Must see talk by Dr. Kevin Anderson of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. He shows how most climate scientists are being disingenuous about the dangers of climate change. That their estimates are far too low due, in part, to the current trend of scientists working with the public (e.g., post-normal science).
The above climate talk is among my my top 10 favorites. It’s also a sobering reality check for the CO2/350 crowd.
It led to the creation of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), which publishes major climate reports every five-ish years. These reports are the primary source for many policy maker’s (and media’s) climate science and knowledge. I play a minor role in the IPCC’s reports. Here’s how.
Organized by the World Meteorological Organization, it was held in Geneva, Switzerland. Researchers and a few policy makers gathered to present new scientific observations about global warming and its impacts. It also explored new techniques on monitoring systems.
One of the main drivers of holding a Climate Conference was increased awareness that food, drought, and other climate related systems were much more sensitive to fluctuations. Several disasters in the 1960s and 70s created a fundamental need for more climate science to better understand these systems. It was showcased increased scientific knowledge that GHGs caused warming, and that governments around the world needed to take some sort of pre-emptive action before system collapse.
The First World Climate Conference recognized climate change as a serious problem in 1979. This scientific gathering explored how climate change might affect human activities. It issued a declaration calling on the world’s governments “to foresee and prevent potential man-made changes in climate that might be adverse to the well-being of humanity”. It also endorsed plans to establish a World Climate Programme (WCP) under the joint responsibility of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and the International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU). Via UNFCCC
Several programs were created as a result of the World Climate Conference, including the World Climate Programme and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (e.g., the IPCC).
The IPCC was established in 1988, and released its first report in 1990. The IPCC issues highly peer-reviewed, non-political climate reports about every 5 years. Their 5th report will be published in 2014. Here’s a link to the 4th report summary, published in 2007.
These reports are written by the top scientists and researchers in the world. I play a minor role in the IPCC.
The reports are divided into three chapters: The Physical Science; Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability; and Mitigation. Each chapter is written by a committee, called a Working Group, comprised of several hundred to over a thousand scientists. These Working Groups peer review the available climate science. They then write a meta-analysis and conclusions based on their reviews.
Next, each of the three chapters are reviewed and edited by what’s called Expert Reviewers, of which I am one. I’m currently reviewing/editing Working Group II’s 5th Report: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Fun stuff…
You can see some of the work the WGII has done, here.
More movement in Congress on Climate Change. Sunday I posted about the new 22 member “Safe Climate Caucus,” who have vowed to discuss climate impacts and solutions every time congress is in session.
Signs of activity as the ‘climate silence’ from the President and Congress come to an end: On February 13 Senate Environment Committee chair Barbara Boxer (D-CA) held a “Briefing on the Latest Climate Science” featuring scientists Jim McCarthy, Don Wuebbles, J. Marshall Shepherd, and John Balbus. Seven Democratic members of the committee in attendance; all Republican members appeared to be AWOL.
An archived webcast of the briefing is posted on the Environment and Public Works Committee’s website (the briefing starts at 12:30 of the webcast), along with written testimony by:
• Dr. James J. McCarthy, Professor of Biological Oceanography, Harvard University; leader of the IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001) on global climate change impacts and vulnerabilities.
• Dr. Donald J. Wuebbles, Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Illinois.
• Dr. J. Marshall Shepherd, President of the American Meteorological Society and Director for Program in Atmospheric Sciences, University of Georgia.
• Dr. John M. Balbus, Senior Advisor for Public Health, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
Each of the presenters gave a concise state-of-the-science overview for Senators and staff, followed by a substantial question-and-answer period.
This is result of a 1 degree Celsius rise in temperatures. The chart is from the World Bank and it shows the rate of melting ice from 1983 to 2012. The temperature across the world is expected to rise by nearly 4 degrees Celsius, which greatly exceeds the above impacts.
Turn Down the Heat, a new report from the World Bank, presents the many compelling reasons why we need to avoid a 4 degree Celsius temperature increase (the trajectory we are currently on to reach by the end of this century.)
This troubling graphic from the NSIDC shows just how quickly climate change has already taken a toll on arctic sea ice since 1983.
But, there are two buckets of trouble here. First is the nearly endless troubles from melting ice on human and natural environments. Mass ice melt causes sea level rise, which destroys coastlines, habitat, deltas, mangroves, coral reefs, and of course cities and tourism.
Melting glaciers will also disrupt the flow of rivers, aquifer recharge, and electricity (hydropower and nuclear power). Many rivers around the world get their water from glaciers, and the same holds for aquifers, which fuel drinking water and irrigation supplies to billions around the world.
Take the glaciers in the Andes mountains for one example. Several have already disappeared, completely melting away. They’re melting faster than scientists predicted, and Peru has asked the United States for emergency funds to build damns to contain the water produced from the last remaining glaciers. The damns, in other words, would store the water rather than glaciers. There are too many to list here, but the effects are enormous.
The second problem is much simpler, but deeply embarrassing: 4 degree Celsius. Americans do not understand Celsius, they understand (sort of) temperature in terms of Fahrenheit.
Nearly all climate change reporting focuses on 2 to 4 degrees Celsius. We hear it so often from the UN, IPCC, even the US National Climate Assessment quotes Celsius. The problem is that it is not true!
The projected rise in temperatures will vary across the globe. Temperatures in New England are expected to rise by nearly 6-10 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of 2100. But this isn’t the case for the Pacific Northwest, where temperatures are expected to rise by as little as 4 degrees Fahrenheit.
So, not only is reporting one common number (2 degrees Celsius) confusing for Americans, it’s not even a relevant number. As comical and embarrassing as those facts are, there’s no escaping American Ignorance.
This is a major communications problem that scientists just do not grasp. American’s think in terms of their own communities and regions. New England will not feel the same types of impacts as the Southwest, and the folks in each of these regions think very little of the temperatures elsewhere. (I know, there are a few exceptions).
Why did I bring this Celsius vs Fahrenheit issue up? The United States is the most powerful country in the world (despite our education and health deficiencies). The rest of the world, including the World Bank, which put out the above report on climate, requires U.S. support. Climate change solutions require American support. And if scientists refuse to speak the native language, no one is going to listen…
Satellites and tide-gauges show that oceans are rising 60% faster than the worst case scenarios of climate scientists. This new report analyzing reality vs computer models shows that scientific estimates of rising sea levels were too low and too slow.
“The rate of sea level rise of the past decades, on the other hand, is greater than projected by the IPCC models. This suggests that IPCC sea level projections for the future may also be biased low.”
This is very bad news, and I’m nearly speechless after reading the report… The folks at Climate Central, who wrote this piece covering the report, are much more optimistic than I am.
60 second summary of 20-years of the world’s governments climate change talks. Warning, Scandinavian humor.
In 2007, Tom Swetnam, a fire expert and director of the laboratory of Tree-Ring Research at the University of Arizona, gave an interview to CBS’s 60 Minutes. Asked to peer into his crystal ball, he said he thought the Southwest might lose half its existing forests to fire and insects over the several decades to come. He immediately regretted the statement. It wasn’t scientific; he couldn’t back it up; it was a shot from the hip, a WAG, a wild-ass guess.
Swetnam’s subsequent work, however, buttressed that WAG. In 2010, he and several colleagues quantified the loss of southwestern forestland from 1984 to 2008. It was a hefty 18%. They concluded that “only two more recurrences of droughts and die-offs similar or worse than the recent events” might cause total forest loss to exceed 50%. With the colossal fires of 2011 and 2012, including Arizona’s Wallow fire, which consumed more than half-a-million acres, the region is on track to reach that mark by mid-century, or sooner.
But that doesn’t mean we get to keep the other half.
In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change forecast a temperature increase of 4ºC for the Southwest over the present century. Given a faster than expected build-up of greenhouse gases (and no effective mitigation), that number looks optimistic today. Estimates vary, but let’s say our progress into the sweltering future is an increase of slightly less than 1ºC so far. That means we still have an awful long way to go. If the fires we’re seeing now are a taste of what the century will bring, imagine what the heat stress of a 4ºC increase will produce. And these numbers reflect mean temperatures. The ones to worry about are the extremes, the record highs of future heat waves. In the amped-up climate of the future, it is fair to think that the extremes will increase faster than the means.
William deBuys, The West in Flames | TomDispatch (via nickturse)(via nickturse)
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Chance (IPCC) has opened a call for applications for the second round of awards under the IPCC Scholarship Programme.
The IPCC Scholarship Programme aims to build capacity in the understanding and management of climate change in developing countries by providing opportunities for young scientists from developing countries to undertake studies that would not be possible without funding under the programme.
Applicants must be post-graduate students under the age of 30 studying at PhD level. They must have already been accepted at a recognized educational institution to start studies in 2013, or be currently enrolled on continuing PhD courses. Research proposals should focus on one of the following fields of study:
Applicants must be nationals of developing countries and priority will be given to students from Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS).
With a value of up to USD 20,000 per year, each award will be given for a period of one year and is renewable once, subject to satisfactory progress during the period of study and term reports signed by the research supervisor.
Applications will undergo a two-level selection process. IPCC scientific experts will first assess the applications in an initial review and the IPCC Science Board will then review the applications and make a final selection. The candidates selected for an award will be notified individually during the second quarter of 2013.
The IPCC Scholarship Programme was established with the funds received from the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. The IPCC Scholarship Programme benefits from the support of the Prince Albert II of Monaco Foundation.
Students interested in applying for an IPCC scholarship can download application forms at:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipcc-scholarship-programme/ipcc_scholarshipprogramme.shtml
Completed application forms and supporting documents should be uploaded by 30 September 2012 at:
https://www.ipcc.ch/apps/scholarship/applicant/
“(T)ranslating scientific observations and analyses of changes in water availability into water management policy can be a challenge. To address this, the researchers devised a methodology to identify policy options based on scientific evidence.
They began by using a water availability and policy assessment (WAPA) model that takes data on rivers, reservoirs, water flow, environmental conditions and agricultural and urban demand to link supply, demand and management options.
When applied to climate change scenarios for the Ebro basin in the Mediterranean, the WAPA model made predictions similar to those of the IPCC and the European Environment Agency. It indicated that flood risk would increase, as would spring and summer drought. The model could also use information on water demand in the region to help identify management options under climate change scenarios.
“The scientist who has borne the full brunt of attacks by climate change deniers, including death threats and accusations of misappropriating funds, is set to hit back.
Michael E. Mann, creator of the “hockey stick” graph that illustrates recent rapid rises in global temperatures, is to publish a book next month detailing the “disingenuous and cynical” methods used by those who have tried to disprove his findings. The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars is a startling depiction of a scientist persecuted for trying to tell the truth.
Among the tactics used against Mann were the theft and publication, in 2009, of emails he had exchanged with climate scientist Professor Phil Jones of East Anglia University. Selected, distorted versions of these emails were then published on the internet in order to undermine UN climate talks due to begin in Copenhagen a few weeks later. These negotiations ended in failure. The use of those emails to kill off the climate talks was “a crime against humanity, a crime against the planet,” says Mann, a scientist at Penn State University.
In his book, Mann warns that “public discourse has been polluted now for decades by corporate-funded disinformation – not just with climate change but with a host of health, environmental and societal threats.” The implications for the planet are grim, he adds.
Mann became a target of climate deniers’ hate because his research revealed there has been a recent increase of almost 1°C across the globe, a rise that was unprecedented “during at least the last 1,000 years” and which has been linked to rising emissions of carbon dioxide from cars, factories and power plants. Many other studies have since supported this finding although climate change deniers still reject his conclusions.
Mann’s research particularly infuriated deniers after it was used prominently by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in one of its assessment reports, making him a target of right-wing denial campaigners. But as the 46-year-old scientist told the Observer, he only entered this research field by accident. “I was interested in variations in temperatures of the oceans over the past millennium. But there are no records of these changes so I had to find proxy measures: coral growth, ice cores and tree rings.”“
“Delegates to the U.N. climate talks adopted a significant agreement Sunday setting nations on a new path toward an international accord by 2015 to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
The outcome of contentious negotiations taking place in Durban — punctuated by finger pointing among the world’s biggest greenhouse gas emitters and heckling by activists — reflected a fundamental shift in the geopolitics behind global environmental disputes.
Developing countries have long been a unified bloc, demanding that industrialized nations take most of the responsibility for cutting global greenhouse gas emissions. But faced with the fact that a handful of emerging economies — led by China and India — are helping drive carbon emissions to new heights, the world’s smallest nations joined forces with the European Union to demand decisive action from their former allies as well as the United States.
The Durban agreement provides countries with the latitude to forge something that would apply to all nations, called an “agreed outcome with legal force,” a last-minute compromise that creates a less stringent alternative to a traditional treaty. Several experts said such an agreement would be stronger than the voluntary accords reached last year in Cancun, Mexico.”
Here’s reaction to #COP17 from @bjornlomborg: “The final outcome is a classic climate negotiation outcome. At the brink of negotiation collapse, COP17 comes up with a text that can arguably be seen as a solution but won’t really do anything.
The final deal decided to extend the Kyoto Protocol, but it will be little more than symbolic with mainly the EU participating (where the EU has already promised to cut carbon emissions 20% below 1990-levels) along with a few other, small countries like New Zealand, Norway and Switzerland.
The brokered deal decided to set up a legal structure for the Green Fund, but there is still no money.
I want to punch climate change in the face.
A blog about the interactions between the built environment, people, and nature.
I'm a climate change consultant specializing in climate adaptation, environmental law, and urban planning based in the U.S. In addition to traveling and hiking, I research, publish, and lecture on how cities can adapt to climate change.
Professional and sponsorship inquiries, please
email.
about.me
FAQs
Follow!
Ask!
Donations (supports my book - thank you!)
-----------
My Book Recommendations (New!)
Book Store
NASA's Climate Indicators
------------
G+
LinkedIn
@climatecote
RSS
Archive
