Modesty stalks climate process
Following the leads of the EU, US, Australia and Japan, New Zealand this week became the latest developed nation to announce a target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.
It will fall between 10% and 20% from 1990 levels - if the UN climate negotiations which are this week going through a relatively informal set of talks in Bonn result in a global deal.
As my colleague David Shukman reported from that meeting, significant differences remain between developed and developing worlds over who should shoulder how much of the pain of carbon cuts, and who should pay how much to the poorest countries projected to feel the impacts of climate change first.
Outside the confines of the UN process, other evidence is gathering that an ambitious deal looks unlikely when the final scheduled meeting of that process wraps up in Copenhagen in the middle of December.
New Zealand, although a modest emitter of greenhouse gases in global terms (it has but a modest human population, after all) is a prime exemplar of three reasons why.
Firstly, its emissions are significantly above the level pledged when it adopted the Kyoto Protocol. Its target was a zero increase; instead, emissions are 33% above 1990 levels, and it clearly isn't going to make it.
That's one factor behind its reluctance, just like Australia, the US and Japan, to make any big promises now - and that reluctance is the second reason why the prospect of large cuts in Copenhagen is receding.
The third reason is that in one sense all these pledges should logically stem from the UN process; they should all be honed in the negotiations that allow governments to judge what is in their best interests depending on what others are offering and demanding.
Instead they are being made unilaterally before the hard talk begins.
If all the developed countries draw their own lines in the sand, what prospect does that leave for meaningful negotiations?
Meanwhile in the US itself, signs are emerging that the bill projected to cut emissions back just beyond 1990 levels by 2020 may not sail through the Senate as its proponents had hoped.
Last week, 10 Democrat senators wrote to President Barack Obama [pdf link] indicating they would find it "extremely difficult" to support the bill unless it contained measures that would "maintain a level playing field for American manufacturers".
Interpretations of what the letter means vary between the New York Times, whose headline judged the senators as "threatening" the bill's passage, and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a prominent US campaign group that found it "constructive".
Whichever of those is correct in the context of US legislation, it's hard to see how the senators' move is constructive in any way at all for an international deal in Copenhagen.
It's basically putting yet more lines in the sand. They derive from US domestic concerns; and the US, whoever currently speaks for it, does not have a deep well of goodwill on which to draw within the UN process.
Then there's the timescale issue. The senators are demanding that US legislation contains measures that other countries might not find acceptable, and therefore that the US administration might have to concede.
So how sure do they need to be before supporting the bill? Will they need to see some wording agreed in the international talks before deciding?
Yet if there is no US legislation in place by Copenhagen, the prospects for an international deal recede.
It is a complex picture; and as we saw during the long years of turning the Kyoto Protocol into a practical set of rules and procedures, the more complex something becomes, the more likely it is that governments will insist on their own narrow demands being met.
Kyoto gained in little but modesty during that process; which surely makes speed a priority for anyone looking for something meaningful in Copenhagen.
I'm Richard Black, environment correspondent for the BBC News website. This is my take on what's happening to our shared environment as the human population grows and our use of nature's resources increases.
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~55~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Frankly, I think it's ridiculous that emissions have a chance of increasing at all, whatever the circumstances. We are "advanced" and developed enough for nanotechnology, atomic bombs, spacecraft, and cyberspace, and we can't figure out a way to lower emissions within the past 10 years? What are the real issues at stake here, money or the wellbeing of our precious earth? If only people understood the crucial necessity to make these changes, we wouldn't have to see disaster upon global disaster. Have we not learned from Hurricane Katrina? Are we willing to risk more catastrophic environmental upheavals in exchange for saving a few dollars? It makes me question where the real priorities of our legistlature lie?
Complain about this comment
This is all about maintaining the status quo while appearing to be doing something. Efforts need to be made toward the development of alternative and clean engergies. The present schemes of Cap and Trade are just revenue producing streams that do little to change the problem. Those in power want to stay in power. Current energy producers want control of any new technologies and systems. Governments want to insure that existing relationships with powerful lobbyist are maintained. These new agreements will not last and if they fudge the figures, it really will not matter. A new or a couple of new energies will be developed and things will change. The good thing is that many countries are in the same position so the most powerful will have a difficult time intimadating smaller nations that may develop new energy sources. The underlying problem is with vested interest and that includes governments that currently reap tax benefits from energy producers and will not want any energy source that will not generate the amount of taxes currently collected. The financial crisis showed one thing: governments are controled by business interest and the people are only pawns on their chess board to be sacrificed for the benefit of the wealthly. We are all Suu Kyi, it is only a matter of degree. Keep electing unethical people and you can expect unethical behaviors. When they talk about the "greater good" that means those in power, not to benefit the majority of the population. Beating you with a stroke on a keyboard is the same as with a whip only we seem able to endure greater frequency.
Complain about this comment
New Zealand taking action is about as effective in terms of changing the global position as Britain taking action.
Unless and until the main offenders like the US, China, Russia, India and Brazil take drastic action, anything else is a waste of time - unless of course you're a politician imposing tax increases and adopting a holier-than-thou "save the planet" guise. Caledonian Comment
Complain about this comment
Oh oh, here we go again. Shukman quote: "shoulder how much of the pain of carbon cuts, and who should pay how much to the poorest countries projected to feel the impacts of climate change first". When there's no evidence that CO2 causes anything more than an immeasurable amount of global warming, why should anybody need to suffer pain? Climate change has always happened and will always happen, so we all need to adapt to it, whether it is warming (good) or cooling (bad). Since we are currently in a cooling phase, which is likely to last for decades (see Piers Corbyn), it is the countries at high latitudes that are most likely to feel the impacts of a cooling climate.
Richard: Why don't you do a piece on the physics of the climate instead of just repeating the same old nonsense coming out of these political meetings? let's see some real physics.
Complain about this comment
PAWB46 #4: "same old nonsense" and others...
Those who dismiss AGW as a mistake or a scam, could well take a step sideways and ponder the current behaviour of our elected representatives, governments, businesses and economic systems.
I ask you; given that they, for the most part, accept AGW at face value, are you impressed with their reactions so far? Do you believe they have acted in our best interests by making rapid global agreements and charting safe courses of action for the future safety of the human race? Or do you see them dragging their heels and floundering in conflicts of self interest?
I submit that their performance if far from exemplary.
You may be content now, believing that it is all irrelevant; but what does it show you about our societies and leaders? How do you expect things turn out if a real (for you) global crisis should arise? Do you think they would do any better in the next crisis just because you believe it's a real one?
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
We need to find some way to contact the public, the world citizenry, that we have not tried. Whatever it is we're doing - it is not working.
I keep thinking - the half of us who don't vote are the key. How do we contact them?
The half of us who do vote are more and more conservative as time passes, that's clear to me. I've been seeing this for some forty years now.
I think the half who don't vote might like something that will involve them directly - almost like a ritual. Without direct involvement, like the protests that finally ended the Vietnam War, I don't know that we will get there. Time is running out, like sand through the fingers.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
I have my second home in New Zealand and keep up with news there. Here's how they plan to meet the targets:
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
6. At 01:02am on 12 Aug 2009, manysummits wrote:
I think the half who don't vote might like something that will involve them directly - almost like a ritual.
Quite so. Global warming/climate change is becoming more and more like a religion.
Complain about this comment
Same old stuff...
Lots of silly 'targets' about cutting 10%, 80%, 110% below 1990, 1986, 2000 levels in 1, 10 or 100 years. Judging by the real world events after the Kyoto 'targets' the great majority of these countries will go away and INCREASE their emmissions, not cut them.
Shame they can't expend the same amount of effort on just providing the alternative sources of energy to consumers - I'm a sceptic on the global heating scam but I will happily use non-fossil fuel in my car or electricity from non-fossil sources in my house. Just quit the talking and provide it to me.
Complain about this comment
Some Good News - "Cleaner Seine hosts salmon again" (BBC)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8196801.stm
"By 1995, the salmon were gone, and only four species of fish braved the Seine's dirty waters, which washed up hundreds of tonnes of dead fish a year.
But a major clean-up project in the past 15 years - including the building of a water purification plant - has turned the tide for the river's marine life."
-------------
The 'ritual' here is fishing. Fisherman could see the decline, and feel the rebound.
But you can't see CO2, and the digestion of weather records via statistics is an intellectual exercise - and ripe for those in the denial business.
The Athabasca Glacier in the Columbia Icefields has a signpost documented history of retreat. Maybe there are more ways to viscerally engage the public on climate change and environmental degradation?
"The glacier currently recedes at a rate of 2-3 metres per year[1] and has receded more than 1.5 km in the past 125 years and lost over half of its volume. The glacier moves down from the icefield at a rate of several centimetres per day."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athabasca_Glacier
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
To Aretherenonamesleft #8: (religion)
"The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
----------------
The word 'faith' is appropriate I think. When was the last time you peronally measured the distance to the Sun? Yet you probably take it on faith that the scientists have got it right?
Or are you sceptical there too?
The Perseid Meteor Shower peaked last night, as we passed through the tail of a comet. Are you personally tracking this comet, using advanced science, or do you deny the little trails of light in the sky?
It's the same scientific method which track comets, and fish in the Seine, as that which is trying to tell you there is a problem with CO2.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
davblo2 #5
I see our current leaders as self-interested, self-promoting and basically pretty incompetent and useless. Politics is an easy route for people who are basically unemployable in the real world. I have no faith in them doing anything sensible as they have no experience of the real world and its problems. The less they actually do, the better it is for the citizens. Unfortunately, they don't believe in the old saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
If a real crisis arose, I see them doing the wrong thing, because they have surrounded themselves by equally self-serving advisers who say what they know the politicians want to hear.
Complain about this comment
PAWB46 #12: "...incompetent and useless..."
At least we agree on something.
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
In many ways the US are key to climate change. The unfortunate truth is that they are going to have to make unpopular descisions if we are ever going to keep global warming down to a relitivly safe level. But even at the levels we are already, some of the poorest countries are suffering the effects of climate change. The US is resposible for these people weather they like it or not. They simply cannot just wait until climate change rolls up at their doorstep, and the same goes for the UK.
Complain about this comment
There are those who believe that global warming is a fact and othr who do not. Not much changing of minds. The degrading of the environmental systems is the real issue. Rivers, once sources of drinking water are now polluted, air quality is something reported with the weather and warnings are issued when the quality of air to breath is harmful, idustrial pollution and chemical waste is creating untold health issues around the world, West Nile virus continues to spread nothward with increasing strength and other virus' are becoming much more harmful due to slight increases in air temperature, children having reduced IQ's based on living close to coal-fired energy plants. These along with other issues I am sure others on this page can list cannot be denied. Cleaner more efficient energies are in the interest of everyone. Those who wish to regergetate the nonsense of radio talk shows can wallow in their ignorance while the world changes against their wishes. Sometimes, having a minority view means you are wrong.
Complain about this comment
Richard, I'm sure you're familiar with the issue of 'leakage'. The US Senators call for a border adjustment mechanism to address this.
My question is, how do you devise a border adjustment mechanism to 'shadow' a floating carbon price differential arising from a cap-and-trade system covering factories in one economic zone, but not another?
During times of a carbon price 'shock', would the US (or EU) factories simply close, or would goods produced at that time earn a specially inflated tax rebate? How often would this rebate change (needing re-announcement) and how would they police against cheats? Manufacturers might simply relocate to the developing world to avoid the confustion/uncertainty. Can you put this critique to your academic contacts please?
Manufacturing interests are bound to confuse the debate, because they will either oppose cap-and-trade or propose border adjustments, but they will not propose instead a duty- and/or carbon tax- based system applied to energy-intensive manufacturing, which would discourage overall consumption of manufactured goods (at least by citizens of wealthy countries first). Though such systems avoid the problem of floating differentials I describe above.
Complain about this comment
- Manysummits -
You say the Athabasca Glacier ... has receded more than 1.5 km in the past 125 years and lost over half of its volume. The glacier moves down from the icefield at a rate of several centimetres per day.
Fair enough - but I thought man's influence on the global climate (via C02) did not start until the 1970's -
So what caused the glacier to recede for the other 90 odd years?
Complain about this comment
@davblo2
#5
I ask you; given that they, for the most part, accept AGW at face value, are you impressed with their reactions so far? Do you believe they have acted in our best interests by making rapid global agreements and charting safe courses of action for the future safety of the human race? Or do you see them dragging their heels and floundering in conflicts of self interest?
I think politicians will jump on and off any bandwagon they think will either win them votes, get them a promotion, garner favour with "special interests" or lobby groups, or give them a lucrative deal in the future. Given that most politicians appear to be "career politicians" with no real experience of the real world, I don't think any of them can be relied on to do what is best in our collective interests.
Complain about this comment
To crsmumby #17:
You asked:
"Fair enough - but I thought man's influence on the global climate (via C02) did not start until the 1970's -
So what caused the glacier to recede for the other 90 odd years?"
---------------
Big topic! Here's a start, from wikipedia:
"Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation. Global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the last century.[1][A] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations resulting from human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation caused most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century.[1] The IPCC also concludes that variations in natural phenomena such as solar radiation and volcanoes produced most of the warming from pre-industrial times to 1950 and had a small cooling effect afterward.[2][3] These basic conclusions have been endorsed by more than 45 scientific societies and academies of science,[B] including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.[4] A small number of scientists dispute the consensus view."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
----------------
If you are interested in numbers, Oak Ridge National Laboratory has them on CO2 emmissions from 1751 on.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
To simon-swede:
Following up on your suggestion, I have an inter-library loan request for:
"Should Trees Have Standing?: And Other Essays on Law, Morals and The Environment." by Christopher Stone (25th anniversary, 1997, of the original 1972 book, plus update)
----------------
I was wondering if we are being too negative with the progress, or lack of progress, with regard to the upcoming Copenhagen climate conference?
Naturally many of us wish for a comprehensive agreement which will not only halt but actually reverse the buildup of CO2 and other pollutants into our collective atmosphere.
Naturally this is not going to happen at Copenhagen.
How do you feel about the rate of progress, and the possibility of effective agreements in the next ten years?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
moralclimate #16 You ask:
“Richard, I'm sure you're familiar with the issue of 'leakage'.”
You seem to have a grasp of the issues at stake here. And this, as you probably know, is just the very tip of the iceberg. Policy makers, general bureaucrats, lobbyists, Wall Street, and all manner of consultants are set to make their fortunes. I guess you will be setting yourself up for the kill. Problem is that governments need this tax revenue as they have already ear marked it. In the US it will go to funding Obama’s new health and all the trillions he has just spent. It will also on the wider scale enable a global control mechanism.
As always on this blog I need to make a stand for the plants. They are demanding 2 to 3 times the amount of CO2 that is currently in the atmosphere as this is their optimum concentration that they have evolved with. They would be happy with even more. They are pleading with us to help in anyway we can and they will reward us with increasing yields and quality.
Be ready my blogging friends for a stoking up of the AGW engine as we approach US Cap and Trade and Copenhagen summits. You will be cringing as you listen to the latest woe’s that we are perpetrating. It is due to start about now.
And on the quiet the Russians have pretty much cracked the technology to capture abiotic gas from deep in the earths crust (they never did believe in fossils fuels and latest discoveries on Titan and Mars appear to support them). So they are sitting pretty and if I know the Russian culture they will make us westerners pay and they will have little truck for AGW alarmists.
Sleep tight
Tim
Complain about this comment
Richard’s piece begins by noting the individual emissions targets announced by EU, US, Australia and Japan, New Zealand. At the climate discussions being held this week in Bonn, other national targets were announced or clarified and some of the underlying assumptions explained. Even so, the assorted national announcements are hard to compare and many of the pledges remain conditional – it is not just the US drawing “lines in the sand”.
The current international negotiating text is long and complex and the efforts to consolidate the proposals have been described as “painfully slow”. I would not be surprised if it gets more so. Richard comments that “the more complex something becomes, the more likely it is that governments will insist on their own narrow demands being met.”
Not only does such a focus on short-term national interests make reaching any sort of agreement more difficult, it also makes it harder to envisage that the ultimate outcome will be meaningful.
Manysummits at #20 writes, “Naturally many of us wish for a comprehensive agreement which will not only halt but actually reverse the buildup of CO2 and other pollutants into our collective atmosphere. Naturally this is not going to happen at Copenhagen.”
Perhaps he is right. I hope he is being too pessimistic.
At least one delegate in Bonn is reported as questioning the utility of discussing individual country targets, stating “if we want to judge the effect of our commitments on the atmosphere, we have to look at all the targets together.” Now, that may be just one quiet lonely voice amongst all the hullabaloo, but if at least it is an indication that there remains some notion of a collective responsibility.
So, I agree that the progress is slow and the final outcome is uncertain. However the price of failure is high and awareness of this is growing. So, I still am hopeful that a meaningful agreement can be attained, if not at Copenhagen, then at least early enough to make a difference.
Simon
(For those interested in the details of what is being said in the climate negotiations, a useful guide is the Earth Negotiations Bulletin, available online at http://www.iisd.ca/climate/ccwgi/).
Complain about this comment
timjenvey #21:
I agree. We should be increasing atmospheric CO2 to aid plant growth. Unfortunately I live a very low CO2-generating lifestile compared to the average UK citizen, and especially compared to BBC employees, who seem to go off jet-hopping at the drop of a hat (dropped by us TV license payers). Perhaps I should go and visit my son in New Zealand on a regular basis.
However, all is not lost. I guess there will be huge CO2 emissions associated with Copenhagen and all the other climate change jamborees (are they still called boon-doggles?) such as the IPCC meetings and pre-meetings and and....., all in exotic parts of the world.
Am I feeling bitter about all the waste of resource on the "climate change industry" which could usefully be spent solving the world's pressing problems? You bet I am.
Complain about this comment
Timjenvey at #21
Several times you have written versions of "Problem is that governments need this tax revenue as they have already ear marked it. In the US it will go to funding Obama’s new health and all the trillions he has just spent."
How do you reconcile this with the fact that the majority of permits under the current US proposals will be given away "free"? Although President Obama called for all permits to be auctioned, the Waxman-Markey bill would give away most of the permits, at least over the next few decades. So, clearly no revenue to the US government from permit sales.
I do agree with you that there are some who are setting out to "make a killing" from this system. Not least of all the energy firms and other large emitters.
A cap-and-trade system with freely allocated permits is equivalent to a carbon tax in which the tax revenue is given to stockholders, not the government. Under a system of free permit allocation, the stockholders of companies that receive free permits would receive windfall gains. This is because, although firms that receive free permits have no out-of-pocket permit costs, they still pass along to consumers their opportunity costs - the value of the income they could have earned by selling the permits. The value of a permit is determined by its usefulness, not how the firm obtained it.
The logic is simple: firms that are allocated free permits face the same production incentives as a firm that pays for them. If emission permits are traded at a price of $20 per ton, the cost of emitting an additional ton of greenhouse gases is $20 for all firms. A firm that has no permit must spend $20 to buy one from another firm; a firm that has a freely allocated permit will not give up the opportunity to sell it to another firm for less than $20.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
simon-swede #22: " At least one delegate in Bonn is reported as questioning the utility of discussing individual country targets, stating 'if we want to judge the effect of our commitments on the atmosphere, we have to look at all the targets together' ... at least it is an indication that there remains some notion of a collective responsibility."
If it really took someone to say that then it's a sign of collective ignorance and irresponsibility on the part of the rest of them. What are they doing there if they don't all know that simple fact.
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
moralclimate, your question "how do you devise a border adjustment mechanism to 'shadow' a floating carbon price differential arising from a cap-and-trade system covering factories in one economic zone, but not another?" perfectly encapsulates the complexities here. I, for one, have no idea... especially when we might end up with many different emission regimes in the world, eg. those with firm national targets, those with sectoral targets, those with targets expressed in terms of change from business-as-usual... oh, and by the way, it's supposed to be worked out in the next four months... makes the Gordian Knot look like a tea-cake by comparison.
timjenvey, could you enlighten us more on Russia and abiotic gas? Many Russian (and Soviet, in that time) scientists explored the notion theoretically - but practical extraction? I'd be grateful for some references.
Complain about this comment
To davblo2 #26, re: lone voice at Bonn:
I couldn't agree more. May I share an artistic insight, something from 'mythos' rather than logos?
Recent pictures in our papers of the leaders of Canada, the United States and Mexico show them all in strikingly similar suit and tie. I thought of Nelson Mandela, a truly great man, who wears 'African,' colorful, and so much 'him.' And I thought further, how obvious the group-think of the three amigos, how the masters of the world genuflect to the demands of the conservative powers that be.
---------
I remarked earlier on how the Wall Street crowd co-opt the language of war and the hunt, and here is an example: (from timjenvey #21)
"Policy makers, general bureaucrats, lobbyists, Wall Street, and all manner of consultants are set to make their fortunes. I guess you will be setting yourself up for the kill."
---------------
I think how far these 'hunters and warriors' are from the ancient hero's quest. I think how Justice would in fact deal with them - self-confessed hypocrites, and proud of it.
I see this neo-con attitude all around me, at work and at play, and it quite frankly disgusts me - there is no other word for it. Some of the best people I've met have been hobo-types, in various guises. It's why I keep wondering about the not-voting half of our populations here in the Western democracies. It seems a forlorn hope, but then what? Do we place our futures in the hands of the suits? Look what that has done for us? The 'Limits to Growth' are still with us - look at the most recent "GRACE" satellite data from India:
India's water use 'unsustainable'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8197287.stm
-----------
And the response - poppycock from the denial campaign.
The most ancient of fights amongst men in the society of men is the wish of the few to garner all power and wealth into the hands of the few - and the resistance of the many.
Is this not why we invented democracy? Why are we allowing our democracies to be shredded, torn to bits and made useless?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
I live in Australia, which is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases per capita, especially because most of the electricity is still generated by burning coal.
The average Australian consumes areound 10000 kwh per year (that includes indirect consumption, i.e. the electricity consumed by businesses and indirectly paid for by their customers). The total cost per person of power is around $150 per month which consists of their electricity bill plus the cost of power reflected in any other products and services they consume.
Now assume that Australia would invest in much cleaner generation of energy over the next ten years, and phase out coal completely. And assume that this would double the cost of electricity. Instead of $150 per month, we would be paying $300 per month to keep the lights and the fridge on.
A significant increase, certainly, but to be honest, for me it would not change my lifestyle one single bit. And I am sure it wouldn't do so for most Australians.
Also, for some energy-hungry businesses it might be an incentive to become less energy-hungry in order to keep their prices competitive. So the $300 might end up to be only $250.
Now would an increase of $100 per month be such a disaster? Yes, perhaps for the lowest incomes it would, and perhaps we need to help them out a bit. But across the board? I don't think so.
Of course no government wants to sell to their voters that they are doubling the price of electricity. The opposition would have a field day, and would claim the next election. And that is why Australia still uses coal.
Complain about this comment
History has recorded energy transformations and the impact on economic growth. Fire, steam, gas, coal and oil. Each has lead to greater productivity and had different environmental impacts, but generally those nations that have adopted the new technologies have advanced. We are at a point where the opportunity avails itself to another energey transformation. These transformation have created economic growth, not just in the energy output but also in the re-tooling of industries. The question at hand is: Have the vested interest and wealth of the engery producers and their influence on governments reached the point to where they can prevent the next energy transformation? Cap and Trade is simply a continuation of fossil fuel usage, with all of its harmful effects on mankind and the environment. Once a better fuel source is discovered or created the real battle will take place with the efforts to forestall implementation. No one gives up power voluntarily.
Complain about this comment
Mr Black is back on the front page of the BBC website with a report on hurricane activity in the Atlantic, unfortunatly for Mr Black the report does not say severe storm activity is higher than in the past.
The report in Nature seems to prove that hurricane activity over the last 1,000 years is sometimes high and sometimes low !!!.
Mr Black headlines his article with 'Many hurricanes' in modern times, this is a very misleading headline as he has not defined what 'modern times' time period actually is.
But current levels were matched and perhaps exceeded during the Mediaeval Climate Anomaly (also known as the Mediaeval Warm Period) about 1,000 years ago.
"I think if there's one standout result (from this study), it's that the high storm counts we've seen in the last 10 to 15 years could have been matched or even exceeded in past periods," commented Julian Heming, a tropical storm specialist from the UK Met Office who was not involved in the new research.
So which leaves us where with this report?, could be higher, might be lower, could be the same?, have no clue?, take your pick.
Complain about this comment
@Rustigjongens & Richard Black
#31
Absolutely agree Rustig, even NOAA think the "increase" in hurricanes is due to better observation:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090811_tropical.html
but no BBC mention of that is there?
Perhaps Richard would also like to comment / report on this story?
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090812/full/460787a.html
Complain about this comment
Richard Black (BBC) #27 You asked on abiotic oil.
Here's a recent piece with a few reverences. You can probably access a lot more than I can as you will probably have free access to Nature and the like.
http://my.opera.com/nielsol/blog/2009/07/28/abiotic-oil
I used to work for a UK oil company in R&D. One of my friends moved into Exploration and is a good source of industry info. I'll see if he's got anything he’s willing to share specifically on the current Russian developments.
There are many articles around that touch in various ways on this topic. You probably saw this one:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8186314.stm
And doing some research on Titan is worthwhile.
That’s all got time for now.
Thanks for interest
Tim
Complain about this comment
Tim #33 - thanks - much appreciated.
MangoChutneyUKOK #32 and others - if you think about the methodology of the Mann study, it's independent of the improvements in detection noted in the NOAA analysis here.
Complain about this comment
simon-swede #24
As the bill now stands you are correct. Obama's plan to auction off allowances for the use of fossil fuels is essentially a tax where nobody knows the tax rate in advance. Companies then bid against each other at a government run auction. Problem being here is that the company that loses the auction will get shut down by the EPA!!!!
His idea however got 'transformed' as you say. Instead of auctioning the permits, "most" (operative word) of them will be given away based on political considerations. IMO that's how they got enough votes to push the bill through.
It will be interesting to see what direction the Senate makes of it after the intense lobbying that will be taking place.
If it goes the way it’s now heading it will leave Obama with a big problem and a huge hole to fill. As I said he ear marked it and will have to find another way if it turns against him. You may recall Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid earlier this year got himself into all sorts of a pickle over this.
Tim
Complain about this comment
The alarmism most are showing is clouding the issue a great deal. The warming rate has never gone higher than 2C per century and that was during a period in which two long-duration ocean currents simultaneously went into warming modes. The actual rate, factoring in the natural cooling cycle (which is just beginning) is only about .6C per century. Since CO2's absorption is logarithmic, anything beyond those two rates is wild and utterly unfounded speculation...and results will most likely be closer to the lowest figure since the 2C/century was largely from natural warming cycles.
Prematurely switching to new, immature energy technologies will not have the same benefits as previous energy transitions. Oil and coal provided substantial improvements in cost, flexibility, availability and energy density. All current renewables impose substantial penalties in these areas. For instance, half the land area of the UK would need to be covered in turbines to provide the 1 terawatt the UK uses and they'd need to somehow be in magic, optimal sites that maintained energy output as it was needed.
Could we possibly have some balance with the BBC on climate issues? Maybe wild, unsupported, conjecture by scientists that are even considered by most climatologists to be unrealistic shouldn't get a free pass to front page news...and in their place we could occasionally see some realistic people that point out silly little bits of information like the fact that it hasn't warmed in a decade.
Or... maybe someone could point out that the tropospheric temperature gradient can't be easily changed by CO2 because it's maintained by the far more powerful hydrologic cycle. The cycle involves the evaporation and condensation of over 1000 cubic kilometers of water every day and...due to it constantly recycling that energy, far more energy than earth receives from the sun. This is likely the reason the signature of anthropogenic global warming seen in models...is entirely absent.
Complain about this comment
Hi Timjenvey,
Thanks for the cap and trade bit (at #35). I look at it from a rather different perspective. But if you agree with me that as things stand, most permits will be given away free for the forseeable future, then the driver for the measures cannot really be the immediate need for tax revenue as you keep arguing. Selling or auctioning the permits is a more effective and efficient means of achieving real emissions reductions, ad that is the main reason why I think is a mistake to give them away.
What of the costs to consumers then? A recent U.S. General Accountability Office (GAO) report concludes that the costs borne by consumers under a cap-and-trade program will depend primarily upon how allowance value is distributed. The report predicts that most regulated entities will pass along allowance costs in the form of increased prices, but found that the costs borne by consumers as a result could be largely offset through the distribution of revenue generated by allowance auctions. Distributing allowances for free, the report notes, could increase the overall cost of the program by holding down energy prices and reducing the incentive for consumers to conserve.
A summary of the report can be found at [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]. Here there are also links to the full report.
Complain about this comment
Re: #37 & #35: "cap and trade"
I admit I have not read-up on the proposals, so my view is probably naive and simple.
But isn't the whole point (the "cap" part) that one issues the amount of permits (vouchers, allowances, whatever they are called) only to the level of emissions one wishes to permit. So if one issues permits totalling X tonnes-CO2/year, then one can be sure thet only X tonnes-CO2 can be emitted.
This would be the case regardless of whether ones gives the permits away or auctions them off.
So the big issue would be, to what level of X will the permits be issued. More or less than current emissions?
If more; then companies will get what they want and not have to change anything, but review their plans for the future. Not very useful.
If less; and they are distributed evenely, then all companies will have to restrict their emissions (the whole point again) and incur higher costs implementing emission reduction methods, or buying more permits from another company who has implemented more emission reduction than they needed to. Either way reductions are enforced and costs rise.
Why make it more complicated than that?
Oh, I think I see; isn't it the "trading" part. I began thinking of the permits as fixed value. But of course, trading by auction will let "all-hell" break loose and the prices companies pay in trading will vary according to demand, so the costs passed on to consumers will vary greatly. Similarly there will be shortages and prices will rocket and maybe slumps in demand and companies will loose fortunes. That sound like adding a new "nightmare" to an already out of control economic system.
Still, ask econimists to create a solution and that's what you get.
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
@Richard Black
#34
From the Houston Chronicle - Chris Landsea, science and operations officer at the National Hurricane Center, disagreeing with Manns results
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6570510.html
“The paper comes to very erroneous conclusions because of using improper data and illogical techniques,” said Chris Landsea, science and operations officer at the National Hurricane Center.
In his criticism, Landsea notes that the paper begins by saying that Atlantic tropical activity has “reached anomalous levels over the past decade.”
This ignores recent work by Landsea and a number of other hurricane scientists who found that storm counts in the early 1900s — in an era without satellites and fewer seaborne observers — likely missed three or four storms a year. The addition of these storms to the historical record, he said, causes the long-term trend over the last century to disappear.
“This isn't a small quibble,” he said. “It's the difference between a massive trend with doubling in the last 100 years, versus no trend.”
Any comment Richard?
And please comment on this story, Richard:
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090812/full/460787a.html
Complain about this comment
MangoChutneyUKOK #39: "Chris Landsea, science and operations officer at the National Hurricane Center, disagreeing with Manns results"
Did you actually think about this and read any of the Mann et al report?
They (Mann et al) are not using "storm counts" which may well have missed 3 or 4 per year. They are using (a) Sediment-based overwash reconstructions of hurricane landfall and (b) comparing the result with predictions from "independent statistical model predictions".
And as for the initial comment about "anomalous levels over the past decade".
Did you read that in the original context?
The very first words of the report...
"Atlantic tropical cyclone activity, as measured by annual storm
counts, reached anomalous levels over the past decade. The short
nature of the historical record and potential issues with its
reliability in earlier decades, however, has prompted an ongoing
debate..."
He is acknowledging the unreliability of the "storm counts" from the past and saying that is what prompted this further work.
What is wrong with that?
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
MangoChutneyUKOK (#39) quotes the article's passage where Landsea disagrees with the results at some length. But when I look at the whole Houston Chronicle article, it offers a more balanced perspective, as it then goes on to say:
" Other scientists suggested that the new Nature paper does the best it can in deriving information about historical hurricane activity from a scant amount of data.
Yet this limits how useful the information is, said Rob Korty, an atmospheric scientist at Texas A&M University.
'The bottom line is that I think their work adds new and helpful information, said Korty. 'But we must keep in mind the assumptions this kind of work require are large by nature.' "
Complain about this comment
The fact is, gentlemen, the BBC report again on something that "proves" AGW, but omits to report on an article from National Hurricane Center, which states the rise in the number of hurricanes is simple because we have better observation powers.
If Mann, finds the number of hurricanes recorded in recent decades is more than the past, does this mean:
1) There are more hurricanes now
2) There are more hurricanes in the past
3) We are better at recording hurricanes
This research simply tells us there were hurricanes in the past, nothing more nothing less, but the BBC chooses to report Manns findings, but doesn't mention Landseas findings.
Complain about this comment
Frankly, we don't have time for governments to think in their selfish best interests. Global carbon emissions (and climate change) are a collective burden that all countries must deal with, reguardless of who is the culprit putting them into the air. Standards need to be set and agreed upon for all countries involved, by all countries involved. And everyone should be held to these equally strict standards, set at a realistically sustainable level. Unfortunately, this level is probably far lower than countries economies would allow/like. This is where our priorities are important. Is it more important to save our individual economies or our earth? If we don't take care of Mother Nature, surely, she will certainly take care of us, and if we don't respect that, we may be sorry in the future.
Complain about this comment
Many of the other commentaries were about maintaining the status quo and "realistic" solutions given governments best self-interests. I find these issues unimportant because really, we don't have time to consider these things. We are at the tipping point, and changes need to be made immediately, regardless of economic collapse. Yes, it is an extreme idea, but it is true in my opinion. These things need to be dealt with immediately and drastically, or else we will pay the price in other ways.
Complain about this comment
We're not at a tipping point, jabribat. You haven't studied both sides of the issue at all. For instance, a lack of arctic sea ice in summer wouldn't be "tipping" it would be as tipped as it can get and an absolute end to ice albedo feedback in the region. Also...
- Atmospheric CO2 is rising slower than predicted (look it up)
- Temperatures haven't really risen since 1998 (look it up).
- The warming rate even during the warming period from 1980-2000ish was only high enough to reach about a 2.2C anomaly (look it up).
- The actual warming rate factoring in both warming and cooling phases is only about .6C/century (1940-present is a complete cooling/warming cycle...look it up)
- And finally, it doesn't matter anyway because the hydrologic cycle transports many times the amount of energy through the troposphere(as latent heat) that CO2 was ever suspected of stopping. Work out how much energy it takes to vaporize the 1000+ cubic kilometers of rain that falls every day, compare it to the total energy budget of the earth...and you might understand why CO2's impact should be far lower (to non-existent) than the math on pure CO2 absorption would suggest.
Complain about this comment
MangoChutneyUKOK #42: "The fact is..."
Did you read my #40?
You still seem to be missing the point that Mann et al's work has nothing to do with Landsea's (in terms of input data). They used different methods and are reporting their findings. The criticism from Landsea which you make so much of is simply misplaced.
Do you understand? They did not use the "observation" data you say has now improved. So the improvement is irrelevant.
It's not worth continuing if you don't follow the discussion.
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
Now let’s get into the real world.
This is the same Mann that tried to smooth out the MWP from existence with the Hockey Stick and was publicly discredited. Now he believes in MWP and is using it to support his current work.
Guy’s, this work is not even worth the mention.
My honey due adventures planned for this weekend will be more instructive reading. Unfortunately I will be so busy with them that I will not have time to post
Have a great weekend
Tim
Complain about this comment
timjenvey #47: "honey due adventures" ???
From The Urban Dictionary
"Honeydew List, Honey-do List or Honey-due List. Its the list of stuff you have to do because you happen to be someone's "Honey". All the cr*p you could not care less about but have to do anyways because you want to go skydiving on the weekend"
timjenvey and simon-swede; I had hoped for some comment on my #38. Is my understanding of cap-and-trade correct or flawed?
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
davblo2 #48 & 38
Cap and Trade as it now stands is a total crock. The winners will be the big corporation’s stockholders. The losers will be everybody else and there will be no change in saving us from going over the tipping point of cataclysmic AGW (only applies of course if you are so disposed to this belief). I'm a bed fellow with James Hanson on this one.
I think you are getting the idea from reading your final summing up. The whole shenanigan looks like its backfiring on Obama but folks will be too proud to give the whole debacle a respectable burial.
The lunatics are just getting started on taking over the asylum here. Thanks for the interest in our pitiful plight. Hopefully I have positioned my personal focus to take full advantage whichever way it goes. And that's what I like about the general attitude of the decent folks that live here. We are freer to do more with our fellow beings as a result.
Tim
Complain about this comment
timjenvey #49: "The lunatics are just getting started on taking over the asylum here"
Thanks for the reply.
Do they (Obama et al) look at all to the European cap and trade scheme for reference? It came into effect January 2005; there must be many lessons to be learned from experiecnces there. Or do they prefer to do their own thing from stratch?
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS