Colin Challen, a member of Parliament and chair of the All Party Parliamentary Climate Change Group, has a good editorial in the latest issue of Science (sub. rqd). He makes a key point that is often missed in the debate:
Not only must we reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, we need a timetable that reduces the risk of positive feedbacks and sink failures that could lead to runaway catastrophic climate change.
We are "playing climate change poker," as Challen says, fighting not just to avoid the consensus prediction for climate change, but the plausible worst-case scenario, which is far worse. That's why even a 60 percent cut in emissions by mid-century may not be enough, and many are pushing for an 80 percent cut.
The entire editorial is reprinted here:
Targets can be troublesome things. If they're set for some distant future date, the target setter may not live long enough to see if they've been met. Interestingly, much discussion about tackling climate change anticipates having achieved something by the middle of this century. What's the target? Both the European Union (EU) and, at a national level, the United Kingdom have focused on a CO2 emissions cut of at least 60%, which is intended to reduce average global warming by 2°C. (The June G8 summit also spoke of an emissions cut of 50% globally, but only in the context of exploring such a goal and with no greenhouse gas stabilization target in mind.)
What are the chances of meeting the 2° objective? Not likely, according to Malte Meinshausen of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, who presented the scientific evidence in a report of the 2005 Exeter climate change conference and who's been quoted since, both by UK government economic advisor Sir Nicholas Stern and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. His analysis of 11 climate sensitivity studies of the effect of global CO2 atmospheric concentrations on temperature shows that settling for a 60% cut in atmospheric CO2 (which corresponds to 550 parts per million by volume) leaves a probability between 63 and 99% of missing the 2°C target. Both the UK and EU proposals indicate that their emissions reduction targets might be toughened. Perhaps, like an athlete attempting the high jump, we are warming up at lower heights first. But scant evidence supports that luxury. Not only must we reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, we need a timetable that reduces the risk of positive feedbacks and sink failures that could lead to runaway catastrophic climate change.
In a democracy, it is difficult to convince voters that they should take actions, especially expensive ones, to avoid an as yet largely unseen and unquantifiable danger. How do you base a policy that is likely to have significant economic impacts on model data and forecasts that some might regard as guesswork? We only need to recall the false economy of not spending taxpayers' dollars on building up the New Orleans levees to realize how actions taken today could avert a long-range problem. Delay, combined with the risk that skeptics may accuse the Al Gores of this world of "crying wolf," could make tougher policies harder to adopt later.
In setting a UK target, the government must also ask what the United Kingdom's share of the burden is. Its national target must necessarily relate to reductions in other countries, including the developing world, where industrial growth to alleviate poverty is increasing emissions, as foreshadowed in 1992 by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. We cannot make a random national calculation and throw it into the global pot of targets; rather, we have to determine what the global need is and figure out how to distribute it -- a calculation that must combine science with justice. A successful global climate change framework will have to pay as much attention to the latter as to the former; countries such as China and India will be more inclined to budge if developed countries fully embrace their own responsibilities. Why should anyone sign an agreement that cements their own disadvantage?
The UK government is the first to take on this challenge, with publication of the draft Climate Change Bill in March of this year. Its leadership carries the responsibility to get emissions targets right. The final bill needs to make explicit the formula used to arrive at any target that government sets. That formula should tell us not only the size of the cake but also how we calculate our share of it. The draft bill proposes a figure that cannot be explained in terms of either criterion. If it did, that would surely boost confidence that the result is designed to solve the problem faster than we're creating it. I suspect I have set myself a target of living until I'm 97 to see what transpires.
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
City preps and countries posture ahead of Copenhagen talks
Comments
View as Flat
trock Posted 1:42 pm
20 Jul 2007
Permalink
snowbird Posted 2:24 pm
20 Jul 2007
Recent research by Henrik Svensmark and his group at the Danish National
Space Center points to the real cause of the recent warming trend. In a
series of experiments on the formation of clouds, these scientists have
shown that fluctuations in the Sun's output cause the observed changes in the
Earth's temperature.
In the past, scientists believed the fluctuations in the Sun's output were
too small to cause the observed amount of temperature change, hence the need
to look for other causes like carbon dioxide. However, these new
experiments show that fluctuations in the Sun's output are in fact large
enough, so there is no longer a need to resort to carbon dioxide as the
cause of the recent warming trend.
The discovery of the real cause of the recent increase in the Earth's
temperature is indeed a convenient truth. It means humans are not to blame
for the increase. It also means there is absolutely nothing we can, much
less do, to correct the situation.
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258
Canada
Your readers might be interested in these websites.
Please paste these links in your browser.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507. ...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288195,00.html
http://www.abc.net.au/westqld/stories/s1971899.htm?backya ...
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minorit ...
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/06/opinion/06fri1.html?hp
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070705191403.gahm ...
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070 ...
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/solar.htm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289149,00.html
Permalink
Rune Posted 4:27 pm
20 Jul 2007
A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.
It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen.
It also shows that modern temperatures are not determined by the Sun's effect on cosmic rays, as has been claimed.
Writing in the Royal Society's journal Proceedings A, the researchers say cosmic rays may have affected climate in the past, but not the present.
"This should settle the debate," said Mike Lockwood, from the UK's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory, who carried out the new analysis together with Claus Froehlich from the World Radiation Center in Switzerland.
Dr Lockwood initiated the study partially in response to the TV documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, broadcast on Britain's Channel Four earlier this year, which featured the cosmic ray hypothesis.
"All the graphs they showed stopped in about 1980, and I knew why, because things diverged after that," he told the BBC News website.
"You can't just ignore bits of data that you don't like," he said.
. . .
The Sun varies on a cycle of about 11 years between periods of high and low activity.
But that cycle comes on top of longer-term trends; and most of the 20th Century saw a slight but steady increase in solar output.
However, in about 1985, that trend appears to have reversed, with solar output declining.
Yet this period has seen temperatures rise as fast as - if not faster than - any time during the previous 100 years. . . .
Back to the original article in this thread, yes, accounting for the cascade of after effects that accelerate and increase every man made contribution to global warming is very important. That's why all the talk of how much to decrease GHG emissions decades in the future is so misplaced. I like the way JMG puts it, instead. We need to be knocking down emissions by 5% per year. That gives a sense of the immediacy of the actions needed and states it in terms that seem more manageable--if they were acted upon. The longer we wait to get started, the bigger the yearly investments necessary, just like retirement planning. And like retirement planning, it is a risky proposition in many, many dimensions. But that is a reason to come up with the best portfolio of responses we can and stick with the best available opportunities as they emerge, so when the unknown future arrives we will be in the best circumstances we can arrange for ourselves. Arguments that we should not take this seriously because there is uncertainty as to the outcomes of our actions are no more credible than arguments that we should not bother to plan to take care of ourselves in our old age because people are staying healthier longer, so we should be able to work and provide for ourselves indefinitely. Even if taht is true, it is not something you can count on and the consequences of not preparing when you have the opportunity can be dire and unforgiving.
Permalink
DrColes Posted 1:06 am
21 Jul 2007
http://www.inteliorg.com/archive/FireandIce.pdf
Permalink
Rune Posted 2:57 am
21 Jul 2007
Permalink
JohnCaley Posted 4:01 pm
21 Jul 2007
No way. The game is more like Russian Roulette and all the chambers are loaded.
Whatever you do to solve the Carbon Dioxide problem will have NO, zero, zilch, remedial effect.
Reducing the heat capacity of the atmosphere by removing the carbon dioxide overpressure will make climatic matters even worse.....and hasten the inevitable demise of life on earth.
No one is listening,,, LOL, well I shall wait, I will be alright Jack; sometime very soon the whole world will be screaming and crying. Don't say I have not warned y'all. Ignore me at your peril.
omegafour.com
Permalink
Billhook Posted 8:57 pm
21 Jul 2007
The sooner Americans understand that the attempt to cling on to an unfair fraction of global emissions entitlement
will only worsen their culpability, and accountability, for the coming losses,
then the sooner they may start to regain some traces of respect for the US around the world.
At present, such discussions are moot, even on sites such as this, with their adamant retention of delusions of free speech.
In fact, of course, this site is only free to post items that don't violate US law - anything that does so, regardless of its cogency or intent,
will quickly be struck out, probably taking the site with it.
So much for free speech.
So why exactly does Grist tolerate the corporate shills that infest its threads ?
Is US law really the arbiter of all that is worth reading ?
If the govt outlawed the shills' deceptive hype, should Grist go to the wall in their defence ?
I rather doubt it.
The series of posts on this thread demonstrate neatly the shills' intent of precluding any coherent discussion of the requisite international changes for resolving climate disruption.
So, to put it more clearly, what justification is there for Grist tolerating the shills that both discredit the site and intentionally disrupt its much needed discussions ?
Regards,
Bill
Permalink