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.
I can’t claim the massive dedication required to go through all these posts, but I would just like to comment on the global temperature predictions issue. I have just read a compact booklet produced by the UK Met Office entitled ‘Warming: Climate change – the facts’. This takes a simplified approach to the broad issues suitable for general UK public consumption, but I think it gets the essential points across and deserves a wide circulation to counteract the massive doses of misinformation to which we are being subjected at the moment.
It includes a temperature graph giving a scenario-independent line valid for at least 20 years or so, and then heading up towards 2100. Based on this very well-known projection, I would flatly disagree with the statement that ‘we cannot possibly predict the future course of global temperatures’. The trend of observed temperatures is pointing remorselessly upwards – not surprising, since we seem to be following the worst-case BAU CO2 line in the IPCC scenarios at the moment.
If this goes on, and I don’t see how the trend can deviate markedly over the next decade or so, then I venture to predict that the abnormal nature of the situation (and hence its anthropogenic causation) will become obvious to all. Even those of limited intelligence – and even the US Congressman we saw on BBC2 Newsnight the other evening – will surely have got the message by the year 2020.
I rest my case on that point. The consequences? – well, that’s another ball game entirely, but it has got to generate serious issues for everyone alive by 2050, I guess.
Didactylos quoted David MacKay: “At the same time, we must not let ourselves be swept off our feet in horror at the danger of nuclear power. Nuclear power is not infinitely dangerous. It’s just dangerous, much as coal mines, petrol repositories, fossil-fuel burning and wind turbines are dangerous.”
Nuclear power is dangerous “much as wind turbines are dangerous”? Give me a break. How many mountains of toxic waste are produced by mining and refining the fuel for wind turbines? How easily can wind turbine factories be switched over to producing explosive materials for the most destructive weapons ever invented?
The main difference between responsible nuclear advocates — like the folks at MIT who advocate a large-scale expansion of nuclear power and have done comprehensive studies that honestly address the “obstacles” to such an expansion — and nuclear “zealots” is that the “zealots” refuse to even acknowledge the very serious problems, harms, and dangers associated with nuclear power. MacKay’s suggestion that the dangers of nuclear power are comparable to those of wind turbines is just the sort of over-the-top laughable nonsense that is the sign of the nuclear zealot.
And again, I am not much interested in a long debate over the harms and dangers of nuclear power, because there is no necessity to even deal with those issues, because nuclear power is neither needed nor is it a particularly effective solution for reducing GHG emissions from electricity generation. Indeed the opportunity costs of nuclear — the cost of investing resources in nuclear that could much more effectively be invested in renewables and efficiency — are so great that investment in nuclear hinders, rather than helps, the effort to reduce GHG emissions.
Didactylos wrote: “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.”
This comment tells me that you don’t know much about concentrating solar thermal with thermal storage (a.k.a. “solar baseload”), or about the numerous studies both in the USA and Europe that have demonstrated that a diversified regional portfolio of renewable energy sources can produce 24×7 power that is at least as reliable as coal or nuclear.
Didactylos wrote: “Where does nuclear come in … it is the only energy source that is a mature technology and can replace coal very quickly and cheaply.”
False. Nuclear is the most expensive and takes the longest to build. An expansion of nuclear would be neither quick nor cheap. Wind and solar are both mature technologies. (By the way, why is it that when nuclear proponents argue that nuclear is a “mature technology”, they often immediately go on to say that what we really need is “next generation nuclear technology” which has never been actually built or operated at scale?)
Didactylos wrote: “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.”
How can nuclear be a “stop-gap” when wind and solar can be built and deployed — and are being built and deployed already — much faster than nuclear? Like, five times as fast?
Are you aware that wind and solar are the world’s fastest growing sources of electricity, that both are growing at record-breaking double-digit rates year after year, that private investment capital is pouring into wind and solar by the tens of billions of dollars — while nuclear generation is not growing at all, is forecast to decline as a share of total electricity generatation worldwide even with the new nuclear power plants being built, that private capital will not touch nuclear because it has such a high risk of economic failure (unless the taxpayers and rate payers are forced to absorb all the costs and risks up front), that the “new generation” nuclear power plants being built in Finland and France are way behind schedule and billions of dollars over budget?
The fact is that IF for some reason we did have to expand nuclear power to address global warming, that we would need wind and solar as the “stop-gaps”, simply because they can be brought online much faster than nuclear. But we simply don’t need nuclear power. We can get all the electricity we could possibly need from wind and solar, and geothermal and hydro and biomass, much faster, at lower cost, and with none of the very serious problems of nuclear.
Didactylos 267
New nuclear power is NOT cheap. For example, two new plants at Turkey Point FL are projected to cost $12-17 billion – and they won’t be fully operational until 2021. Now consider this, no nuclear power plant has EVER been built on time or on budget. The average cost overrun in the USA is over 200%. Furthermore, 100% of the financing is guaranteed by the US government. The US nuclear power industry has a horrible track record. Nearly half of all plants build went bankrupt. The nuclear power implosion cost US taxpayers about $700 billion in current dollars – and that occured BEFORE Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.
Also, 92% of the fuel used in civlian nuclear power plants is imported. 32% is from Russia from reprocessing of nuclear weapons. That supply will dry up in 2015 and after that there will be a severe global shortage of uranium fuel. 2017 contract prices are already five times higher than the current price and less than 1/2 of anticipated demand has been contracted for. Most of the imported fuel will come from Australia and Asia, which in my opinion is a HUGE security risk. How hard would it be for a terrorist to blow up a ship carrying nuclear fuel?
I support the expansion of existing nuclear power plants. It’s relatively inexpensive and upgrades can be completed in 3-5 years. Still, a far better short-gap measure is natural gas. We have lots of it and while not “clean” it’s a heck of a lot better than coal.
All,
This is a minor matter but could an established climate scientist please weigh in on this temperature conversion issue. I’m only an astrophysicist so I usually work in Kelvin. Thanks.
http://community.nytimes.com/comments/dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/10/skeptics-hold-fast-in-copenhagen/?permid=66#comment66
Completely Fed Up, determining the reliability and veracity of a source is not easy. You have to read it, check the cited references, and give it a sanity check. If things look odd, then you have to dig further.
Your source fails the “sniff test”.
First, it appears to be a white paper written by a single individual, it isn’t peer reviewed or published under the auspices of any known body. The funding for the work is not obvious.
Second, the author is almost unknown, but appears to have ties to coal.
Third, the paper is entirely US centric. This means that it does not and cannot provide the numbers I am looking for.
Fourth, it makes no attempt to provide an independent review of costs, instead being entirely speculative. Again, this means that it cannot provide the numbers I am looking for.
Fifth, the sloppy treatment of relative costs and unforgivable rambling make it a heavy read. This guy needs a firm editor!
Sixth, it comes up with a final figure that is five to six times greater than the actual worldwide figures, based on actual built and operational nuclear power stations around the world. Clearly, in such cases, the actual capital costs are used, not estimates. The result is clearly preposterous.
Sorry, Mr “Completely Fed Up”. You found a headline that agreed with you, and apparently that was enough for you. Unfortunately, there was nothing behind the headline.
171/202 “calims the planet is in a long-term cololing trend”
To save Gavin some time I can assure you that this statement is utterly correct.
There are just a couple of typing errors.
The word calims should have been claims.
The word is should have been was.
The word cololing should have been cooling.
In every other respect this statement is absolutely accurate.
J (268) — Using the concept of orbital forcing, by calculating future Milankovitch cycles, it is determined that, baring AGW, the next attempt at a stade (massive ice sheets) would not start for another 20,000+ years. With AGW, consult David Archer’s “The Long Thaw”.
After briefly scanning the media, it’s clear that science is not on the agenda of the partisan political crowd, on either the so-called left or the so-called right.
For left-wing media, take the fairly popular Amy Goodman Democracy Now show – they do touch on a small set of the issues surrounding Copenhagen – emails, draft texts, etc. – but there is zero mention of the real reasons that the U.S. and Canada are trying to water down any draft texts – namely, Canadian tar sand oil, various new coal-to-gasoline plants, and the expanded push for liquefied natural gas by major U.S. oil companies like Exxon and Chevron.
Clearly, those projects would be non-starters under any level of binding emissions reductions – but instead, Democracy Now focuses on reparations for Indian tribes that had treaties with the Canadian government that were not honored??? How is paying reparations going to have any effect on tar sand developments? Furthermore, wouldn’t it be better to take those “reparations” and use them to develop low-cost renewable energy technologies, which would benefit all Canadians and native tribes? It actually seems like an effort at distraction from the real issues.
The right-wing media is of course stuck in denialism mode. Try the British Daily Mail for some good examples… such as this one:
More emails came to light yesterday, including one in which an American climatologist admitted it was a travesty that scientists could not explain a lack of global warming in recent years.
A truncated statement if there ever was one! The latter part of that email – that is, the end of the statement – was “the observing system is inadequate” or words to that effect. This is similar to the historical “hole” in Arctic temperature measurements – there’s a much bigger set of missing data from the oceans, and of course Triana was never launched, so there’s no really solid data looking at the Earth’s net radiative budget.
A more complete list of media statements on the emails is available here:
http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2009/12/10/the-scientists-stike-back/
It is if nothing else, a nice example of how propaganda works – an email decrying the lack of observational depth in data collection is respun into one that claims the planet is not warming – someone is chortling over that.
Regardless, neither the left-wing media nor the right-wing media has bothered to consider the science behind the issue, or the underlying specific fossil fuel projects that would be hung out to dry if binding emissions were passed, nor, most importantly, the ability of renewable energy projects to make up for the energy production from said fossil fuel projects.
This is not because these outlets are unaware of the facts of the matter – they are just choosing not to cover them, and instead are spinning the story along their own ideological lines, while carefully avoiding topics that might upset their sponsors. The non-profit left-right media is hardly independent, either – most of the money appears to come from private foundations, but how those private foundations are funded? That’s not known.
This is not an ideological issue – it is a science and technology issue – and those who are using it to push their personal ideologies or to please their financial backers are doing the public a giant disservice by avoiding what are clearly the most sensitive economic topics:
1) The loss of billions of dollars of dedicated investments in extremely dirty fossil fuel projects all over the world, as well as
2) The expected drop in demand for fossil fuels as renewables take market share away – and yes, you can maintain an industrial civilization in the absence of fossil fuels.
That’s what the fossil fuel interests are really worried about, isn’t it?
The ecological disasters – ranging from droughts and floods to plummeting biological diversity (species extinction) and agricultural collapse – don’t even show up on their spreadsheets at all – although that is what everyone else is most concerned about.
We’re all heartless, greedy, violent, selfish and thoughtless whenever we can get away with it. That has to be dealt with in any community endeavor.
There’s nothing wrong with being a communist and wishing for a one world government with the common control of property. The goal of a classless and stateless society free from oppression is a noble one in fact. So why is anyone trying to hide it?
We can predict the future will turn up
Dude, that is sooooo … profound. I predict that’s the only kind of prediction you have any mathematical, physical, chemical, biological, or any other scientific skill at making. And furthermore, I have a question for you.
Who’s ‘we’?
> Kondeeler says: 11 December 2009 at 11:39 AM
he’s copypasting stuff lifted directly from the “Air Vent” — a septic thinktank.
#193 The science commmunity needs a PR machine.
I understand the comment was well-intended. However. Science does NOT need a PR machine.
Did Galileo need a PR machine? Was he in need of an image make-over? Did he have to get his memes right in the blogosphere?
The hell he did. He needed his political enemies to get the hell out of his face. And once they did and once we coolectively put our eyes to the telescope and saw what he saw, the game was OVER and there was NO going back.
Except recently. The Inquisition is back — assuming it ever left — and you will NOT be allowed to understand your universe. No sir-rah! No telescope for you.
Now it’s PR. What has the world come to?
cougar
Great article. We need governments and legislation to help push the movement forward.
Steve Cohen (of Columbia’s Earth Institute) recently wrote a great piece about climate politics and COP15.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-cohen/climate-politics-and-cope_b_387029.html
Hopefully, we’ll see more political and legislative action out of Copenhagen. Obama won the Nobel Prize, now he has to earn it.
Re: #304, David:
Thanks, but the question was: “When does the (most accurate) climate model predict the next Ice Age? Next LIA? Next MWP?”
>>>Cougar: “Now it’s PR. What has the world come to?”
Nightmares for children:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzSuP_TMFtk
Ray Ladbury,
I appreciate the sentiment; however, I am no longer young. Thanks though.
Also, please note that I said “where possible”. I recognize that sometimes the alternative is cumbersome, as in Churchill’s construction. In the case in point, the sentence “Did you even read the study you are linking to?” could easily have said, “Did you even read the study that you linked?”
There is also the matter of Gavin having written, “your are” when he clearly meant, “you’re”, but who’s quibbling? Do you think he makes these kinds of mistakes when he writes computer code?
RE #303 part of the reason there are cost overruns is that every plant is a little bit different. If we want nuclear we need to do it the french way, cookie cutter plants as much as possible. Better yet bring in the french atomic power company to build/run them. We pick one design, get it approved and the only issues are then site based ones. Safety was handled at the beginning, in addition all are kept the same by if one is modified all are modified. On the proliferation issue there is a cycle based on Thorium that does not produce bomb making material. As to waste today we forget that for 10-20 years after being removed there is energy still being radiated from the fuel rod. Outer plant probes use this to power themselves (see voyager etc). Why not figure out how to use the current waste heat to do something useful, rather than just sticking the rods in cooling water?
Thanks to those who posted the reference to the David MacKay article “Sustainable Energy – without the Hot Air”. I’ve been an engineer in the utility business for almost 30 years, and I’m impressed at how comprehensive and accurate his paper is. He even addressed the load factor issue, though I didn’t see him stress the additional huge costs required for providing backup generation for renewables (ie, when the sun doesn’t shine or the wind stops blowing). But I think he does come to a reasonable conclusion, ie, when you add up the actual costs for any substantive conversion to renewables, along with the huge cultural roadblocks (high costs to consumers, “not in my backyard” attitudes towards building renewable facilities, etc.), the ultimate cost and difficulty of the undertaking is immense. And while I think the average consumer is fine with the concept of using renewables to power his home, in fact I think all they really care about is that the lights go on when the flick the switch, and how much it costs when the see the bill every month. And his paper also outlines just one aspect of the incredible complexity of the overall ‘global warming and what we do about it’ issue, that I think some here take for granted. Honestly, I think the average person has absolutely no clue about all the science involved, and wouldn’t understand it if they did. And they shouldn’t. So when folks from either side portray the arrogant, name calling attitudes I see in this and other forums, it’s no wonder that the public goes with whatever they see in the headlines. It seems pretty shameful all around. Bashing Gore, or Limbaugh, or Hannity, or the oil companies, or whomever you want is the sign that you haven’t matured past kindergarten, or you don’t know enough to present a rational argument. That’s why papers like Mackay’s are a breath of fresh air, and most of what’s slung around this forum is childish and arrogant. No wonder the public is wary of scientists who act like they’ve lost all objectivity and appear to be colluding to put one over on us. It’s here for all to see.
J., there’s a search box at the top of every page. Need help? Click inside it with the mouse and type your question then hit Enter. That finds answers you can read on your own. Try:
RealClimate: The global cooling myth
The point about timescales is worth noticing: predicting an ice age …. parameters will next be conducive to widespread polar ice accumulation in about 60000 years.
Next MWP? Well, where do you expect the next Medieval period to occur?
Next local warm period? Now, but artificially induced.
Next Medieval period? thinking, well, hmmmmmm ….
Snorbert Zangox says:11 December 2009 at 5:25 PM
“Do you think he makes these kinds of mistakes when he writes computer code?”
Taking you as a phenotype I’m more interested in why you’re hiding behind the pseudonym “Snorbert Zangox” and taking vacuous and trivial potshots at folks who are sufficiently self-confident to publish under their birth names.
Are you under some sort of threat? Do you imagine anybody is interested in hunting you down and persecuting you based on relatively innocuous and witless comments embedded in a climate science blog? Are you subject to delusions of grandeur? Are you embarrassed about what you’re doing? Is there somebody at home who’ll make you feel ashamed if they read your comments? Would you be humiliated if you were asked to explain yourself?
Why are you unable to account for your actions? What’s the scoop, “Snorbert”?
Comment by J — 11 December 2009 @ 12:34 PM:
The ice age bit you mention is an urban legend. Climate scientists did not predict an impending ice age (e.g. in less than 10K to 20K years) in the 1970s. This lack of knowledge is probably one of the reasons why John P. Reisman (OSS Foundation) (11 December 2009 @ 12:54 PM) suggested that you do a little studying. You are repeatedly asking an inappropriate question about climate models. Just use the search function, or the right hand sidebar on this site to find essays regarding your question instead of asking for someone to repeat this information. Check out Milankovitch cycles for an interesting starter.
Steve
#314 J
Context is key of course: J, you have no idea what you are even asking.
There will never be another MWP because the Medieval period is in past.
Next ice age should ‘begin’ generally in the next 10 to 20 thousand years causing a state change based on the changing Milankovitch cycle forcing components, but the amount of forcing in the system right now supersedes the forcing required to achieve an ice age, if a state change on the warm side overrides, including future feedbacks, then we not be able to achieve an ice age on this go round… so maybe in about 120,000 years.
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/milankovitch-cycles
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/forcing-levels
If you mean a similar internal climate pattern that resembles the mechanisms of the LIA and MWP, then the answer is I don’t know. The ocean heat cycles are still being studied. Those mechanisms are possibly still in play, or we have interrupted the system to such extent that we those mechanisms are interrupted. But understanding those mechanisms will not prevent continued global warming. Your argument is a red herring distraction from the relevance of human caused global warming.
Generally speaking you simply don’t know enough to ask intelligent questions or make intelligent points on the subject as indicated by your posts.
Grow some integrity, state your full name.
Re: 319:
Thanks Hank, I did do the search however and didn’t find the answer to the question: “When does the (most accurate) climate model predict the next Ice Age?”
All I see in the article linked is some reference to the next ice age being almost impossible to predict, an interesting thought in this context; but I’m asking what the model actually predicts.
As for “when do you expect the next Medieval period”: being silly about it is, well, silly. When’s the model predict the next major cooling and warming cycles as have occurred during the past centuries? What happens when you run the model out, what’s it predict?
J (314) — Your question was indirectly answered previously, but you need to do the reading. If by “climate model” you mean just GCMs, then ordinarily orbital forcing is left out. As for other aspects of GCMs, start with
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/faq-on-climate-models/
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/faq-on-climate-models-part-ii/
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap3-1/final-report/sap3-1-final-all.pdf
>>”Check out Milankovitch cycles for an interesting starter.”
Thanks Steve, but again: I’m asking what the (most accurate) predicts.
Snorbert, You know, I’ve always been curious about the sort of Liliputian intellect that gets off by correcting typographical errors made by people who are MUCH, MUCH smarter than they are. It sort of bespeaks a rather pathetic intellectual inadequacy coupled with the sort of insecurity that recognizes the inadequacy but feels it must hide it from oneself and others. Snorbert, you’re not doing a very good job of hiding it.
Joseph Hulb says, “There’s nothing wrong with being a communist and wishing for a one world government with the common control of property. The goal of a classless and stateless society free from oppression is a noble one in fact. So why is anyone trying to hide it?”
Uh, maybe because it doesn’t work? Hell, dude, by the end of his life, even Marx claimed not to be a Marxist! Or as the Ed Wilson, who has studied social insects for 5 decades said, “Marx was exactly right. He just had the wrong species.”
J’s obviously trolling … people should just ignore him.
Thanks David,
As for which model I mean, I’m interested in what the most accurate model, whichever one is most reliable that’s used to predict the dire results that are used for the policy makers. I’m asking what the most accurate model predicts when you run it out long term. This would seem an interesting test. If it goes chaotic or reflects somewhat the long term trends or if it goes up forever; whatever happens if you just let it run.. If memory serves, it’s not yet proven that climate is not a chaotic system (Yes I have read “Chaos and Climate”), so I’d be interested in seeing if there’s evidence of this is you let it run, testing minor variation in starting conditions. If it runs to deep freeze for example.
If orbital forcing is left out of ALL models, the I’m guessing the next Ice Age is never predicted, nor accounted for in current warming. You said “ordinarily”. Is there any model that doesn’t leave orbital forcing out?
thanks again.
If I’m reading the material correctly, then there also is no “most accurate” model, and the “Climate Models” pdf would seem to indicate the answer to my questions is basically is “don’t know”.
J: When does the (most accurate) climate model predict the next Ice Age? Next LIA? Next MWP?
BPL: Ice Ages are initiated by “Milankovic Cycles” in the Earth’s orbit and axial tilt. The next “stades” when an ice age could take place are 20,000 and 50,000 years from now. The near one is shallow enough that global warming may already have obviated it.
EG: 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
BPL: The direct total from Chernobyl is already up to 56, not 31, and that number does not count the thousands of kids who got thyroid cancer. Nor are the excess cancers or leukemias from “unplanned releases” counted, since you can’t source which cancer came from where. And you’re not counting deaths in other accidents, like SL-1 and Jaslovske Bohunice. In short, your list is fudged.
Kondeeler: In fact Tropospheric water vapour levels are falling, or at bast have remained constant.
BPL: Look again:
Brown, S., Desai, S., Keihm, S., and C. Ruf, 2007. “Ocean water vapor and cloud burden trends derived from the topex microwave radiometer.” Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium. Barcelona, Spain: IGARSS 2007, pp. 886-889.
Dessler AE, Zhang Z, Yang P 2008. “Water-Vapor Climate Feedback Inferred from Climate Variations.” Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L20704.
Held, I.M. and B. J. Soden, 2000. “Water vapor feedback and global warming.” Annu. Rev. Energy Environ., 25, 441–475.
Minschwaner, K., and A. E. Dessler, 2004. “Water vapor feedback in the tropical upper troposphere: Model results and observations.” J. Climate, 17, 1272–1282.
Oltmans, S.J. and D.J. Hoffman, “Increase in Lower-Stratospheric Water Vapor at Mid-Latitude Northern Hemisphere Site from 1981-1994,” Nature, 374 (1995): 146-149.
Philipona, R., B. Dürr, A. Ohmura, and C. Ruckstuhl 2005. “Anthropogenic greenhouse forcing and strong water vapor feedback increase temperature in Europe.” Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L19809.
Santer, B. D, C. Mears, F. J. Wentz, K. E. Taylor, P. J. Gleckler, T. M. L. Wigley, T. P. Barnett, J. S. Boyle, W. Bruggemann, N. P. Gillett, S. A. Klein, G. A. Meehl, T. Nozawa, D. W. Pierce, P. A. Stott, W. M. Washington, M. F. Wehner, 2007. “Identification of human-induced changes in atmospheric moisture content.” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 104, 15248-15253.
Soden, B.J., D. L. Jackson, V. Ramaswamy, M. D. Schwarzkopf, and X. Huang, 2005. “The radiative signature of upper tropospheric moistening.” Science, 310, 841–844.
http://www.gfy.ku.dk/~kaas/forc&feedb2008/Articles/Soden.pdf
Snorbert: one should avoid ending sentences with prepositions where possible.
BPL: That “rule” was made up by John “Dry-as-Dust” Dryden, who thought that since you couldn’t do it in Latin, a more “polite” language, you shouldn’t do it in English either. Winston Churchill’s response was apropos: “That is the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put.”
>>>John: ” the amount of forcing in the system right now supersedes the forcing required to achieve an ice age”… I take that as ‘it doesn’t’. I’m not sure if this answer speaks for a climate model, or if so, if it speaks for one that does include orbital forcing.
“If you mean a similar internal climate pattern that resembles the mechanisms of the LIA and MWP, then the answer is I don’t know. The ocean heat cycles are still being studied..”
“I don’t know.” is certainly an acceptable answer, and I appreciate it. I’m again not sure what this is climate model results.
“you simply don’t know enough to ask intelligent questions”
I agree they are simple questions. If the policy makers are asking our support in taking extreme action based on the dire predictions of a climate model, I think simple questions – even ones you think are not intelligent – will need to be answered. By someone anyway.
JH: There’s nothing wrong with being a communist and wishing for a one world government with the common control of property. The goal of a classless and stateless society free from oppression is a noble one in fact.
BPL: Ghost of Stalin, leave this poor man’s body! The power of Christ compels you!
J., if you insist someone give you a single answer that has to be from “the climate model (most accurate)” — of course you won’t get that, though you could get opinions on the assumptions hidden in that question.
If that’s the only answer you’ll accept, you get the bragging rights, you stumped the chumps, and you can stop here. But it sounds to me like a homework help question. If so it’s meant to get you to try to learn something about how to look this stuff up. We ordinary readers here can help you look.
You could want to know when the next ice age would have been expected if the Earth had stayed in the usual slow cooling trend since the last temperature peak. That doesn’t require a climate model at all, it’s done with astronomical tables, on the assumption the future will be like the geologically recent past.
Since we know the current condition isn’t like anything in the geologically recent past
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Warming_Predictions.png
you might want to know what difference that may make in when another ice age could happen.
Good pictures here:
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/natural-cycle
The topic I suggested earlier deals with that — but you didn’t like the discussion at RC earlier; what did you get out of it?
Did you try ordinary Google? This is recent and a decent summary:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/09/090903-arctic-warming-ice-age.html
Here are some publications on that–try reading a few of these, from a Scholar search:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=next+ice+age
@321 – The CIA didn’t regard the fear of cooling by scientists as a “global legend” at all. If they did then why did they write over thirty pages of alarmism in their 1973 report?
Please don’t tell me the science has moved on so much further since then because I’ve read the CRU emails and note that the level of consensus shown in private most revealing:
“Keith’s series… differs in large part in exactly the opposite direction that Phil’s does from ours. This is the problem we all picked up on (everyone in the room at IPCC was in agreement that this was a problem and a potential distraction/detraction from the reasonably concensus viewpoint we’d like to show w/ the Jones et al and Mann et al series.” (Mann, Sep 22, 1999, 0938018124.txt)
J (329) — The appropriate chapter in “The Discovery of Global Warming” by Spencer Weart:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html
will answer some of your questions. Sometimes orbital forcing is included when studying various aspects of paleoclimate.
The GCMs do what are called projections based on different anthropogenic forcing “scenarios”. Ordinarily these end in 2100 CE, I suppose because nobody plans more than to that date.
The GCMs are not necessary to obtain ballpark estimates; use the most likely value of equilibrium climate senstivity to 2xCO2 of (about) 3 K to see that when CO2 goes up to 560 ppm, the global temperature will eventually go up to a rather unbarable additional 3 K. Look up the effects known from the distant past for such elevated temperatures in Mark Lynas’s “Six Degrees”. Here is a link to a review:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article1480669.ece
John O’Sullivan says, “Please don’t tell me the science has moved on so much further since then because I’ve read the CRU emails and note that the level of consensus shown in private most revealing:…”
Ub, dude. Where in any of those emails does is suggest any disageement on the scientific FACT that CO2 sensitivity is aroung 3 degrees per doubling? On the FACT that it is warming? On the FACT that we are the origin of the CO2. Maybe if you spent more time reading science and less time reading other peoples’ emails you might actually understand this stuff, huh punkin?
Didactylos (283), good point. Thanks. Though it still seems misleading. The construction deaths can be charged to hydro electricity, but dam collapse is a result of a different natural process and doesn’t seem like it should be attributed to electricity generation. But, maybe…..
Snorbert Zangox (287), says, “…one should avoid ending sentences with prepositions where possible…”
I think it was W. Churchill who said, “this is the kind of nonsense with which up I will not put.”
>>>336, Hank: “That doesn’t require a climate model at all.”
I hope it’s clear by now that my focus is on a climate model – not on research on Ice Ages. The regular minor natural cycles also apply – does the model account for them
The inquiry is about the models predictive capability. One, to see if/how it fits with the major cooling/warming climate trend; second, to see what happens if you let it run. This seems to me to be a basic test for any model. And as I said earlier, the question of even being able to predict chaotic systems.
Since the model(s) predictions are a major, if not the major, source of the cataclysmic predictions on which drastic action is being asked from the citizens, this would seem relevant.
[Response: Read the FAQ on climate models for more details, but very little happens if you just let climate models run without changing the forcing. There is variability at interannual to multi-decadal timescales, but things don’t generally go very far from the climatology. There have been some reports of weirdness in long control runs (one particular GFDL run I think), but that is unusual. The statistics are usually very stable. – gavin]
John O’Sullivan (#337): The CIA doesn’t always get it right (if you hadn’t noticed).
Read Peterson et al., Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society Vol. 89 Iss. 9, p 1325. Compare with, say, Maurizio Morabito’s blog (or whatever your source is). Who do you believe? Why do you believe it?
two-fingered, your numbers and statements don’t pass the sniff test either.
Check the other posts.
I notice that J hasn’t said what he’d do with an answer of when the next ice age should be here.
PS: J we’re more than half way through this one.
PPS J also states:
If the policy makers are asking our support in taking extreme action based on the dire predictions of a climate model, I think simple questions – even ones you think are not intelligent – will need to be answered. By someone anyway.”
But what would policy makers do with an answer to “when is the next ice age” anyway?
Are you just asking questions to see flapping???
Yes, some. Very little, as a fraction of their in-service power. Far too little …
… for that to be true. What they use is the purpose-made radioisotope 238-Pu. It lasts much longer than any equally powerful fission product, and unlike some of them, it emits only rays of low penetrating ability, so that they are converted to heat very near their points of origin and the electronics, feet away, are not damaged.
(How fire can be domesticated)
Gavin Can you explain why the new and old GISS data sets from weather stations in California differ? Although I expect the answer is straightforward, the impression is given that the new data are massaged in some way to remove evidence of high temperatures in the early 20th century. It is disquieting
[Response: The updates are related to the switch from USHCN1 to USHCN2. Since GISTEMP relies on NOAA for those files, I’d suggest reading the relevant documentation for more information. As an aside, historical data products are always undergoing revision – as problems are uncovered, corrections made, new data assimilated etc. – in order to get the best estimate of past climate change. -gavin]
Comment by John O’Sullivan — 11 December 2009 @ 8:16 PM:
Are you saying that the CIA responded to what was in the popular press in 1973 without actually checking with the appropriate scientists? I would be very interested in evidence of this.
There was absolutely no consensus among climate scientists, or a prediction in any research publications at the time, that an ice age was eminent. There were predictions that an ice age might emerge in many thousands of years, as a part of the Milankovitch cycle, and predictions of a potential ice age in the case of a fourfold increase in the then current sulfate pollution that was also causing acid rain (this was subsequently successfully reduced by a cap-and-trade system that is still in place).
Steve
Props to BPL for citing Dessler Zhang and Yang, JGR 2008 – I just read that last night and it reminded me how much I appreciated Dessler and Parsons book _The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change_
While the JGR journal article is paywalled, you can see the abstract here:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL035333.shtml
I have access to full text since our University subscribes, and I can confirm that the article bears out what the abstract says. There is indeed a positive water vapor feedback – a point widely accepted amongst atmospheric physicists and earth scientists. DZ&Y do a nice job of quantifying the strength of the feedback from detailed satellite measurements.
Look for Dessler & Parsons book in your library or bookstore – it provides a good overview of the scientific case and the policy response options:
http://www.amazon.ca/Science-Politics-Global-Climate-Change/dp/0521539412/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260589613&sr=8-2
Okay maybe not for everyone to buy new, at $50 – (used from $32 on Amazon) but do check your library – a good read.