Like all human endeavours, the IPCC is not perfect. Despite the enormous efforts devoted to producing its reports with the multiple levels of peer review, some errors will sneak through. Most of these will be minor and inconsequential, but sometimes they might be more substantive. As many people are aware (and as John Nieslen-Gammon outlined in a post last month and Rick Piltz goes over today), there is a statement in the second volume of the IPCC (WG2), concerning the rate at which Himalayan glaciers are receding that is not correct and not properly referenced.
The statement, in a chapter on climate impacts in Asia, was that the likelihood of the Himalayan glaciers “disappearing by the year 2035” was “very high” if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate (WG 2, Ch. 10, p493), and was referenced to a World Wildlife Fund 2005 report. Examining the drafts and comments (available here), indicates that the statement was barely commented in the reviews, and that the WWF (2005) reference seems to have been a last minute addition (it does not appear in the First- or Second- Order Drafts). This claim did not make it into the summary for policy makers, nor the overall synthesis report, and so cannot be described as a ‘central claim’ of the IPCC. However, the statement has had some press attention since the report particularly in the Indian press, at least according to Google News, even though it was not familiar to us before last month.
It is therefore obvious that this error should be corrected (via some kind of corrigendum to the WG2 report perhaps), but it is important to realise that this doesn’t mean that Himalayan glaciers are doing just fine. They aren’t, and there may be serious consequences for water resources as the retreat continues. See also this review paper (Ren et al, 2006) on a subset of these glaciers.
East Rongbuk glacier just below Mt. Everest has lost 3-400 ft of ice in this area since 1921.
More generally, peer-review works to make the IPCC reports credible because many different eyes with different perspectives and knowledge look over the same text. This tends to make the resulting product reflect more than just the opinion of a single author. In this case, it appears that not enough people with relevant experience saw this text, or if they saw it, did not comment publicly. This might be related to the fact that this text was in the Working Group 2 report on impacts, which does not get the same amount of attention from the physical science community than does the higher profile WG 1 report (which is what people associated with RC generally look at). In WG1, the statements about continued glacier retreat are much more general and the rules on citation of non-peer reviewed literature was much more closely adhered to. However, in general, the science of climate impacts is less clear than the physical basis for climate change, and the literature is thinner, so there is necessarily more ambiguity in WG 2 statements.
In future reports (and the organisation for AR5 in 2013 is now underway), extra efforts will be needed to make sure that the links between WG1 and the other two reports are stronger, and that the physical science community should be encouraged to be more active in the other groups.
In summary, the measure of an organisation is not determined by the mere existence of errors, but in how it deals with them when they crop up. The current discussion about Himalayan glaciers is therefore a good opportunity for the IPCC to further improve their procedures and think more about what the IPCC should be doing in the times between the main reports.
Update: This backgrounder presented by Kargel et al AGU this December is the best summary of the current state of the Himalayas and the various sources of misinformation that are floating around. It covers this issue, the Raina report and the recent Lau et al paper.
FCH: “Oh, please. Cat5 hurricanes are their own worst enemy. … But the notion that Global Warming is going to cause some giant outbreak of Cat6 storms (!)”
However,two things:
1) a 1m increase in sea level height makes a Cat5 more devastating further inland
2) Hypercanes happen when the sea temperature is higher than we’ve had for a billion years. So global temperatures and ocean temperatures in particular DO have a large effect on hurricanes. Exactly what effect is one of those “not settled”, but you talk as if it IS settled and is “no change”.
“853
richard c says:
27 January 2010 at 7:50 PM
Agree the Himalayas episode is just one item out of a 1,000 page report. To err IS human. But I do find it disturbing that this same error was in part the basis for soliciting funding of $4M from EU taxpayers.”
And if that had been missing, what would the $4M have been instad?
$4M.
The amount due to that information being approximately $0.
Curmudgeon Cynic says: “the contiuous stream of revelations are just so worrying and embarassing. ”
How continuous is it?
It seems more like “continuosly running repeating loop” to me.
“A fact that we KNOW now is that there is about 300 million clinical cases of malaria every year and 1 million deaths.”
We also KNOW that the Thames valley has the malaria parasite and mosquito carriers but that the temperature of the Thames Valle in the UK is currently too cold on average to allow the parasite to be expressed as malaria cases.
It only takes another degree to change that…
“876
Patrik says:
28 January 2010 at 8:28 AM
Talking of disasters – when did humanity avoid a disaster, based on scientific warnings?
Has it ever happened?”
Ozone Hole.
Acid Rain.
Y2K.
Smoking.
A few other near-misses like thalidomide, BSE and AIDS
And some predictions that were ignored but came true
Fish stock collapse
Housing bubble
All of them had proclaimers saying it was all a hoax, that it was an unconscionable attack on the Free Rights of the First World, that it was a plot a scam and completely fabricated.
Barton may have already responded to this, but it’s got to be high on the “dumb and/or cynical” list.
If we already are “doing nothing” about malaria, and world-wide action on mitigation is–well, let’s be charitable and say “minimal”–then clearly CO2 mitigation will have ZERO effect on fighting malaria. “Nothing from nothing leaves nothing.”
Next argument, please?
Gilles: “The question is not if I can falsify it, it is if it can be falsified in any manner and how. If I can’t falsify it, just because it can’t be falsified anyway, then the statement itself is not scientific. That’s basic epistemology.
So how do you expect i COULD falsify it ? ”
What “it”?
“It” from what I can piece together is your assertion that there’s no problem in burning the remaining CO2 as known coal reserves.
For someone talking about basic epistemology, you’ve managed a quite epic fail.
And still all you’re concerned about is your own life, your own wants, and hang everyone else.
Yet refuse to admit it and get all teary-eyed over the accusation.
But every argument you make only has “in my lifetime” attached to it.
That sort of view will make suicide bombers innocent of murder: they won’t kill anyone in their lifetime, will they.
Curmudgeon Cynic,
Look, concern troll, you’ve got a typo (the glaciers), an upper bound that is at least of the right order of magnitude (Amazon forests), the hockey stick, which is robust regardless of what proxies you use, and increased natural disasters, which is a trend that will have to be verified over the course of decades.
Out of about 3000 pages, that isn’t a bad track record. Compare that to just about any technical report, and I think the IPCC comes off looking very, very good.
Or if you don’t like the IPCC, then look at the fricking peer-reviewed literature, and you will find plenty of cause for concern.
Now can we quit talking about typos and get back to science. Oh, wait, that leaves out the denialists entirely doesn’t it? Oh well!
“American reactors are:
1. Inside containment buildings which are pressure vessels
2. Are much more stable that Soviet built reactors. ”
Edward, Russian reactor designers said exactly the same thing about their design.
But, like the US reactors, the design was new (pebble bed reactors still haven’t had commercial release, yet are persued as a panacea for any nuclear future) and maintenance is set by lowest bidder process.
There’s a lot less to be sanguine about.
And that paranoia, properly applied, will ensure that such accidents DO NOT HAPPEN.
Unearned complacency will make it nearly certain.
#851: How many EPA chiefs did they rotate before they got what they wanted?
FWIW, Lynn, that’s my perspective, too, pretty much–most people seem pretty tuned out of the debate at the moment.
Of course, the denialosphere thinks complete and total victory is at hand, but then realism has never been their strong suit. . .
DEREK@884 can’t even type his name without the all-caps key. Personally, I think that’s a sign of listening to too much AM radio!
Ref: 908 Ray Ladbury
Er, what was that all about Ray? What did I say to deserve that response?
Whilst I understand your frustration with the situation, taking on a “bunker” mentality and firing off at random isn’t going to help.
Do you disagree with my summation of what is going on in the press? Is what’s happening a figment of my imagination?
Presentation is, sadly, everything in the press these days and we have managed to create a situation where the IPCC was quoted as “the” global, impartial, scientific authority on matters Climate Change – to a position where Pachauri is being pilloried in the press and “2500 scientists can be wrong” (or weren’t asked).
Is it not therefore obvious that methods employed to date have failed – and that the IPCC needs to address its dented reputation?
Don’t shoot the messenger!
“A fact that we KNOW now is that there is about 300 million clinical cases of malaria every year and 1 million deaths. This can easily be prevented with a simple vaccine” – Syl@856
There is currently no malaria vaccine. The fact that you don’t know this elementary fact suggests that you don’t actually care in the least about those who die from malaria – you’re just using them to make a denialist point. There are effective ways to reduce the toll from malaria – mosquito nets and selective use of insecticides mostly – but the claim that we cannot supply these if we take action to mitigate climate change is absurd and dishonest.
896, Tim Jones: Considering the interactions of peak oil, climate change and agriculture you might find it interesting to see numbers regarding how dependent the food supply is on nitrogen fertilizer derived from fossil fuels.
It might be worthwhile some day to run a thread devoted to the progress in developing alternative energy supplies. The US has 9,000MW of wind generating capacity installed and 104 operating nuclear reactors; China has 12,000MW of wind generating capacity installed and an active program of constructing new nuclear reactors of diverse designs, including fast breeders. Both nations have steadily increasing amounts of deployed solar power generation and steadily increasing PV manufacturing capability. Both nations have active biofuels research and development activity. And that’s just two nations, and I have omitted natural gas. CO2 might not stop increasing before 2050, but current development makes it unlikely that the world will lose production of fertilizer due to a lack of energy supplies.
It really is discouraging to see so much effort go down the drain. The skeptics have managed to outshout the peer-reviewed literature. Four billion years of terrestrial evolution for this??
“Do you disagree with my summation of what is going on in the press? Is what’s happening a figment of my imagination?”
It’s a figment of PR whackery.
Ray’s problem is that it isn’t truth, it’s lies.
That it is being *said* is the truth, but what they *say* is a lie.
cf Humphrey Appleby’s statement “Yes it’s true, it is a rumour”.
Gott 914, [OT]visit malaria.control.net for easy, moneyless from the couch contribution of spare cpu cycle from home PCs e.g. Spread the word.[OT]
Kevin McKinney: I didn’t see an answer to your question about the Moon’s temperature, so here’s my take:
Average temperature is a tricky concept. Anomalies are much easier. In the case of average day-side and night-side temperatures on the moon, there is a huge difference, and because of the T^4 energy dependence, a straight temperature average gives a misleading answer. Really, you want to take the 4th root of ((day-T)^4+(night-T)^4) which will give you a number closer to day-T than to night-T. (well, really, you want to take the integral over the entire surface, etc.)
-Marcus
Curmudgeon Cynic,
First, I haven’t seen exactly a media firestorm over these errors. Second, none of the errors you have cited undermines the overall work the IPCC did. The science is solid. The enumeration of the consequences is still a work in progress. One could just as easily cite areas where the IPCC underestimates risk.
So, no I do not agree that the IPCC hasn’t worked. You’ve cited 4 or 5 mistakes–some of which cannot even rightly be called mistakes–out of 3000 pages. That is hardly a failure.
The reason the IPCC is under fire is precisely because it is working. It is doing a good job at summarizing the science and outlining the overwhelming evidence that shows that we are warming the planet. Replace Pachauri, and in a couple of years his successor will also be under fire. Replace the IPCC, and whatever replaces it will be assailed from all sides.
Why? Because they are charged with telling us the evidence and the evidence is telling many people things they don’t want to hear.
So, Sir, I would commend to you that your admonition to hold fire on the messenger would be excellent advice for YOU to follow.
Re 914
It is a myth that warming will lead to more malaria. Long before global warming malaria used to be common in England. Oliver Cromwell died of it. It only disappeared due to better sanitation.
[Response: Doesn’t anyone argue logically any more? That factor X impacts complex process A does not imply that factor Y does not. There are interesting conversations to be had about climate impacts on vector borne diseases, but this is not it. – gavin]
Nick Gotts said (in response to Syl):
Indeed. While climate change will alter the geographic distribution of malaria, increasing prevalence in some areas and reducing it in others, there is no doubt that the other impacts of climate change (malnutrition, water availability, and displaced populations) will dramatically worsen the outcome of malaria cases.
Bill Gates made an important point: “Climate change is very important, it is an issue money should go to. It just shouldn’t come out of health aid budgets.” Politicians have this tendency to double their foreign aid money by false accounting – it may play well for the gullible media, but it means that only a fraction of the promised money reaches the people who need it.
We need to act on both fronts at once.
Completely Fed Up: You call AIDS a “near miss”? The mind boggles.
No, please don’t reply. I’m not interested in what you have to say, and I know that you won’t learn from anything I have to say.
Fed up : I am not speaking of my own life. You don’t know me, and I much likely emit much less CO2 than you, if you’re an american. I’m just speaking of the average behaviour of mankind – probably including yourself. Nobody to my knowledge see any harm in living just 1% or 2% better than the other year. Just accepting (if not claiming for ) a little raise in his wages. Just buying a house as large as he can offer. Just taking vacations when it happens to have some money left after one year of hard work.That’s enough for continuous growth. And I cannoy imagine people accept willingly to let these precious fossil fuels under the ground if they need it.
There has just been a funny story in France. Just after the failed Copenhage summit, the leader of Green Party, Cecile Duflot (a woman), took some vacation. Where ? in the Maldives Islands. Yes. Maybe for ethnological reason , to study them before their drowning in 20 cm water? Well, of course, journalists kidded her a little bit, and she answered “that’s my private life, it was a gift of my husband”. Of course , she can do what she wants – it’s may be just a little surprising that a Green leader’s husband thinks it’s a good idea to offer her a 10000 km trip, but that’s it. I don’t blame her. I’m just realistic : if even a green party leader thinks that, who the hell will behave differently? and you know, in France, best advocates (and movie maker) to alert against GW, N. Hulot and Y Artus-Bertrand, have first become famous for flying all around the earth,the first one for a TV programme and the second one to take (very beautiful indeed) airplane pictures. Very aesthetic and recreating indeed, but very carbon consuming. But you know that, you have Al Gore, too….
BPL : I think you just won the prize of the most cited post in this thread …
Craig : That Gapfinder data visualisation tool is fantastic! It’s interesting to note the wide range of CO2 emissions intensities per capita that countries can have while still scoring high in the quality of life parameters (with the obvious exceptions of the many developing countries that score low on both axes). This is apparent for example if you plot life expectancy against emissions.
Oh man ! you seem to DISCOVER it is perfectly possible to live with 2 ou 3 times, or even 10 times less fossil fuels than an american ! gosh ! of course IT IS ! do you know that mankind has survived billions of years without ANY ? and do you know that they lived in all kind of climates, ranging from the Bushmen desert to the icy poles?
There is ABSOLUTELY no problem in living with much less fuels. The ONLY problem is to keep our standard of living with much less fuels. That’s the very tricky thing. So the only question is IF it happens to be impossible to keep our standard of living with much less fuels, meaning that you should reduce it strongly to gain some hypothetic degrees whose consequences are only PUTATIVE, what do you think the vast majority of people will do ? i have almost no doubt about it – and evrything that happens now reinforces my opinion..
Fed up : “it” to be falsified is what you said :
” If you can’t falsify the argument that burning current reserves of coal will result in a “catastrophic scenario” with facts and figures then we’ll assume you understand the statement to be the truth.””
It = the argument that burning current reserves of coal will result in a “catastrophic scenario”.
How can you falsify it ? and first, what do you call exactly a “catastrophic scenario” ?
for instance : is the future death of many dozens of millions of victims through car accidents a “catastrophic scenario”, or not ? depends pretty much on the definition , hmmm? beacause it is a much certain scenario that most of the possible consequences of AGW – actually it is ALMOST CERTAIN that they will happen- but curiously nobody seems to really care about it. They just ask for ELECTRIC cars …
Re #897, Oh dear I knew it would be picked up on by the media. Its in the guardian and the Telegraph here in the UK.
For all those who are criticizing me on intricacies of my posts, I think you should take a step back, just as I will admit, I should.
I will use the “up to 40%” from now on as a few of you have mentioned. Regardless, the number “up to 40%” is not based on anything scientific. It comes from the WWF paper which was not peer reviewed and has been shown by others than just me to not compute when you consider the areas being spoken about. Additionally, the “up to 40%” figure is in reference to the Brazilian rain forest and yet the IPCC used it in reference to the Amazonian rain forest, so there is error in the statement from that respect as well.
Additionally, if we are getting technical. The Nepstad paper does use the numbers 270,000km2 and 360,000km2 which equate to 4.9 and 6.5 percent of the Amazonian rain forest respectfully, and 8.1 and 10.9 percent of the Brazilian rain forest respectfully. In either case, they do not add up to 40%, so yes, less than 40%, but not “up to 40%” as for that to be true, there would have to be some indication in either the WWF paper or the Nepstad paper that 40% was a possibility, which is not the case. “Up to 40%” is not the same as “Less than 40%”. And further, the 360,000km2 figure is forest which “had only 250mm of plant-available soil water left”. The Nepstad paper says that the 270,000km2 was vulnerable to fire. It does not say that the 360,000km2 was also vulnerable, just that it had only 250mm of plant-available soil water left. So, the percentage of Brazilian rain forest that was vulnerable to fire as a result of drought conditions is 8.1%, yet this, through the WWF paper and then the IPCC AR4 was brought up to “Up to 40%” of the Brazilian rain forest, and then “Up to 40%” of the Amazonian ran forest. That’s quite a jump to say the least.
I would also like to state that yes, if I am going to be critical of others for not being accurate, then I too should be careful to be accurate, but keep in mind, I am a commenter on a blog, the IPCC is a government funded organization creating a report that is to be used the world over to lead policy decisions. One might think there is an obligation, considering the ramifications, for the IPCC to be not only more diligent in researching their citations, but also, to be more objective in presenting facts to allow policy makers to come to their own conclusions rather than making statements such as “Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation” which could easily lead one to believe that a large portion of the Amazonian rain forest is hanging in the balance. Regardless of what the science says, and where people’s opinions lay, it should not be the IPCC’s position to state opinion or sensationalize any findings. It should merely be to present the facts clearly, in an unbiased manner, otherwise, they are tending towards being an advocacy group.
“is extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall” and “could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation” could be argued to be similar, but while the first is open to some interpretation, in that, it isn’t defined what is a “small reduction” and sensitivity could just mean that changes will occur, and not necessarily that the forest is in immediate peril, but “react drastically” has definite negative connotations, and “even a slight reduction” implies there is very little room for error. In any event, neither is a quote from the Nepstad paper.
Obama announces government greenhouse gas emissions targets
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/01/obama-announces-government-gre.html?hpid=topnews
By Juliet Eilperin and Anne E. Kornblut
President Obama set greenhouse gas emissions targets for the federal government, announcing Friday that it would aim to reduce its emissions by 28 percent in 2020.
“As the largest energy consumer in the United States, we have a responsibility to American citizens to reduce our energy use and become more efficient,” Obama said in a statement. “Our goal is to lower costs, reduce pollution, and shift Federal energy expenses away from oil and towards local, clean energy.”
Sere says: 29 January 2010 at 5:59 AM
“Might as well be the first to force you to comment on this. Enjoy. How dreadful!”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/29/water-vapour-climate-change
Dreadful? No, it’s wonderful. Remember all the gnashing of teeth about the TomskTwaddle email lamenting our inability to account for natural variability? Well, this paper has just identified about 25% of the problem.
It’s called scientific progress.
Curmudgeon Cynic says: 29 January 2010 at 6:39 AM
“Over on WUWT, TAV, etc they are having a field day as the stories unfold.”
It’s all about PR, not science.
WUWT is an illustration of how quickly fortunes may change. Right now Watts is busily producing a selectively edited version of his correspondence with Menne et al in order to explain the giant smoking hole in the ground where his reputation used to be. Email Hacking 2.0, you might say.
Speaking of which and since the topic of this thread is fallibility, why should not RC enjoy doing a dedicated post on the Menne paper? Here is a case history of an entire legion of volunteers being led astray over the very simplest of misunderstandings, an error that could have been dispatched with a home thermometer and a light bulb. Perhaps its a teachable moment about listening to real scientists as opposed to TV personalities?
For those who wonder about the models, take a look here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izCoiTcsOd8
The point I want to draw notice to is the realism of the emergent output. Take a look: they do seem to be able to make a very earthlike system.
And if you REALLY don’t believe the IPCC then you can run your own version of the model without CO2…
@848 — BPL tells us 70% drought susceptibility implies collapse of civilization as we know it, or something to that effect (killing 8 billion people). I’m not exactly sure where you get that figure, but a little googling suggests you are talking about the prior 41% from 1990 moving to 56..66% today (15..25% increase? wasn’t clear if tha was an increase of the fraction or on the fraction).
I don’t know. Call me an “crazy optimist”, but a move over the next 20..40 years smaller than the move we’ve seen in the past 20 years (which has notably supported a population boom…).
In any case, “what part of .. did I not understand” is a total red herring. The question is for a real reference that suggests this shift will wipe out most of humanity as you suggest. The Lovelock references at least address the question.
I think you and completely fed up might need to switch to decaf or something. I’m really not a denialist, but wild-eyed apocolyptic catastrophism does not have the kind of support the main thrust of accepted research does. Ray makes a solid point about risk management being more a work in progress putting stakes in the ground at conservative post points. You might want to be cautious (just for your own peace of mind, apparently) of translating all the “up to”s and “might”s and “could”s into “will”s. Conservative bounds are often excessive by their very nature.
And Completely Fed Up, I am not saying people are not also economically alarmist, but why do you think it is appropriate to battle alarmist rhetoric with alarmist rhetoric? I view the spirit of this web site to be about which is rational analysis, not ideas that seem conceived internally in your heads as ALL CAPS or quadruple exclamation points or something. Sheesh. I guess you’re just commenter ravers, though. Good luck with that.
Oh, and by way of a little more light, if you look at the nice global map on page 49 of the AR4 synthesis report you will see that some of the most populous areas in Asia expect (probably from Himalayas melting faster) an increase in their freshwater availability. I’m not trying to cherry pick some non-threat, but that map suggests winners and losers at least with regard to runoff.
And also, vis a vis alarmism, I’ve had to defend that particular page (and re-iterated statement in light of the mistake being caught) to colleagues about overall tone of alarmism in IPCC summaries because the Himalayas are listed in that comma separated list of glacier areas with the Andes and, as we’ve been discussing, the Himalayas are more a long-term than near-term issue.
Re: 893 FurryCatHerder says: 28 January 2010
Tim Jones @ 841:
“But the catastrophic scenario ensues when storm events are continually extraordinary, i.e. level 6 hurricanes and typhoons,” …
“Oh, please. Cat5 hurricanes are their own worst enemy.”
So what? Even if it’s true they happen. And when they occur in populated areas the destruction is horrific. Perverse beauty? It’s obvious you’ve never been in one or seen the aftermath of a severe hurricane. But, i guess if you enjoy wading through a fresh landfill….
Note: “Historical examples that reached the Category 5 status and made landfall as such include the Labor Day Hurricane of 1935, the 1959 Mexico Hurricane, Camille in 1969, and Gilbert in 1988, Andrew in 1992, Dean, and Felix (Both 2007).”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saffir%E2%80%93Simpson_Hurricane_Scale
Note also that Hurricane Katrina was a category 3 hurricane when it made landfall near NO. “Hurricane Katrina of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season was the costliest hurricane, as well as one of the five deadliest, in the history of the United States. Among recorded Atlantic hurricanes, it was the sixth strongest overall.”
All global warming has to do is heat up SSTs enough to cause a few extreme hurricanes in high population areas for the impact to be agonizing. My point was to picture the impact of all sorts of increasingly frequent to increasing damaging extreme weather events as the consequence of heating up the planet.
If you add heat to the atmosphere it’s inevitable that more energy will be released. It’s amazing to me that you downplay the implications of what this means.
Ooops.
“Last night President Barack Obama gave the State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress…. his mere mention of climate change science drew laughter and guffaws from the gathered dignitaries and legislators.”
http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2010m1d28-President-Obamas-reference-to-climate-change-in-State-of-the-Union-draws-laughter
Re Comment by Curmudgeon Cynic — 29 January 2010 @ 9:55 AM:
I think the main point being made about the recent IPCC revelations by Ray Ladbury, and others, is that it doesn’t really matter how excellent the conduct of the scientific community is because the pseudoskeptics can create controversy from thin air. What they do is an advertising tactic. Look at U.S. election advertising, Al Gore’s house, and what happened to Mojib Latif’s statement.
Steve
Wondering how libelous the spin on this is going to get?
Bin Laden blasts US for climate change
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100129/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_bin_laden_tape
By LEE KEATH and SALAH NASRAWI,
Associated Press Writers
29 Jan 2010
CAIRO – Osama bin Laden sought to draw a wider public into his fight against the United States in a new message Friday, dropping his usual talk of religion and holy war and focusing instead on an unexpected topic: global warming.
The al-Qaida leader blamed the United States and other industrialized nations for climate change and said the only way to prevent disaster was to break the American economy, calling on the world to boycott U.S. goods and stop using the dollar.
“The effects of global warming have touched every continent. Drought and deserts are spreading, while from the other floods and hurricanes unseen before the previous decades have now become frequent,” bin Laden said in the audiotape, aired on the Arab TV network Al-Jazeera.
[…]
Yes there is a Malaria vaccine – it is in clinical trials in Africa, right now, as I write this. Now, one could say there is not an APPROVED malaria vaccine – but that is like defining what the definition of “is” is.
New report: world must change model of economic growth to avert environmental disaster
http://news.mongabay.com/2010/0125-hance_nef.html
Jeremy Hance
mongabay.com
January 25, 2010
“For decades industrialized nations have measured their success by the size of their annual GDP (Gross Domestic Product), i.e. economic growth. The current economic model calls for unending growth—as well as ever-rising consumerism—just to remain stable. However, a new report by the New Economics Foundation (nef) states that if countries continue down a path of unending growth, the world will be unable to tackle climate change and other environmental issues.
“We tend to think of growth as natural for economies, forgetting that in nature things grow only until maturity and then develop in other ways. […]” says Andrew Simms, co-author of the report and nef policy director. “Endless growth is pushing the planet’s biosphere beyond its safe limits. The price is seen in compromised world food security, climatic upheaval, economic instability and threats to social welfare. We urgently need to change our economy to live within its environmental budget.”
“The report, Growth Isn’t Possible: Why rich nations need a new economic direction
http://www.neweconomics.org/publications/growth-isnt-possible
evaluated if society could limit the global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) and still retain economic growth.
Free download:
http://www.neweconomics.org/sites/neweconomics.org/files/Growth_Isnt_Possible.pdf
[…]”
#787 And what else did Beddington say (from the interview in the Times):
“It’s unchallengeable that CO2 traps heat and warms the Earth and that burning fossil fuels shoves billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. But where you can get challenges is on the speed of change”
…snip…
Professor Beddington said that uncertainty about some aspects of climate science should not be used as an excuse for inaction: “Some people ask why we should act when scientists say they are only 90 per cent certain about the problem. But would you get on a plane that had a 10 per cent chance of landing?”
But expect the same old spin from certain quarters.
Tom@932, The first step in any risk management exercise is to bound the risk. Since CO2 sensitivity could be as high as 4.5 degrees per doubling and be within the 90% CL, that is difficult, because that means that a BAU scenario would likely put us over the 6 degrees C of warming by centuriy’s end–and that is without any sort of large-scale release from any natural source of CO2, which we know from the paleoclimate is quite possible.
There is a huge degree of difference in the damage to the global economy from warming of even 4 degrees and warming of 6 degrees. In the face of such uncertainty, the only responsible strategy is risk avoidance–at least until the risk can be bounded. This is not alarmist. This is standard practice. It astounds me that it should be controversial for the only habitable planet we know of.
Tim Jones@940, The Club of Rome was saying similar things 35 years ago. However, I think that both they and NEF are not taking into account that increases in technology equate to growth while sometimes even decreasing resource consumption. The thing we must continually remember is that life is not a zero-sum game. If you are playing it that way, you are playing it wrong!
John, citing sources is popular in science because it removes the silly arguments about the definition of words in favor of actual references:
http://www.modernghana.com/lifestyle/1286/16/gates-says-malaria-vaccine-may-be-ready-in-three-y.html
> Mr Gates says, a breakthrough is near.
>
> “We have a vaccine that’s in the last trial phase – called phase three.
> A partially effective vaccine could even be available within three years,
> but a […] fully effective vaccine will take five to 10 years,” he told
> the BBC World Service’s World Today programme.
The “shock” is not that there were errors, but that the likelihood of such errors had been so massively suppressed by the media and the politicians. There is so much yet to learn. And so much possible damage to society if the people loose trust in research, scientists and rational dialog. We all must be MUCH more careful to be above suspicion (re motives) and cautious in our warnings about the consequences of AGW… With the recent flattening of the curve in temperature rise, we now have the time to develop better models and gather more data. I believe it is clear that we can, with the technology available, easily adapt to the current projected climate change over the course of the next 3-4 decades. Certainly we should push for more nuclear power and greater use of electricity in transportation. But AGW appears not the world ending crisis the media has hyped. Feeding that hype has the real danger of returning us to the middle ages, not through climate change, but through disintegration of confidence in science and government.
I enjoy reading your site: you demonstrate credible knowledge, good writing and cogent logic. However, I’ve read some skeptics saying that you do not post opposing stands. Is this true? I had replied to te skeptics that you really should not give space to opposing views which should be posted in opposing sites.
Thank you
Terry
Re: 943 Ray Ladbury says:
29 January 2010
Tim Jones@940, The Club of Rome was saying similar things 35 years ago. However, I think that both they and NEF are not taking into account that increases in technology equate to growth while sometimes even decreasing resource consumption.
I’m with ya, pal, But I try not to get too visibly black about it all. Sustainable growth is an oxymoron.
“The thing we must continually remember is that life is not a zero-sum game. If you are playing it that way, you are playing it wrong!”
I’m hip. I do not live life as a zero sum game. I guess I’m mostly interested in keeping as much biodiversity out there as possible. I’m certain that without right thinking people doing a lot of work the future of the planet is grim. I hope we’re not just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
#945 “With the recent flattening of the curve in temperature rise” what flattening would that be Karl?
RE stratospheric water vapor….
Is this also related to air travel? Does air travel put more WV into the stratosphere, making it worse than it would be than with simply its CO2 emissions?
If so, what also causes stratospheric WV to increase and decrease? Could the reduction be due to the solar irradiance being at a minimum? And if so, would it increase with the solar irradiance increasing?
Karl Quick says, “The “shock” is not that there were errors, but that the likelihood of such errors had been so massively suppressed by the media and the politicians.”
Oh, horsecrap! They found a handful of frigging errors in a 3000 page document. Can you even write a frigging check without making a frigging error? How many times have you written 2009 since Jan 1?
Why don’t you learn the science? Then you might understand why those who have are concerned.
Terry Sarigumba–How can you read the comments here and conclude that opposing points of view are censored? In fact, given some of the stuff that does get through, I’d be afraid to read what didn’t pass through the stupidity filter!
Terry Sarigumba says: 29 January 2010 at 8:29 PM
As far as I can tell, practically everything including “Not even wrong”* is permitted. Scan back through fossil threads, you’ll see what I mean.
Moderators do seem to frown on flings such as “your mother wears army boots.” So code your epithets.
*copyright Ray Ladbury?