This morning there were segments on Breakfast and on AM on a new report The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science.
In the report 26 scientists have updated the science since IPCC AR4. It’s not a UN publication, but many of the authors were involved with the IPCC report. They were talking this morning about two metres sea level rise by 2100 and a further 6C of warming (making 7C in all above pre-industrial.) There is a post at RealClimate, which is brief because of the involvement of several of the RealClimate bloggers as authors of the report. They say:
Perhaps most importantly, the report articulates a much clearer picture of what has to happen if the world wants to keep future warming within the reasonable threshold (2°C) that the European Union and the G8 nations have already agreed to in principle.
We may do a more detailed post later, but welcome discussion and sharing of links. But if you comment, please do it on the basis of reading the report.
A few quick impressions.
7C is actually the upper bound of the temperature range they envisage.
On sea level rise they show projections with an upper bound of 5 metres by 2300 (and rising). This more extended view of sea level rise is welcome.
If we peak global emissions by 2020 we’ll need to reduce by 9% per annum thereafter and reach zero by 2040. We have to remember here that even so the aim staying within 2C is a very risky course.
In view of the unusual weather here and elsewhere in the world the section on extreme weather events is welcome.
Nice try, Brian. But before I can accept this report. I would like access to all email correspondence, shopping lists, and thought bubbles the authors have “prepared” over the last ten years.
And as for this CO2 thingy? You expect me to believe in a colourless and odorless gas!?! What a scam!
ETR, I hereby give notice that you are to be tied to a chair attached to a long pole and lowered into a vessel full of a colourless, odourless compound essential to life on Earth. If, after being removed from the vessel of said subatance, you are found to be alive, we will conclude that another colourless, odourless compound essential to life on Earth known as carbon dioxide cannot possibly have any adverse effects on anything.
you forgot the bit where we have to see if he weighs as much as a duck, Paul
Paul @ 2, as a matter of interest do you know at what concentration CO2 becomes dangerous to human health? My memory tells me 5000ppm.
A quick search supports your memory Brian:
I’d never heard of Pitman until the other night on Lateline. Now I wouldn’t touch anything he’s written with a bargepole.
I don’t know why you’d say that, Craig Mc, but I didn’t see Lateline. So if the other 25 authors include some of the best and most significant climate scientists on the planet, the whole report is infected with the Pitman vitus. Is that what you are saying or just taking the opportunity to slag off at Pitman?
Of course C02 is harmless, Hon Nick Minchin has cleared the matter up condisering ‘carbon dioxide is not classified as a pollutant’. I do have to wonder though if Nick should write a letter to Oxford asking for a redefinition of the word that they clearly do not understand: The contamination of air, water, or soil by substances that are harmful to living organisms.
Seeing as C02 IS harmful to living organisms, I’d say the dictionary has it allll wrong. Ahem…
That depends if he’s one of the 25 “best and most significant climate scientists on the planet”, or was just fetching coffee for the ones who are.
CO2 is both essential to life and a poison- it’s all about the dose… and of course that is exactly what this whole global climate change debate is about.
Sorry- don’t mean to patronise- I am sure you are all aware of this.. it is a relatively easy concept and yet it is widely misunderstood.
That is very very good news about the undersea methane clathrates Bryan, though the rise in methane -possibly from permafrost thawing – remains a a very dusiturbing trend, if not the apocalypse clathrates would have entailed.
The wide variability in figures, and the ever-decling timeline for effective action is almost the most worrying thing in the report, were it not for the section on oceanic changes. This takes over from clathrates as the thing most concerning me about climate change at the moment – and from my perspective most likely to be the nearest, biggest disaster as a result. I would be interested to hear your perspective on this.
Of course Suez, any abiotic substance is damaging to life processes in the right (wrong?) quanities. See: drowning in water… hah! You’d think the people given the responsibility of running our country (and world) would understand this basic fact of Biology.
Eat the Rich et al
CO2 is the end product of many chemical reactions and that is why the USEPA has deemed CO2, a pollutant. However, the Australian EPAs are captives to our pollutant industries.
Benzene is an extremely efficient carcinogen and is life threatening to humans and non humans. Benzene burns to CO2 which is another very good reason for mitigating CO2 emissions.
Carbon monoxide oxidizes to CO2 and indirectly contributes to the build-up of some greenhouse gases in the troposphere. It reacts with certain chemicals that would otherwise destroy methane and tropospheric ozone , thus helping to elevate the concentrations of methane and ozone Tropospheric ozone (smog) also threatens human health which is therefore another very good reason for mitigating CO2.
Nature’s hazardous waste repositories were buried for very good reason too but man in his “wisdom” continues to bring these toxic brews to the surface.
On Page 44 of the Copenhagen Diagnosis, Hansen says that methane and tropospheric ozone gases have also contributed to rapid Arctic warming and together far outweigh the CO2 contribution. OK but all things connect – all things are bound together – aren’t they?
Conclusion: CO2 is a pollutant!
Suez @ 10, the free-market liars all understand things quite well they just need as much time as possible to work out the best scam for the new era so pretend they don’t understand and all their groupies support this type of obfuscation as they know this is the party that breeds desperate people thus leading to higher rents! They all benefit from obfuscation and the politics of fear and smear except this time NO ONE benefits and the Libs having struck a deal via more tax-payers money for the polluters give them a worse-than-shonky reputation to start the 21st century with…: meaning they will be changing names soon!
They all understand that the science is dinkum: they just don’t understand that they are in their death-throes!
Watch out for crying metro-sexuals in the streets AND DON’T FORGET TO lol! *** HALLELUJAH! ***
I have very little trouble believing the science of atmospheric and environmental destruction, that has been accelerating around us.
But also I have many issues to distance myself from many “environmentalists”.
If you have a living organism (eg a person) and you inhale large amounts of a toxin (eg cigarette smoke) you stand to become very ill – and terminate your life from a variety of reasons, far sooner than otherwise.
Similarly, if you have a planet – where squillions of living organisms have lived for untold eons – and you pump increasing amounts of toxins into it, you are going to get many of them poisoned, or destroyed one way or another. And you can expect all sorts of unpredictable and unexpected / inexplicable problems along the way.
The climate destruction deniers and the tabacco and asbestos industries follow a very similar path (the denigration, belittling and smearing the integrity and bona fides of the commentators), the use of almost the same lobbyists and tactics, etc
Every conceivable stalling tactic was, and still is, used: for years the fight was over whether the partners of smokers had an increased rate of smoking related illness and deaths, because of the toxins they inhaled as side smoke.
Basically it boils down to a fight for the “hearts and minds” of the consumer – and holding the finger in the dyke of logic as long as possible.
When I listened to Nic Minchin the other night, I remembered the GP who ran for the NSW parliament in the 1970’s and 80’s on a pro-smoking platform!
It was almost flat earth philosophy then, but still the cigarette lobby was willing to pump money into his campaigns, just to hold the tide of change back, just a few more years.
Last week on ABC Radio National (?thursday afternoon) there was discussion on how many more people die in Melbourne as a result of days peaking over 30C.
One environmentalist (a professor from a Melbourne uni) commented that a city is 4 – 6C hotter than the surrounding countryside, etc.
His main suggestion? Capturing and storing stormwater run-off so as to use it to cool Melbourne on those days – and to do so even in drought years!
And he seemed pleased to say that it would be a ‘controversial” idea!
He didn’t appear to have asked questions like: Why is Melbourne that much hotter (?the massive area of bitumen and concrete, the number of motor vehicles, the absence of trees and greenery, etc).
These didn’t appear to register on his radar – but he did have a “solution” to a problem. A “problem” he doesn’t appear willing to confront at its source.
Surely the basic question has to be: How much change of our present life-style will we voluntarily accept in order to ensure less drastic (and unwanted?) changes at a later date?
“Lemmings! At the ready – Quick March! Left, left, left, right, left…………..”
And the Antarctic ice cover is also melting faster than first thought.
We have fouled our nest and need to clean it up!
The metrosexuals don’t care: they don’t care about invading countries and killing sigficant numbers of innocent people for oil either as long as they can get the latest in expensive clothing and bling then they’re alright! We’re a bunch of fascist bullyboys, really, when you think about it…. but how do we change?!? The media loves presenting the importance of maintaing the status quo so how do we change as a country and a pig society?!? How do we take control of our destiny?!!? Passion, guys and girls: Pick up a pen and write your passion on the nearest bus stop and demand an end to the cancer that is metrosexuality!
Kiwis on ice anyone?
The outcome of the Copenhagen conference appears to be just as grim as the report. Let’s hope 2C is the worst that occurs!
jovial monk ; “And the Antarctic ice cover is also melting faster than first thought.”.
Actually the antarctic ice cover hasncreased year by year since 1979 and is now 30% larger than it has ever been.
There are three 115m communications towers near one of the antartice bases that were built in the 1960’s that only have 30m exposed above the surface in 2009. In other words there is 85m more ice cover than 1960.
The thing that matters is ice mass balance, dragonman64, and we were told on the TV news tonight that Antarctica is losing as much ice as Greenland.
Well, if we were told it on the TV news it must be true.
Seriously, Brian, I don’t claim to know much about Antarctic ice, but I do know that it isn’t so long since the general view was that Antarctic ice is overall increasing, and that that was a sign of warming – warmer ocean, more evaporation, more precipitation as snow/ice.
Now apparently Antarctic ice is dramatically decreasing. And guess what, that shows global warming too.
As a card carrying cynic I am somewhat suspicious when any story changes so suddenly, and especially so when two diametrically opposed scenarios can both be made to fit the prevailing narrative. This sort of thing really does give ammunition to the “nothing can disprove AGW” criticism.
However, that is purely cynicism. I would be very interested if you could explain briefly why the situation seems to have changed so quickly, and the reliability of the new observations.
David_h – the report does, of course, actually quote a climate scientist as pointing out that the icebergs are nothing to do with global warming.
Wozza, you are misinformed.
The claim that “Antarctica is gaining ice” was peculiar to the climate agnotologists. Mainstream accounts noted that Antartcvia as a whole and West Antarctica in particular was losing ice mass. East Antarctica was thought to be neutral or only losing slightly, and it is this latter assessment that has been revised upwards.
There was some evidence that sea ice around Antarctica was growing but that obviously says nothing about Antarctica’s land based ice.
Wozza, frankly, grow up and learn how to feed yourself! It’s not that hard.
First up, we were told on the TV directly on the news by a climate scientist, out of his own mouth, not reported. As soon as I wrote that I thought someone would make a silly crack in exactly the way you did.
Secondly, look at one of the standard sites you’ve been directed to before, like Skeptical Science, which addresses 74 of these chestnuts you guys keep serving up. It addresses the issue in at least two of them, here and here.
You can find essentially the same story on the Monash site set up to help people like you.
RealClimate has a recent post.
In the past week this story about East Antarctica losing ice has been all over the internet. We’ve linked to it at least once from LP threads. I think the first was Lefty E linking to an ABC news item.
Antarctica is best considered in three parts, the Antarctic Peninsula, West Antarctica and East Antarctica. The first two have been losing ice for some time and the third was thought to be roughly steady. So there is no sudden turn around.
The factors include surface melting and warm ocean water in direct contact with ice shelves, glacier outlets and the ice directly, because West Antarctica in particular, but also some of East Antarctica sits on bedrock below sea level.
You can see this phenomenon in the third image on this post. It’s the attack from below which is the real worry.
I’ve explained quite a lot more about Antarctica in this post which, among other things, addresses the chestnut of volcanism.
In that post I mention that the Pine Island Glacier looks as though it might be in trouble. RealClimate has a recent post. It’s also been in the news. PIG drains a basin which is worth about 1.5 metres of sea level world-wide. You should worry, although a melting pulse would possibly take decades to reach these shores. I believe the water is stacking up a bit faster on the Western Australian coast, according to recent information.
I get really tired of the laziness of sceptics. The first link I gave which is very accessible would have answered your question.
Thank you Brian, much appreciated. No doubt you are right and I was lazy, but your response illustrates why I was lazy – you have an awful lot more info at hand than I could dig up without more time than I have to spare.
No doubt also my previous limited reading was not balanced. (The only paper I can dig up easily on the alleged growth in the (East) Antarctic ice sheet is from one Duncan Wingham of the Centre for Polar Observation and Modeling of University College London which referred to satellite data 1992-2003. Probably I gave it too much credence.)
I have to protest at “sceptic” though, if you mean it in the Boltian sense. I do accept that greenhouse warming is occurring. This doesn’t mean that I don’t question particular pieces of evidence though.
I don’t often ask you to put yourself out like that I hope, and I won’t do it again (for a while). Thanks anyway.
Wozza @ 22. Mate it is a matter of who / what you – we – should be most cynical of.
Absolutely be cynical – be maniacal about it to boot.
But if, like most of us, you don’t have enough info at your fingertips to know when and how to use your skepticism and cynicism, you / we have to follow our hunches – and the easiest way to do this is to follow the money.
Who has most to gain from excoriating the world’s resources and destroying the world’s ecosystems? Who has most to gain by putting up huge infra-structure projects to attempt to ameliorate the situation? Who predominantly has the ear of the pollies who can make their schemes happen? Who manipulates the public spaces to make believe that black is white?
The scientists? The shareholders and corporations? Individual scientists working away in labs, dependent on an annual grant for funding?
When I was at uni, it was the scientists whom I was most skeptical of, as there didn’t seem to be any scheme tthey wouldn’t do research on – for the sake of a quid or 2. (And mostly, little has changed, if you consider who is the pay-master of most of the world’s scientists.)
In about 1979 there was talk of a “hole” in the ozone layer. After years of furious argument – particularly between the CFC manufacturers and scientists and environmentalists (those dastard “Greenies” were at it back then!), acting on their believe of the greater public good. Of course, the corporations didn’t like their profits interfered with by possible bans on ozone depleting chemicals. But finally the public good / the environment (?) overcame the dogged resistance of the industry lobby and they had to withdraw and admit it was true.
One thing I found particularly telling was that this “hole” had been first noticed about 11 years earlier – sometime about 1968. But it’s existence had been put down to mathematical errors / data interpretation squiggles, differences in space modelling – all sorts of things.
Why did it take 11 years for anyone to bring it into the public arena? My answer is that the scientists didn’t want their funding slashed, didn’t want to be ridiculed, didn’t want to lose their jobs – by pointing out an unpalatable truth. Rachael Carson was another incredible example with her exposee on DDT. The list of who has swum against the tide for the greater good is endless: John Sinclair of Fraser Island – an absolute hero in anyone’s language – as without him there would not be much left there.
Mate – it’s a matter of how and why to use your skepticism, your cynicism – and who has most to lose.
And if you don’t want to be a lemming, skepticism and cynicism is your only real defense.
1000 ppm. We might just get there on the current emissions trajectory.
Give it a few more decades.
DragonMan64 @20
I’ve had a Google for your near-buried Antarctic Communication towers and nothing comes up. Got a link for it ?
And to add insult to injury it appears New Zealand temperatures have been massaged as well. Ho Hum!!
John, “massaging” and “normalising” are not actually synonymous. Try learning something (anything) before you embarrass yourself in public again, there’s a good chap.
*yawn* Another lie.
Par for the course. Ho hum!!
And these temperature measurement and reporting, massaging and adjusting brings us back to a basic question . Are land based measurements of temperatures measured a few feet above the ground relevant to the carbon situation; and if relevant what percentage are the carbon based effects, when land use change is almost completely ignored in the “equation”
Will trying to control CO2 have any impact on climate.
However rather than sign over our soveriegnty to the UN , it would be good if Australia could think for itself and address the real issues.
For meanings of ‘almost completely ignored’ that approximate to ’studied in detail’. See Section 2.5.2 and 2.5.3, and table 2.8 of the fourth assessment report..
Why do skeptics think they can just make stuff up? Do they think no-one has read the reports?
You may have observed a small debate taking place in the Australian parliament according to Australian law.
Martin B ,
Land use change is far more significant than the IPCC would have anyone believe.
Its impact on land based temperature measurements a couple of feet above the ground is much more significant than carbon dioxide in “climate change”.
Obviously the IPCC neglected a large body of published work. Would you be so kind as to quote me a source? Google has been no help at all.
@33:
I am pretty sure people were asked to read the paper before commenting. There is a whole section on Land Use Change.
I’d guess that John Michaelmore (“The New Galileo!!!!!!111!!1!”) is talking about the urban heat island effect (or something else equally irrelevant).
The important measurements (for which average planet temperature is a proxy) concern how much total heat is sloshing around the system, as this is what drives extreme weather (like we’ve just experienced two extremes of in Adelaide) and general temperature rise and increasing dryness in southern Australia.
Or have I missed something?
Martin B @ 34,
For Martin and others, I suggest you put into Google, Peter Spencer Hunger Strike.
This man has lost the ability to use most of his farm as a result of our achieving the Kyoto goals, without compensation. He is one of many being driven to the brink by intergovernmental agreements, COAG and the general loss of common law rights in Australia.
Socialism here we come!!!
DINR @ 38
Yes David you missed the point as usual,but that might result from your religion. You cannot use temperature measured a few feet above the ground as a proxy for global heat content. Measurement of atmospheric temperature at this point does not account for land use change and does not represent overall global heat content (which could be declining at this time). I’m not just talking about urban heat island effects. Land use change has an influence on most of the earths surface temperatures.
A two degree aim is absolute rubbish in relation to climate control and an assessment of climate change either way.
Also weather extremes like both you and I have seen in South Australia are not necessarily related to anthropogenic climate change.
John Michelmore (the New Galileo!!!!11!1!), I have no religion.
I’m not sure why you think the estimates of global temperature are totally dependent on near-ground thermometers. It was my understanding that it was calculated from ground-level, atmospheric and oceanic temperature readings, combined with satellite measurements of upper atmosphere temperatures.
DINR,
Inclusion of any near ground temperature data makes the results just that,”estimates”.
The whole issue is too important to be based on temperature “estimates” that include near ground measurement.
As I said a Copenhagen two degree aim is not a valid aim or proxy for global heat content.
John, when you are a published climate scientist I’ll take some notice. I assume you’ve seen this and this.
In order to increase the Access and production of iberoamerican science, Redalyc has implemented the OAI-MPH protocol, making available more tan 55000 registers for the open archives community through its websitehttp://redalyc.uaemex.mx
Here we go Brian, something someone else is saying about using temperature as a guide to climate change.
Roger Pielke Snr :-”In any case, the surface temperature trends are not the most appropriate metric to assess global warming (or cooling) as it is the oceans, which are the largest component of heat changes, as I discussed most recently in my Physics Today paper. This is an issue that I agree with Jim Hansen on. Since mid-2003 through the latest data that I have seen, there has been no annual average warming or cooling in the upper oceans. I recommend you contact Josh Willis for the latest information. For future assessments, this should be the metric to use to monitor (and seek to predict) global warming.
There is also a question of attribution. First, it needs to be better recognized that global warming (i.e., climate system heat changes) is only a subset of climate change. Humans are altering the climate in diverse ways, a variety of human climate forcings are significant, and the effects of these forcings need to be responded to, even if the climate did not warm.”
John, I think you are putting forward three separate arguments. One is that the measurement of surface temperature globally is unreliable. The second is that if you want to look at global warming, the heat content of the ocean is a more important guide than surface temperature, and it hasn’t warmed since 2003.
The third relates to attribution.
Let me say at the outset that Roger Pielke Snr is not a reliable source.
Reams have been written about temperature measurement, but the bottom line is that there is good agreement between the main groups working on this and good agreement between the land station and satellite records where they overlap. Ross Garnaut (see Box 4.1 of his final report) had a couple of experts in the statistical analysis of time series look at temperatures for the last century. They concluded that there was a warming trend and that there was no break in the warming trend from the 1990s on.
I would agree that the ocean heat content is basic and a more significant indicator of global warming from decade to decade that surface temperature. I’ve seen two graphs which show clear warming since 2003. But I understand that it’s still early days in measuring this phenomenon. So I’d be cautious in jumping to any conclusions if the graph didn’t track expectations.
On the third, I don’t have time to unpick that bunch of stuff. Sufficient to say there is nothing new there.