ghengis Khan and Hitler. And there’s the hard-core social conservatism, too. Creepy.
—-
475 Ed Every –
“There is no quarrel with the notion that it moves us into an unprecedented situation with truly unknown consequences.”
Yes, but don’t forget the known consequences.
——
Re 478 Pete
“Should I be thinking of GWP as 12 years of methane in the atmosphere having a positive forcing equivalent to 79 times that as CO2 would have over 20 years, and 33 time that as CO2 would have over 100 years?”
“Alternatively, should I be thinking of the following: If methane has a GWP of 33 over 100 years, does that mean that of an initial 1 kg emission, there are still molecules of methane in the atmosphere after 100 years from that original emission (surviving past the average shelf-life of 12 years), and they are now equivalent to 33 times the forcing of CO2?”
It’s definitely not the later. I’m not entirely sure what you meant by the former case, so I’ll just explain what I know:
GWP if defined relative to CO2 is the ratio of the time-integrated radiative forcings of an amount of emitted material to the same amount of CO2, out to some time horizon.
In the limit that GWP is calculated out to a fraction of a second, the ratios of GWPs are equal to the ratios of the instantaneous radiative forcing. For example, if an additional molecule of CH4 has a radiative forcing ~ 20 times that of an additional molecule of CO2, then the GWP of CH4 would be ~ 20 on a per molecule basis, or ~ (44/16 * 20 = 55) on a per mass basis.
Because the perturbation to atmospheric composition decays faster for CH4 emission than for CO2 emissions, then the GWP of CH4 decays with an increasing time horizon. The decay is actually a bit different depending on the source of CH4 – non-fossil biogenic CH4 does not add to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere upon oxydation on a net basis because CO2 was sequestered to provide the C for CH4; fossil CH4 emissions do add CO2, so the GWP of fossil CH4 emissions will decrease less with an increasing time horizon. The GWP of methane in either case should include some other effects on atmospheric composition (tropospheric ozone, stratospheric water vapor).
Of course, one could define GWP to be corrected for efficacy of radiative forcing, which doesn’t generally vary a lot for well-mixed GHGs (or solar forcing) so far as I know, but is significantly different for dark aerosols emitted in locations such that they darken snow/ice surfaces (the efficacy is higher because the same global average forcing has a greater regional effect at the location of positive surface albedo feedback…) But I don’t know if this is done as part of GWP or if it is done as a GWP efficacy.
Is my first assumption correct? Are neither correct?
Thanks,
Pete.
Here, for Kevan — this should be even clearer:
http://www.grida.no/CLIMATE/IPCC_TAR/WG1/images/fig2-21.gif
from the discussion here: http://deepclimate.org/2009/12/11/mcintyre-provides-fodder-for-skeptics/
I’ll put my two cents in re: nuclear power. Yes it is a valuable medium and long term term source of power and definately a powerful tool in our arsenal to address climate change. However the cost involved to make any impact at present using nuclear alone is many trillions on dollars. It is best to invest a proportion of our energy budget on nuclear but concentrate on passive systems like solar/geo theraml/wind/hydro etc..all these things with the possible exception of geo thermal and hydro can be quickly and relatively cheaply built..this will help to immediately reduce our emissions while we are steadily and progressively building 5-6 generation nuclear power plants in safe locations. I heard all the crap above about the supposed ‘dangers’ of nuclear power..these dangers pale into insignificance when we are talking about the (real) ‘dangers’ of uncontrollable climate change. Please put things into perspective guys!
Re Pete again –
“Is my first assumption correct?” …
Obviously I forgot to edit off that last part of my comment which is really what you wrote.
But I also forgot something. My understanding is that a significant fraction of atmospheric CO2 perturbation decay occurs within a year or so after emission (the decay is not a simple exponential, whereas it tends to be like that for CH4), so the GWP of CH4 relative to CO2 might actually increase significantly going from seconds to a year or so – but then it will decrease going into longer time horizons, going below the instantaneous value.