I know, I know, what a way to pick your battles. James knows his stuff on Climate Change (and then some) and I patently don't so it's like Gretna going up against Real Madrid and hoping to win on penalties. Who in their right perma-tanned minds would fancy those odds?
James, in his latest post, is saying that, given the sum total of the evidence, we need to go for a 1.5 degree limit on temp rises no matter what but has this pargraph:
By the end of 2008 we'd increased the planet's temperature by 0.7°C. If the world stopped polluting tomorrow, the emissions already out there would take us to 1.4°C, so 1.5°C would clearly be extremely ambitious.
Don't get me wrong, I'm in, I'm signed up, the developing countries are getting shafted but good and look very likely to continue to be by us first worlders, without a doubt the bad guys, but if 1.5 degrees is an "extremely ambitious" target (I'm reading 'not achievable') then why aim so unrealistically high if it may ultimately prove detrimental? Yes, this is the time for ambition but we can't valiantly press on with well-meaning delusion.
We've come too far too soon with increased emissions and perhaps, just perhaps, there is merit in thinking of previous efforts to save the most at risk countries as sunk costs (if you pardon the hugely regrettable pun). Pragatism rather than idealism could be the order of the day and setting a limit of a further increase of 1.5 degrees when we're going to hit 1.4 if we magically banish all further emissions overnight rise smacks of the latter for me.
(Update: I belatedly realised that a 1.5 degree increase by 2050 could allow for an 8 degree increase this decade and then a 6.5 degree decrease over the three subsequent decades which makes more sense as an objective. If the "extremely ambitious" plan is to not allow emperature increases to hit 1.5 degree at any point in the next forty years then I just don't see that as feasible given China's stubborn growth and American's stubborner intransigence)
Also, if 2% is the compromise between doing the theoretical most and the practical least then maybe that's the smallest needle we're able to thread on the biggest challenge mankind has faced for generations. Of course, as James points out, the leaders of the developed (and consequently guiltiest) nations are not even close to forming a consensus on 2% so I agree, with the vaguest of vague understandings of this complex subject, that the main players have fallen well short of where we need to be as a bare minimum.
But that's where we are, farce and mutterings of 'it should've been 1.5' when there's no deal to speak of is a very hollow ethical victory indeed. It's the last day of a frankly awful Conference so to continue aiming for 1.5 degrees when there's not even anything on the table and barely any bums on seats is whistling in the El Nino wind as far as I can see.
Now is the time to aim as high as we possibly can, sure, but shooting at the moon and squandering precious capital on too optimistic a plan would backfire, particularly when our aim is still so far off the required mark.
Who knows how this last day will pan out but it's not looking good and given how much it was talked up, all leaders who were invited as part of the official delegation have to take a share in the blame (you see what I did there?)
Ok, got to go, I've recently touched down from my 2nd flight in 2 days and need to check on a potential 3rd. (Yep, it's safe to say that Real just scored)
UPDATE: Apparently, according to a political adviser to the PM, Brown and Obama have been "giggling like schoolboys". Good to see the world is safe in their hands and they're getting on with the job at hand.
UPDATE 2: Barack Obama's speech has been deemed "uninspiring" by Patrick Harvie with reports of "muted boos". Having now read it, I would agree. Particular umbrage is reserved for this line:
As the world’s largest economy and the world’s second largest emitter
Emission levels should surely be linked to population size rather than size of the economy. Obama's coded suggestion that the US emits less than its fair share is disappointing and does not suggest he's ready to tackle the issue head on.
25 comments:
I do think 1.5°C is close to impossible, barring carbon-scrubbing tech, but 2°C is still unacceptable.
Each half degree has such gargantuan consequences, many of which are irreversible. Leaders shouldn't be auctioning the world's future in such large chunks. Bankers talk about basis points, one percent of one percent, and I'd rather Copenhagen haggled at that level.
1.6°C would also be very tough. 1.65°C would be a bit easier. 1.67°C a bit easier again. Etc.
Also, this crowd allocate money and set targets pretty readily. They then fail to pay up and miss their targets. If we go for 2°C we're aiming very low to begin with.
Also, just spotted a wee factual:
"... 2008 alone saw a 0.7 degree rise ..."
Nope, that's an aggregate so far, not just 2008.
I don't know how you can reconcile impossible with unacceptable and expect to end up with a satisfactory, practical result? I fully agree about negotiating decimal placs, that's the best bet under the unfortunate circumstances I suppose. Maybe Obama etc have been lowballing us for 2 weeks and have been sitting on an excelent deal for later today. Doubt it though.
Also, I don't want to suggest you're part of the bad guys. Patrick Harvie et al must be banging their heads off walls (his frustration is palpable in his Daily Record blog) but with the unstoppable force coming up against the seemingly immovable object, all hopes seem to be sitting with you guys with the facts, figures, lack of dodgy pressure groups and goodwill to magic up a solution.
I agree on the money allocation too. The vague promise of 100bn from Hillary Clinton is hardly the deal the world is waiting for. I fear you're going to have a very disappointing day.
Agree with you on the M74 extension by the way. Moving the timing of environmentally unfriendly announcements isn't contributing to Scotland leading the world on Climate Change if you ask me.
Ah, so the planet is 0.7 degrees warmer than it would be if there were no humans.
I'd say you're being kind calling that "a wee factual". Will change it now.
Patrick is indeed frustrated: fairly few governments in those discussions have Greens represented in them, and yes, we're relying on (for instance) the people who promised to Make Poverty History at Gleneagles.
Finally, I think you've slightly misunderstood my post. I said going to 2°C would be unacceptable, given the consequences even at 1.5°C.
I really should have gotten into the decimal points in there, though, because that's what I meant. Without that, I can see how my post looks unrealistic.
No, I see your point now but I did understand the 2 degrees.
1.5 is impossible and 2 degrees is unaceptable. It's hard to see how someone with that opinion could be taken seriously in pragmatic negotiations to get to, say, 1.67.
But you're just calling the facts as you (and many, many others) see them I suppose and stating your honest case which is all you can do.
Damn shame though, it's abundantly clear we're not going to get too many chances like this.
I wish people would get it right it is not 2 degrees Celsius, it is 2 Celsius degrees.
If people who are pontificating about applying the rule of law to us they need to get minially their scientific notation correct. There is a big difference the two.
Also the jury on the whole CO2 question has just been recalled and is on its way back for more navel gazing.
Maybe that Great Big Hadron Collider thingy in under Geneva might offer us some indications?
Already the first tentative experimements are showing scientific promise.
Dude, you need to edit Wikipedia if you want to renotate temperatures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celsius
The targets are easy, it's the delivery that's the problem.
Yes, that's what we need to focus on Bugger, which order the words go around.
Or should that be which order around the words go?
You can't have delivery without targets Anon. On current evidence, our leaders are going home with neither.
I must admit I'm totally perplexed at why people still believe in this man made global warming scam. Why don't you go and read the evidence rather than listening to the lies from the IPCC / East Anglia CRU etc ?
The climate data is fake. The 'scientists' colluded with each other to block any FOI requests and to delete data to stop it being aired. They decided who reviewed or wrote articles in relevant magazines.
For 4 billion years our climate has got hotter and colder. We've had ice ages and warming long before man came along.
If it wasn't going to cost us millions in carbon taxes I would be able to ignore the whole farce. But it will be very expensive and will achieve nothing.
The UK will get £100m carbon credits for the Teeside steel mill closing. Tata will get about £600m - it's only 1700 jobs though so who cares).
Just please read the evidence.
You could start here and follow any links...
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/
James MacKenzie
The two are different things.
2 degrees Celsius is a fixed temperature.
2 Celsius degrees is the difference between two different fixed temperature points. 14 to 16 or 88 to 90.
I don't care if it is written the other way, Dude, in Wikipedia but it is still wrong and scientifically imprecise.
Red pen in my day on scientific reports with poor grammar and imprecise scientific notation.
Fine use of "dude" Mrs Danish Pastry. And I didn't realise that so thanks for spreading the word (more clearly than Bugger, no offence dude)
Can I just say though, you have regrettable monikers, 'James' is certainly kicking your respective bottoms there.
PS You'll be delighted to know we forewent the plane option in favour of a rammed bus which we're on now. Onwards to Östersund!
Oi Jeff,
You obviously don't know how I was baptised, do you sunshine?
You should read other peoples blogs more often; a bit like getting out but in a virtual sense.
Try Subrosa's blog if it doesn't offend your professional blogging sensibilities.
Any more nonsense and I'll call in my big brother from Ayrshire!
The whole thing about two degress is 'aspirational'. It is abject nonsense to say we are going to make sure the Earth doesn't warm up by XX degrees. We have no control over natural phenonemen which can alter the average temperature of the Earth at any time.
Dark Loch..
Yes it's just the usual suspects falling for another scam. Unable to do any research and find the truth for themselves.
Like most scams you just have to follow the money to see what's going on.
Create a non problem - CO2. Find a way to scare people- Al Gore, John prescott, MSM. Then find a way to cash in - carbon credits. Sorted.
30 minutes searching the internet and I found this...
Tata close down Corus. Transfer production to India. Get £900m in carbon credits for opening a less polluting plant producing the same steel as Corus ( a plant that still wouldn't be allowed in the UK by the way). Oh and the DG of Tata ? Yes Mr Pachauri who happens to be the Chairman of the IPCC. I'm not saying he's implicated in any wrongdoing but why is it all covered up ?
Oh and by the by Tata will soon be opening a $4Bn power plant producing 25million tonnes of C02 a year for 25 years and have plans for another 6. These will also benefit from generous grants from the World Bank under green credits and of course our government ( we gave £800m this year)
I see Obama plans to make co2 illegal in the US. That will last as long as the first lawsuit. The data fraud at the IPCC will get a good airing then. I wonder if the court case will be covered by the BBC ? No I don't think so either.
Bob
you seem very certain that CO2 is irrelevant.
Simple physical chemistry tells us CO2 is a "greenhouse" gas.
Given the 5 billion year history of the earth, and our 15 years of data, would it not be wise to err on the side of caution - we see the polar ice caps melt, after all.
Bob sounds likes an apologist for lead in petrol - exactly the same arguments - just a few deaths, hard to correlate, etc. And then it was too late - I think the amount of lead in the water and air will now take about 2,500 years to get back to 1950 levels.
Thanks Bob, your whole argument rests on looking at Earth temperatuures over a time period where it didn't support primate life.
Ayrshire...
All I ask is that you keep an open mind and read both sides of the argument. I don't have to prove anything because I'm not asking the world for money or power ( $646Bn in carbon credits - a new plaything for the bankers who have run out of real money to lose ).
The temperature models I looked at go back about 2,000 years ( tree data pre the invention of the thermometer).
I've deduced that if there is any global warming then there's no proof that it was caused by CO2 which is what the IPCC claim and that we're paying for.
Satellites have taken 2 temp checks every day since 2001 and there is no increase in temp despite an increase in CO2. Why ?
IPCC etc thermometers are positioned in parking lots and next to air con units. Would that not distort their measurements ? ( these readings are claimed to be calibrated for the air con units etc but this is part of the fraud investigation as code printouts don't support this claim.)
Better people than me are trying to be heard but are routinely ignored by the MSM. Ivor Giaever has a nobel prize in Physics and says " I am a skeptic - global warming has become a new religion "
And of course I forgot to mention that CO2 is of course a life giver. Plants would die without it. And us of course. Indeed some greenhouse owners pump CO2 into their greenhouses in order to increase yields.
Bob,
Much as it hurts to say so, Ivar Giaever is now quite an old man. His comments seem to have been made in the last year or so when he would have been around 78 or 79.
He has no background whatsoever in climate science and, I wondered why he chose to come out and say what he did.
Perhaps this is the explanation:
In 1998, a convention of Nobel Laureates met in Germany to discuss a range of topics. The last was a round table discussion on Climate Science.
They all admitted they were speaking outwith their area of expertise. Ivar Giaever was one of them.
He chose to play devils' advocate, and climate change deniers have blown this up into a huge 'cause celebre ever since.
You can read all about it here:
http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2008/07/nobelists_talk_energy.html
The corrollary to your statement is obvious. The other 24 Nobel Laureates didn't agree with him...
douglas
That's not very PC of you. Saying that if someone is old then their comments are of no merit. What age is the cut off ? Some cultures such as India and China revere and respect older people.
And talking of peoples expertise didn't the whole hockey stick scam get exposed by Steve McIntyre who was a mining expert ? He also highlighted failures in Nasa scientists temp readings which they agreed to change. He was interested in statistics and geology and queried some readings that Mann had used to make the hockey stick graph. Mann refused to let him see the data for years and now we know why.
Anyhow that's just the side issue as the man who actually makes the decisions on where the money goes is of course the Chairman and advisor to the UN IPCC Mr Pauchari. Now he has no qualifications in climate science. As far as we know he worked on the railways and his expertise is in economics. He has done a Phil Jones and gone to ground so he isn't too forthcoming. We do know that his financial transactions make Tony Blair's look like an open book. And according to the UN documents he travelled 400,000 airmiles in 19months on climate talks and 'other issues'.
He has openly been called a liar in the press....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227/Questions-over-business-deals-of-UN-climate-change-guru-Dr-Rajendra-Pachauri.html
but of course, like Al Gore, he can never sue because he knows he would have to open up his finances to scrutiny.
I honestly wouldn't have cared about this issue ( dumped in not interested file - another scare story to undermine our confidence like SARS, bird flu, swine flu, global war and terrorism etc) but it's starting to cost serious money and jobs. And of course as we see this week it's affecting the way our airports operate etc. Closing down due to snow. Thought to be because they rely on the MET office who keep telling them to expect wet but mild winters. They no longer invest in proper equipment for severe weather.
You might mock my nobel prize winner sceptic. Would you like me to bore you with more scientists who haven't been bought off yet ?
Bob,
The reason it hurt me to say it is that I am pushing on a bit too.
Here is what James Hansen has to say about the last few weeks in climate science, it's a pdf with some useful charts in it:
http://tinyurl.com/yexlc3n
There is really no point in you and I going head to head as it were on the number of scientists on your side or on mine. However I'd suggest that James McIntyre isn't exactly flavour of the week at either Deltoid or Real Climate.
Here's one example, fairly recent:
http://tinyurl.com/ydrcduw
The interesting paragraph is probably this one:
"So along comes Steve McIntyre, self-styled slayer of hockey sticks, who declares without any evidence whatsoever that Briffa didn’t just reprocess the data from the Russians, but instead supposedly picked through it to give him the signal he wanted. These allegations have been made without any evidence whatsoever.
McIntyre has based his ‘critique’ on a test conducted by randomly adding in one set of data from another location in Yamal that he found on the internet. People have written theses about how to construct tree ring chronologies in order to avoid end-member effects and preserve as much of the climate signal as possible. Curiously no-one has ever suggested simply grabbing one set of data, deleting the trees you have a political objection to and replacing them with another set that you found lying around on the web."
douglas
We'll just have to agree to disagree over this. I think it's a total scam and you think it's good science. We could both go on forever. I checked out your links and quickly realized they would just get me angry with the bare faced lies. Real Climate praising Al Gore and their 'peer reviewed ' papers as opposed to the ' deniers' who have the cheek to challenge them.
You've done all you can to close down any opposition with FOI denials, Wiki lies ( Connolly did 5,800 amendmendts to Wiki pages allied to the agw scam and is now suspended.)
I'll just leave with Mann's e mail after reading a BBC article that wasn't 'on message'.
Michael Mann wrote:
extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd,
since climate is usually Richard Black's beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from
what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.
We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for
the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what's up here?
mike
Post a Comment