The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has released its 2009 State of the Climate Report. The report:
draws on data for 10 key climate indicators that all point to the same finding: the scientific evidence that our world is warming is unmistakable. More than 300 scientists from 160 research groups in 48 countries contributed to the report, which confirms that the past decade was the warmest on record and that the Earth has been growing warmer over the last 50 years.
Based on comprehensive data from multiple sources, the report defines 10 measurable planet-wide features used to gauge global temperature changes. The relative movement of each of these indicators proves consistent with a warming world. Seven indicators are rising: air temperature over land, sea-surface temperature, air temperature over oceans, sea level, ocean heat, humidity and tropospheric temperature in the “active-weather” layer of the atmosphere closest to the Earth’s surface. Three indicators are declining: Arctic sea ice, glaciers and spring snow cover in the Northern hemisphere.
The report and a related media kit can be found here. A video summarising the highlights of the report can be found here. The ABC reports here.
This prompts me, in a light-hearted vein, to propose another conspiracy theory about the Cabinet leak: it was done by a climate denialist or climate inactionist within Cabinet to create a distraction from the State of the Climate report. This points to either Marn Ferson, or Julia Gillard herself! 
I’m sorry, who are the climate actionists in Cabinet? Peter Garrett, sure…
and…?
The tiny (minute) silver lining on this is that Andrew Bolt and his ilk will have to STFU about “no warming since 1998″.
Oh yeah, that’ll shut them up I’m sure.
Wilful, the icebergs would have to drift past Andrew Bolt’s window before he would recognise a problem with climate change. And even then, I’m not sure.
You can be sure, though, that when the tiny atolls and islands of the South Pacific start going under, the arrival of refugee boats will ramp up – and Bolt will then have to make a choice between keeping out brown people or lettting the planet fry.
Mr Denmore – if icebergs drifted past Andrew Bolt’s window he’d claiming it was getting cooler
Oh re: islands in the south pacific – wasn’t there something recently that they may not be as vulnerable as first thought? For some reason they have a tendency to grow a bit as the sea rises.
Prediction on a reply from Mr Bolt. “Look at the evidence around you! It’s been the coldest wettest winter for years!”
Good piece here on the stte of play in the US: basically depressing, with a few minor notes of optimism:
http://inside.org.au/is-it-all-over-for-climate-change-policy-in-the-united-states/
New greens ad calls time on the silly “costs” arguments: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNG4kMqaAUs
Chris is right.There was a different reading about small Pacific Islands recently.I guess Google is still working.Much alarm about micro-plankton last few days.Needs studying anyway wether all that is accurate with Climate Change Acceptors Warming or not.I still think,it is crazy the consensus that seems to be claiming this and that regularly as obviousness cannot be argued against,if, those who argue that way,find no error in themselves as far as scientific theorising is concerned.How many Scientists on the warming accepting side, extrapolate from what they accept to see if it is inaccurate or wrongfully inaccurate!?
I just looked at Lefty E’s contribution,and apart from some matters of the age of his[Tanner's] kids,I think I read in the SMH,I hope the Greens do well in that electorate.Tanner is an example that is really what is wrong with the ALP ,they just cannot let go of the fact,that the shape of how Australians live today and who advances has been the result of failures,rather than design over longer periods that Tanner as a sitting member has ushered in.Wether it is as Tanner puts it the long term goal of the Greens is to cannibalise the ALP is entirely him.The over abundance of Jews supporting Greens may reflect a disenchantment with what they have been perceived as.Tanner may have a health problem that he doesn’t want to know about.I am not to sure changing who you tried electing only a small two and something years ago, however is anything but oppurtunism’s sake alone,and, they could turn on the Greens as well.I remain reticent about Green policies re CO2 because of a very simple and unresearched matter,that I have often stated in different ways.If I was a Green member I wouldn’t trust the ABC either.
Useful post Paul.
“The tiny (minute) silver lining on this is that Andrew Bolt and his ilk will have to STFU about “no warming since 1998?.”
I imagine future Australians will not look back on Andrew Bolt warmly. He’s a disaster for this country. Him & his sycophantic supporters.
N’
This isn’t about climate change but another un-reality in the election campaign: The Afghan War. It’s time to bring this madness to an end.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2010/jul/29/afghanistan-war-us-military
Climate change is the monster problem behind the current chaos within the ALP. Dealing with the implications of climate change means fundamentally restructuring the political economy of production and consumption. This means previously unimaginable change towards much more equitable distribution of wealth and security than we currently enjoy in Australia and this redistribution needs to be structured around ecologically sustainable practise.
Many ALP sitting parliamentarians and party members are aware of the scale of the problem and the seriousness of the situation but none of them can figure out how to drive the necessary changes in the face of ignorance, fear of change and an absolutely treacherous mass media.
To acknowldge the ALP’s real difficulties we need to sustain some perspective on the matter and keep in mind the hysteria and sheer irrationality of the denialist campaign that tore the ground from under Rudd. There are, of course, vested interests and their lackeys in the media who, for purposes of sutaining their wealth and privilege for another generation or two, have done immense damage to the possibility of rational public disourse on the subject by endlessly repeating lies, falsehoods and distortions. Notwithstanding these sorts of difficulties it is nevertheless down to the ALP as the party of government to show ledership on the matter. This is Rudd’s real failure. When the chips were down he flunked leadership on climate change.
The current sideshow of Gillard and Abbott avoiding discussion of climate change at any cost is a very significant failure and will be seen in the future as a turning point when another raft of opportunities to avert chaos went missing.
The next parliament will be crucial. As citizens we will have the next term to drive home the need for sweeping changes to our economic activities of production and consumption. Assuming the return of the ALP then Gillard’s citizens consultative committee, while it appears to be a sop at the moment, may turn out to be highly significant.
Very influential fractions of the middle classes have figured out exactly how dire climate change is but the support of the educated middle classes alone isn’t enough when we are of necessity going to have to consider policies that will likely throw large sections of the working class out of their current employment, wealth and security. The citizen’s consultaive committee will be very important if it manages to reach a conclusion that the need for change is urgent and that the costs of those changes are going to have to be shared equally among all citizens. This means no more super profits for some while others carry the burden of ecological change. This means equal distribution of insecurity and uncertainty.
We have one term to assert national unity in the face of an immense challenge or we face a collapse into the beginnings of neo-liberal individualist ecological apocalypse. No-one will be a winner in that situation and the very wealthy, who think tht they can buy their way out of any trouble, will discover that if you’ve only got one planet then you’ve nowhere to run and nowhere to hide from ecological collapse.
akn, it is views like yours that are mostly responsible for the way climate change has been disappearing from the political agenda.
“Dealing with the implications of climate change means fundamentally restructuring …. production and consumption…. previously unimaginable change towards much more equitable distribution of wealth”. This sort of bullshit directly fuels the Moncktons of this world in their allegations that climate change is merely a smokescreen for imposing socialism and making most people in the developed world a lot poorer.
Add in a heavy dose of elitism – educated people like you get it; it is the bogans who are the problem – and some incoherent ranting about “vested interests … lackeys … hysteria [do you really not see the irony in accusing those who disagree with you of “hysteria”?] …. endless lies and distortions”, and you have a comment which no doubt Bolt and co are poring over even as we speak to mine the rich vein of anti-AGW scorn it provides them.
Next time you feel inclined to query why politicians are increasingly inclined to view a climate change as electoral poison, look in the mirror.
Good, I’m pleased you’ve come out of the closet on this Wozza. Now, if you have policy ideas or prescriptions for a sustainable, just and equitable society run along lines that doesn’t involve some form of redistribution of wealth and insecurity then please outline them.
Please also outline your plans for the distribution of ecological risk. This concern has been around for some time and is grounded primarily in the North American movement around ecological racism which focusses on the externalisation of the worst forms of ecological risk onto Afro-American and Hispanic language communities. These sorts of issues are going to come up and it would be a good idea to have some sort of notion of how to deal with them.
I’m not suggesting that the issue is a matter of ‘bogan ignorance’ at all. The ‘bogans’, by whom I presume you are referring to the working classes and sub-proletarian fringe dwellers in electorally and geographically marginal seats, having spent their lifetime being shafted by the wealthy and the powerful, are quite rightly bucking against what they see as the looming prospect of an almighty fuck over as they are expected to bear the full burden of ecological readjustment. Equitable policies are needed to bring them on board because, as we have seen, at the moment they are captive of fear mongerers and mining company exucitves. Thereby we all become captives of swinging voters in marginal seats who have less ingross terms to lose than the wealthy but everything to lose in net terms. This situation is not conducive to developing sensible social policy to deal with climate change.
Failing any serious alternative proposals from you I’ll assume that you’re of the view that market solutions are adequate to the task.
As to whatever fuels Lord Monckton it is apparent that whatever it is, it is not and has roots in the darkest recesses of the English class system, not me. What is really interesting about your contribution is that it reeks of new kid on the block fury about the existence of a social history that you wish didn’t exist. Well, tough. That’s history for you.
Well said akn.
Sorry akn, not playing. I don’t do class-war ranting. Neither do I do circular arguments (like defining a just and sustainable society as one in which akn-approved standards of wealth redisribution have happened), condescension about the lower classes being unable to think for themselves and becoming captive to the fearmongers (as opposed of course to their rightful place as captive of the the thinking of the akns of the world) and all the rest of it.
If you are incapable of facing up to the fact that your sort of rhetoric is counter-productive to your alleged desire to get proper political attention to solutions to climate change, your problem.
Attacking me is all and well but what the fuck are you proposing then?
Yep to akn from me too – Whilst it sounds histrionic we are in the middle of an extinction event caused by human activity and starting quite some time ago. It may get very nasty very soon unless significant action is taken with respect not only to climate change but also to other aspects of the environment. I cannot see how these problems can be solved by fiddling around the edges or ‘managing capitalism’. On the other hand I think possible solutions can include a generally better quality of life(which of course i don’t equate with higher consumption).
Wozza’s got nothing but criticism because he doesn’t see that there’s really much of a problem. It’s called denial, and it’s much easier than facing reality when you seem to be involved in some strange class war from a previous century.
Oh, ok. thanks gregh and adrian. If you’re still reading wozza, chiming in on gregh’s point, here is an example of the nature of the problem: ecosystems are systemically interlinked and we depend on the viability of those ecosystems. Gregh makes the point that there are many more ecological problems than climate change. He is correct. In many ways climate change is the culmination of a mutltitude of assaults over time on multiple interlinked ecosystems.
On another thread devoted to food security the subject of the viability of bee populations in North America came up (raised by me). If you factor in to national food security the fact that bees play an essential role in pollination of numerous essential foods and decide to sustain bee populations (hell, you couldn’t get enough migrant labour to do the necessary pollination) then, in Australia, you must address old growth forest logging as this is where native bees reside. This immediately raises the issue of employment in rural areas dependent on old growth forest logging or worse, in S-E NSW and Gippsland, ongoing clearfelling of native of old growth forests.
Telling forest workers that they are going to go belly up in the interests of national food security will be a hel of a lot easier if they are offered economic and social support as they are retrenched, as clear felling is stopped and alternative work is found for them.
Complex, isn’t it?