G-8 Summit drops CO2 targets, keeps 2 degree temperature goal

Legislating temperature limits to 2°C will surely be more effective than legislating alcohol. Right?

Prohibition Repeal Poster

Developing Nations Rebuff G-8 on Curbing Pollutants

By PETER BAKER New York Times

L’AQUILA, Italy — The world’s major industrial nations and newly emerging powers failed to agree Wednesday on specific cuts in heat-trapping gases by 2050, undercutting an effort to build a global consensus to fight climate change, according to people following the talks.

As President Obama arrived for three days of meetings, negotiators for the world’s 17 leading polluters dropped a proposal to cut global greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent by mid-century, and emissions from the most advanced economies by 80 percent. But both the G-8 and the developing countries agreed to set a goal of stopping world temperatures from rising by more than 2 degrees Celsius from pre-industrial levels.

The discussion of climate change was among the top priorities of world leaders as they gathered here for the annual summit meeting of the Group of 8 powers. Mr. Obama invited counterparts from China, India, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico and others to join the G-8 here on Thursday for a parallel “Major Economies Forum” representing the producers of 80 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases. But since President Hu Jintao of China abruptly left Italy to deal with unrest at home, the chances of making further progress seemed to evaporate.

The G-8 leaders were also grappling with the sagging global economy, development in Africa, turmoil in Iran, nuclear nonproliferation and other challenging issues. On Friday, Mr. Obama planned to unveil a $15 billion food security initiative by the G-8 to provide emergency and development aid to poor nations.

The failure to establish specific targets on climate change underscored the difficulty in bridging longstanding divisions between the most developed countries like the United States and developing nations like China and India. In the end, people close to the talks said, the emerging powers refused to agree to the specific emissions limits because they wanted industrial countries to commit to midterm goals in 2020, and to follow through on promises of financial and technological help.

“They’re saying, ‘We just don’t trust you guys,’ ” said Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists, an advocacy group based in the United States. “It’s the same gridlock we had last year when Bush was president.”

Read the entire article at the New York Times here

Advertisements

165 thoughts on “G-8 Summit drops CO2 targets, keeps 2 degree temperature goal

  1. Can anyone explain the government-speak, “But both the G-8 and the developing countries agreed to set a goal of stopping world temperatures from rising by more than 2 degrees Celsius from pre-industrial levels.”

    With the omission of CO2 in the statement, it seems to me that China (and others) have no intentions of cutting CO2 because A) they can’t maintain growth while cutting CO2 emissions, or B) they think CO2 is a non issue in any warming scenario.

    Personally, I’d love to see China and India come out with their own conclusions that CO2 is not the primary driver of climate change.

    Just my thoughts.

    Jesse

  2. “Legislating temperature limits to 2°C will surely be more effective than legislating alcohol. Right?”

    I wish they’d legislate a cap of 2 hurricanes/typhoons a year too. And while they’re at it, maybe they should legislate an end to earthquakes.

  3. The AGW hoax died in the driveway snows of winter which just wouldn’t stop coming.

    A good question is if CO2 drives temperature isn’t it proper we control CO2? Termperature is just a follower — And how much reduction in CO2 do we get for each trillion in new taxes. Don’t we have a right to know the answers before paying the trillions?

  4. From my understanding of this, it is essentially nothing more than political cover. It contains no enforcement provisions, nor were any proposed that I’m aware of, and therefore is merely words.

  5. An article I read earlier said that the Russian leader has declined to commit to emissions cuts if it impacted their industrial base.
    Bill

  6. But what a tongue and oh! what brains were in that parrots head
    It took two men to understand one half the words he said.

    Quite so.

    As I understand it our political masters at the G8 are agreed they will not let global temperatures rise by more than two degrees Celsius.

    Well simple enough I suppose.

    It just needs an Act of Parliament, Bill in Congress, EU directive and such like, all to be agreed by international conferences, redefining the terms global, temperature, 2, degrees and Celsius.

    There you are, all done and dusted.

    Kindest Regards

  7. Since when did the G8 turn into the Messiah? The next you know, the G8 leaders are going to announce they can walk on water and when they tell a tornado and thunderstorm to shut up, it will stop. I love how delusional these guys are to actually think they can just control the temperature at will.

  8. It’s a short list of the ‘most developed countries’.

    Developing Countries is a misnomer in my opinion. The only reason China is “developing” is because of western money. Hu knows darn well that’s the reality. Their economy (even with reduced restrictions allowing some capitalism) wouldn’t survive without people in the west who can actually afford to eat.

    The misnomer leads to people thinking, well they’re just behind and are catching up. — This is a big pile of bull IMO and I won’t use the term – developing countries. These countries will only catch up if we debilitate ourselves with similar idiotic policies…… oh

    ….um
    .. wait
    yeah well.

  9. “… the developing countries agreed to set a goal of stopping world temperatures from rising by more than 2 degrees Celsius from pre-industrial levels.”

    Although “stopping temps from rising” is ridiculous, this is a major first step towards victory. It represents a paradigm shift by setting an objective which can be measured rather than simply reducing emissions for the sake of reducing emissions. In a way, it moves the issue away from ideology towards pragmatism.

  10. And what happens when it shows it won’t get 2 degrees C warmer, you just keep pumping up the CO2 for the good of the plants?

    Also speaking of temperatures, Unisys seems to show a weak El Nino in place and some of the warmer areas vanished over the past days, also does anyone know what happened to Earl Happ and his ENSO predictions, has his predictions regarding a weak El Nino or return to La Nina changed at all?

  11. One of the questions our scientific betters have never answered is what is the optimum temperature? For that matter, what is the optimum level of CO2. If you bother to read some of the farming community blogs, they are ecstatic about the increase in CO2 as that allows them to avoid the expense of artificially building up the CO2 exposure to their crops, as this trace element has enhanced their per acre production.

  12. As I have stated before, this is utter madness.
    Why not legislate volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, sea currents or the spinning speed of the earth.
    You know what, now we are at it, let’s also reschedule the when and where the sun goes up.

    These morons belong in a closed institution.

  13. Oh dear, have I made a mistake!
    They are not talking about the real world, they are talking about the virtual world.
    That’s easy to do because you can work with those wonderful models.
    Raising or lowering the temps can be performed by a push on a button.
    Minimum investment, maximum profit.

    Hopefully they also take virtual money.

  14. Like crowing to make the sun rise.

    “Let’s try X to stop the temperature rise. It will only cost 3 gazillion. And think of the children!” (Not the children’s taxes, of course.)

    Fifty years later, the temperature is up by 0.3 C.

    “Yay! It worked! Let’s keep doing it!”

  15. 2C is code for CO2 below 450 ppm.

    Sound innocuous – just keep temps below 2.0C – but that really means keeping CO2 levels below 450 ppm.

    With the current growth rates for CO2, we will reach 450 ppm by about 2030 so there is a large emission reduction trendline insinuated in the motherhood statement of “keep temperatures below +2.0C” – at least a 50% reduction in emissions within 21 years.

  16. The irony I see in just what happened is that the thing they might actually MIGHT be able to control, carbon emmisions through crippling taxes and beaurocratic schemes, they have given up on. However they agreed to the restriction to a 2C temperature rise, which they have absolutely no control over. Yet they will likely succeed in their new objective because all the projected the warming is a figment of poor climate modeling and the sun seems intent on keeping things cool. So did these clowns just realize where the weather is really headed and get in front of the movement to claim leadership?

  17. “They’re saying, ‘We just don’t trust you guys,’ ” said Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists, an advocacy group based in the United States. “It’s the same gridlock we had last year when Bush was president.”

    So Global Warming isn’t Bush’s fault?

  18. Actually, I think the 2 degree approach is a very good development. It means that there is room to adjust if trends indicate that CO2 is less of a contributer to AGW than is presently modeled.

  19. Let me peer into my crystal ball. Ah, yes I see it now. It’s the entire world laughing at these clowns. The late night comedy types ( Letterman, etc. ) could have a great time with this if they have the cojones.

  20. So what pre-industrial era is to be the base line? The Medieval Warming Period or the little ice age? Let me guess.

  21. I have forgotten to thank the journalist who wrote the article.

    Great job Peter Baker, you have made an ass of the entire G8 political establishment including President Obama.

    This is the winning sentence:
    “But both the G-8 and the developing countries agreed to set a goal of stopping world temperatures from rising by more than 2 degrees Celsius from pre-industrial levels”.

    We now have the written proof that our politicians are mad beyond belief and ready to be send out of office.

    Never expected to experience such a bummer in my life time.

  22. NEWS FLASH!!

    This just in:

    Members of the G-8 voted unanimously to stop the expansion of the Universe and return all matter to their pre-industrial positions (in a relativistic sense, of course).

  23. Sean (17:54:42)
    “So did these clowns just realize where the weather is really headed and get in front of the movement to claim leadership?”
    Exactly ! But this would mean ignoring the models and looking at the real data. I don’t really care as long as they using and discussing real data, they can even take credit for reducing the temperature of the Earth as far as I am concerned as long as they follow what is actually happening.
    This may be a political realization of the disconnect between CO2/Temp that we have been waiting for.

  24. This just in – The Obama Administration will in all due haste because this crisis cannot wait! distribute One Trillion Dollars to people around the world. They have been instructed to take one in each hand and fan like crazy!! There are backups if one breaks.

  25. It’s obvious really. Install air-conditioning units everywhere to keep the temperature at the required level.

    It works for Las Vegas.

  26. Wasn’t there a king in Greek mythology who ordered the tides to stop? Or something like that?

  27. So, they dug up Canute and dosed them all with his cloned stem cells.

    Makes perfect sense now.

    Wonderful what we can do nowadays…

  28. The really simple way to keep the temperature from rising more than 2C is to appoint the right kind of anti-Hansens to keep tack of temperature. “Live by sword, die by the sword”.

  29. Good job !

    … and to achieve the 2° goal, just do nothing. That will most likely do the trick.

  30. The really sad part of the coverage this nonsense is receiving is that the complete insanity of the underlying premise, that governmental action cannot only actually affect the flow of global temperature, but control it to a precise degree, is never seriously challenged. The various mumbling obfuscations are regurgitated, but no one thinks to ask the obvious question, which is; Are you people all totally nuts? It’s as if the wise little boy in “The Emperor’s New Clothes” could not bring himself to shout “hey, that guy is naked” but settled instead for suggesting that maybe his pants needed to be let out a bit.

  31. At least this is a goal that they will obtain, although it will not be from any imposed restrictions, but from the natural cooling that is already occurring. I can already here them celebrating their victory.

  32. The “optimists” are right, here.

    This gives the G8 a complete excuse to dodge CO2 caps as the temperature cools. It represents a “decoupling” of CO2 and climate. It is, in effect, a “heat up or shut up” aimed directly at the greens. Read between the lines. Look at the bottom line.

  33. I agree with Keith Minto above, A literal “paradigm shift” has just occurred with this announcement. We need to know now, what objective sources will be trusted to monitor this. It looks too, that they are setting a target that appreciates a general cooling trend…

    Fat Bigot is on the money too, switch on the A/C’s world wide…every mud hut should have one…

  34. Maybe we should send them ours. I live in New York City, and I have not used my AC less during the summer for decades. Ever since I have owned an AC, for that matter.

  35. Next G8 agenda. Ban extreme hot and cold days during summer and winter.
    These measures will ensure that power overload due to not requiring air con and heating will be avoided.

    However now governments can look at evidence that CO2 levels have risen and temps have flattened and decide to tax something else.

  36. I am having trouble figuring out if we now have an idiocracy or a kleptocracy … or both.

  37. I agree with Francois. This forces the AGWers to actually prove that CO2 reduction will, in fact, prevent 2 deg. of warming. An impossible task, since it can’t prevent what CO2 doesn’t cause.

  38. If this cut in emissions goes ahead, I bet the temps don’t go up 2C, the sea levels will drop and CO2 levels will go down. Just ask Jim, Ralph and the boys – they’ll make sure.

  39. You can’t improve the economy and try to shove cap and tax down our throat. Even the thought of it is affecting our economy adversely. My dad was going to buy a fixer up house, but upon hearing of the sneaky green police that Waxman slipped into his bill, he figured he didn’t need the risk of more enviro costs and promptly stuck his money in bonds. Multiply that by tens of thousands and you have a real mess.

  40. 2°C, that much? WOW!

    Thank GOODNESS, now we don’t need to do anything about CO2. I was really worried about Cap & Trade, but I guess I was getting all worked up over nothing. Seems like every recent paper I’ve read puts climate sensitivity at between 0.4°C and 0.6°C now that the majority of water vapor feedback has been shown to be absent, and now that we have reasonably good measures of negative feedbacks from clouds. So we should be able to double CO2 4 times. What a relief. I’m not looking forward to using a machete to get to my SUV every morning though, but I think I can hack it.

    Now can we get them to set the lower limit to -2°C? This would be most helpful as it’s July and I still haven’t put my long johns away. I’m sure ±2°C is most acceptable to all of us voters out here, so let’s just do that OK? I didn’t realize it was all going to be this easy! THANKS!

  41. This seems the ultimate conceit of world government, that they think they can legislate a world temperature.

  42. This suggests that the leaders know that temps are going down. They don’t have to do anything, but can claim victory.

  43. “It represents a “decoupling” of CO2 and climate. It is, in effect, a “heat up or shut up” aimed directly at the greens.”

    Woof. I think we have a winner!

  44. AnonyMoose,

    As long as CO2 continues its rise, the alarmist contingent will have a hard time claiming victory. The internet never forgets. And neither will I.

  45. Bill Illis (17:52:27) :
    2C is code for CO2 below 450 ppm.

    Sound innocuous – just keep temps below 2.0C – but that really means keeping CO2 levels below 450 ppm.

    With the current growth rates for CO2, we will reach 450 ppm by about 2030 so there is a large emission reduction trendline insinuated in the motherhood statement of “keep temperatures below +2.0C” – at least a 50% reduction in emissions within 21 years.

    Yes, the underlying assumption is that CO2 is responsible for global temperature increase. But by edging away from a commitment to cutting worldwide CO2 by a fixed percentage, these ‘leaders’ have left themselves open to fudging, without giving up the idea of strangling our economies in ridiculous schemes of ‘carbon trading’ and ‘abatement’.

    The world is not going to be safe from these fools until we can find some real leaders, who are willing to stand up and say, “We were wrong. CO2 is not a problem, so we can stop worrying about it. In fact, it’s really good for us!”

    /Mr Lynn

  46. This makes it so much easier!! Without having to worry about CO2, we can just fire up some giant air conditioners to keep the temperature down! AND use coal fired power plants to do so!!

    Piece of cake!

  47. Well it would certainly be entertaining to see how the world leaders would react if the earth refused to obey their command. But a more likely senario is that the earth won’t warm up 2 degrees C regardless of what they do so they can still claim victory.

  48. Out of all the things listed in that article, the two I think are most important are: nuclear non-proliferation (nuclear war is scary stuff, talk about climate change…) and development of Africa. Africans are destitute and I think they could use a hand getting up of the ground.

    The part about world leaders agreeing to keep temps from rising 2C strikes me as patently absurd. If they believe that CO2 is doing it, they should have insisted on its inclusion, but leaving it out just makes them sound ridiculously naive.

  49. I laughed heartily at this good news–blogging in my less than SFW fashion–especially as it accompanied news of the Euros slapping a tariff on U.S. biodiesel. Bwuhahahahaha.

  50. 2°C? Or not 2°C? That is the question!

    Well. What are all the modelers going to do now that they have the answer?

  51. ohioholic (20:56:40) :
    The part about world leaders agreeing to keep temps from rising 2C strikes me as patently absurd. If they believe that CO2 is doing it, they should have insisted on its inclusion, but leaving it out just makes them sound ridiculously naive.

    I don’t think that those leaders think that CO2 is the cause of it (a good politician looks a both sides and keeps his options open), but it is yet to early to admit this in public for several reasons.

    By dropping the CO2 emission norm like a hot potato and only talking a maximum temperature rise (average of course, wich makes even easier to achieve if you people of types like Hansen and Mann on your side, just give the order) you are setting yourself some easy target since it is very unlikely that averages temperatures will rise another full degree within 41 years time.

    I would not be surprised to temperature records being adjusted again, more warming in the past and less in recent times. All this so politicians can thumb their chest while saying “You see, carbon-taxes, cap and trade, it worked”.

    A good politician keeps his options open, yes CO2 is not the culprit but to keep your options (a new resource of public money to spend) open it is yet to early to admit, its even better keep your mouth shut about it.

  52. Typical of the lapdog “press” they are studiously avoiding this defeat for alarmists. CNN literally carries nothing about the flip flop. Their spin is “get the rich.”

    http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/07/07/carbon.emissions.allocation/index.html

    The credibility of the “press” has sunk so far and they have alienated so many readers, viewers, listeners… You could say that AGW accomplished one thing – the replacement of a free press with windup toadies and sycophants.

    But we still have the internet!

  53. I was just wondering, are these cuts that are proposed real cuts or cuts like Federal and State spending ‘cuts?’ I.e. is it actually cuts below current CO2 levels or cuts below what they think it would be without any action.

  54. Perhaps our “leaders” finally realized that rolling back CO2 to pre-industrial levels would mean that our standard of living would also have to be rolled back to pre-industrial levels, and 95% of people would not stand for that.

    Reality anyone??

  55. Maybe it’s an old hat for everyone else, but this is the first time I have ever seen someone compare CO2 regs to prohibition. Great analogy with dozens of relevant parallels. Can’t wait to poke the bee’s nest with that one. You don’t even have to get into the science. “vote the straight democratic ticket” hahah!

  56. The theater of the absurd.

    Now it’s about 2°C; Copenhagen will continue the silliness with an agreement that’ll never get past the Senate, while politicians of all parties continue to posture. They’ll keep using the issue to try to garner revenue, as they do with all so-called environmental legislation. Let’s see just how looney these folks can get before they get laughed out of office.

  57. “Jesse (17:21:03) :

    Personally, I’d love to see China and India come out with their own conclusions that CO2 is not the primary driver of climate change.

    Just my thoughts.

    Jesse”

    I believe India “poo pooed” AGW, but I can’t find a reference (Pretty sure it was on this site too).

    Isn’t 2 degrees the margin of error in thermometers?

  58. Setting a goal of stopping world temperatures from rising by more than 2 degrees Celsius from pre-industrial levels will be a snatch as the planet is cooling and has been for the last decade. The cost of these conferences is alarming in itself. That the politicians will claim success for containment of “global warming” is breathtaking. The goal itself is blurry enough. What pre-industrial levels are we talking about? Temperatures have been up and down several times pre industry. To think that we elect these people to run our nations. What a joke!

  59. China is not gong to do anything that does not help China. That means no reduction in their growth rate, and that means no reduction of their coal consumption. Period. Never listen to what China says, only watch what they do. What they are doing is building coal plants and iron smelters as fast as humanly possible…

    India will be more polite about it, but only just. They will politely insist on a “pass” so as to catch up with the Imperial Colonizers that have exploited them…

    Brazil is happy to ignore Europe and the U.S.A. and focus on China, India, the rest of South America, and their own growth. They are planning to “lift” a few billion bbls of oil that they have found off their coast (contracts are being let now…) and they plan to sell megatons of iron to China (all taking reduction with coke from coal). Want to send them a bucket of money to replant some farmed out slash and burn rain forest as CO2 sequestration? No Problem! Send down the cash… we all need to do our part!…

    Russia has clue. Their scientists have figured out that AGW is bunk. They have a fairly large risk of being frozen to death, so they have a big incentive to get it right… They also depend on selling $Billions of oil, natural gas, and coal. They will not be shutting down their economy for our fantasy.

    The list goes on…

    The bottom line is that there is no way on this Earth that there will be any agreement to reduce global CO2 levels. None. There will be an agreement to watch US, and Europe, shut down our industries and send them money.

    There will be happy talk and broad un-enforced and pointless “goals” and they will be happy to watch US shoot our toes and fingers off… but they will do nothing to reduce CO2. (And that’s a good thing! Some part of the global economy needs to stay intact… ) They will endorse any effort that raises money they get, and that’s about it. I’m sure they can be trusted to come up with a great many “CO2 Offset” programs to sell to the “west”…

    So at the end of the G8 meetings there will be a nice group picture and some pretty (empty) words and everyone will fly home. And we will pay for it all…

  60. Jesse (17:21:03) : Can anyone explain the government-speak, “But both the G-8 and the developing countries agreed to set a goal of stopping world temperatures from rising by more than 2 degrees Celsius from pre-industrial levels.”

    That is just classic “diplomatic compromise”. You can’t agree on something that matters, so you agree on something that either is of no consequence or is so far in the future that it will fall on some other regime to deal with it.

    For the “law of the sea” treaty is was that resources were “The common heritage of all mankind” that the west could interpret as “we can go harvest whatever we want, it’s the commons” while the 3rd worlders could interpret as “we own it too … so you owe use something”. And nothing changes.

    So they couldn’t agree on killing CO2, instead they settled on 2C at some ill defined future date (when, if ever, that is reached, then they can argue more about who’s fault and who ought to fix it, but that’s at least 30 years away, and they will be retired by then, so who cares…)

    Oh, and it’s a “goal”. That is diplomatic lying, er, I mean “language” for “pretty words meaning nothing with no treaty, no enforcement, no penalties, and no action; but a nice press release.” We all agreed that we’d all like someone else to do something if they would like to… as a goal… for them… maybe.

  61. “But both the G-8 and the developing countries agreed to set a goal of stopping world temperatures from rising by more than 2 degrees Celsius from pre-industrial levels”.

    So….. are we talking pre-industrial China (mid to late 20th Century), or are we talking pre-industrial United States (late 19th), pre-industrial England (18th Century).

  62. Leon Brozyna (22:12:36) : Let’s see just how looney these folks can get before they get laughed out of office.

    Bad idea. They can get as loony as they want. Politics is a totally different animal than common sense. Why do you think Thomas Paine had to use it as a title?

  63. Does this mean we have to cancel the transition from day to night on a global scale? Man, and I though reducing carbon emissions was going to be tough! :-)

  64. July 9th, 1030: At a summit of medieval nations convened by Canute, King of England and Denmark, at Southampton, England, negotiators agreed to set a target of stopping tides from rising zero fathoms above a base of last month. (Anglo Saxon Chronicle).

    It’s a pity Canute didn’t promise to prevent global temperatures falling more than 2 degrees, benefiting as he did from the medieval warm period.

  65. As i am reading this i am half listening to BBC world, the reporter used the words “control the climate”, what arrogant little creatures we are.

  66. Please don’t make fun of king Canute. As I understand the legend, he did not intend to stop the tide. The point of the exercise was to show his courtiers that there are things not even a king can do. Since the G8 does not seem to be that clever, the analogy does not work.

  67. The way the BBC is reporting this right now – 7:25am London is that the G8 have AGREED to the limit of 2C AND to reduce emissions by up to 80% by 2050. It’s a done deal!

    However, the weasel words are emerging and the Indian prime minister has said that “climate change cannot be addressed by making India poorer.”

    Also one of our w*nk (English technical term) tax payer funded carbon lobby groups has published “research” that shows that home based wind turbines don’t work for 95%+ of the country. Strangely, Evan Davis did not think to join this up with the billions we are wasting on wind farms.

    Cheers

    Paul

  68. I heard the BBC too – they are definitely spinning this as a hard CO2 reduction agreement like you say. But it’s ok – day by day I am reducing my exposure to the BBC propoganda machine.

    I like the Chinese line on this which translates as ” yeh, sure, CO2 whatever, you pay us, no problem”

  69. Update: the leaders finally agreed on the 50% reduction… From CNN
    “The leaders said they would “join a global response to achieve a 50 percent reduction in global emissions by 2050, and to a goal of an aggregate 80 percent or more reduction by developed countries by that date.”

    That would be 80% for the US, then. Good luck!

  70. I’m totally shocked that the G8 seems to think they can control the temperature. This is just moronic in the extreme and clearly show none of them have an iota of common sense about the forces of nature.

  71. I wrote my Senators to vote against Cap and Trade. One letter by itself seems like a small thing but I have set a goal for myself to write to more legislators more often.

  72. I’ve got an idea – how much CO2 would we Brits save by switching off our televisions and radios and not listening to the BBC’s spin?

  73. 2°C over pre-industrial times?
    This is really quite clever. The new target now is to cap the temperature and not CO2.
    Well right now we’re probably at about +0.5°C and many scientists are projecting cooling ahead. So this is a target the G8 will meet.

  74. Holt,
    Better yet – call them.
    Tell them you’re going to get active in the area and get the message out. This scares them because they view it as the start of a troublesome grass roots movement.
    They are dead afraid of budding grass roots movements. It’s a sure signal the tide is turning.

    It’s one thing when people fire off an e-mail here and there, but quite another when people start calling and announcing they’re getting active in the community.

  75. I’m interested in the climate debate. Can someone please put in laymen terms an answer to my probably stupid 2°C question please.

    At any one typical day throughout a year the temperatures at two points on the earth can be so vastly different. Say one is -50°C in Antarctica and the other is say 40°c in Africa.

    What impact would a fluctuation of 2°C have globally?

    (if by my understanding there are already extremes of temp across the globe on any typical day.)

    Many thanks

  76. In the mean time a US Congressman has come up with a clear plan.
    Cut the UN budget because the IPCC only delivers “Junk Science”.
    Some politicians are getting the message.
    It’s a pity he did not made this row before Congress voting in favor of the Climate Bill.
    In politics, timing is everything.
    http://luetkemeyer.house.gov/?sectionid=26&itemid=272

  77. If we humans were capable of letting go of our materialistic lifestyle, we’d have done it already. There has been no shortage of groups and teachers advocating ascetic paths, all throughout history, and yet only a small number of people have ever really followed them religiously. Politicians have their faults, they get asked to do impossible things, but they understand something about success, and they play freely in the material world.

    And whilst we’ve all been “selfishly” pursuing materialistic stuff, our societies and ethics have become more developed and more refined. This is what extreme environmentalists miss, that going back to pre-industrial means going back to slavery, serfdom, oppression, racism, rape—-the world was just more violent, life was harder, and culture was more primitive.

    The greens want to saw off the branch on which we are sitting. Of course, if they got what they wanted, they’d put up with it for all of ten minutes then scream to have their flushing toilets back. Oh, you mean you don’t want to spend two hours a day walking to fetch water and carry it on your back?

    You only need to look at places in Africa to be brought back to reality. I think a lot of these greenies should go live there. Not visit on a safari, but live there for ten years. After ten years, they can ask themselves what they now want in life… perhaps electricity would be nice?

  78. Simply, we cannot stop Chinese and Indian coal fired power delivery etc., so the only remaining “choice” is terraforming.

    Quite mad. Mostly delusional. Ultimately insane.

  79. Keep the temperature rise to below 2 C.
    No problem for the Data Correction Unit of the Global Institute for Statistical Sophistry (GISS)!

  80. Jesse: “Personally, I’d love to see China and India come out with their own conclusions that CO2 is not the primary driver of climate change.”

    If they do, we may stop our self-destruction in the West, so I think they will keep double standard and never admit/mention that they don’t believe this.

    It’s just insane and surrealistic that the West politicians believe in the story about man controlling the climate. It’s a successful modern myth which is dangerous and already seems to prohibit free speech etc.

    Isn’t the Danish fairy tale “The Emperor’s New Clothes” (Hans Christian Andersen), with a lie in the center, a good comparison? (Wikipedia says the story occured in a TV serie, “Alftales”; Al-tales maybe?) I hope this takes an end without too much stupidity. Media should understand its responsibility!

    An even better story I think this half a century old Donald Duck episode is:

    HT: http://klimatbluffen.blogspot.com/2009/07/storbritannien-lanserar-grona-poliser.html

    Compare the Donald Duck srip with the new British police state:
    http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/public_sector/article6639289.ece

  81. Translation of the Swedish Donald Duck strip I linked above:

    Yes – I own the air! Without it, no one can live!

    All people should go with an air gauge on the chest, and they should pay me for each breath!

    You are a genius! 1 cent per breath! A sigh 2 cents! A yawn 5 cents!

    Really… You have the price list ready?

  82. The mistake being made by most of us is to think that politicians are misguided but ultimately honest. We think that they will alter course once the junk ACC ‘science’ has been fully discredited. Because I cannot believe that our leaders are almost universally stupid, I suggest that most of them already know that ACC is the bastard son of political and economical science and that the natural sciences had no part in its conception. The truth will not emerge because they and their ilk are constantly reinventing ‘the truth’ aided and abetted by a compliant media.

    The one hope for those of us who despair the future of science is that once cap and trade, emissions trading and all the other vacuous tax-raising measures in the western world begin to bite, the minimal industry that survives will relocate. The real message from G8 is not that politicians are abandoning their commitment to carbon taxes et al, but their understanding that in order to perpetuate the scam, the whole world has to commit.

  83. “Africans are destitute and I think they could use a hand getting up of the ground. ”

    oh really?

    Need I explain how aid destroys the economies into which it is poured?

    Need I explain that the answer to poverty is free trade and capitalism? which is an outcome of good government..

    It would take more space than I have here, but the evidence of what effect that massive aid and socialist governments have is fairly clear just by observing the current state of sub-saharan Africa.

  84. “Stefan (02:21:48) :

    You only need to look at places in Africa to be brought back to reality. I think a lot of these greenies should go live there. Not visit on a safari, but live there for ten years. After ten years, they can ask themselves what they now want in life… perhaps electricity would be nice?”

    Well said!!!!!!

  85. Now that they have decided what the future global temperature will be, then there is no need to worry about the arctic ice anymore.

    Btw., why didn’t they just decide the future thickness if the arctic ice sheet?

  86. EM Smith is absolutely dead on right.
    The Chinese, Indians, Brazialians et al are not stupid.
    The Europeans are and the American political class are just opportunists seeing an opportunity to tax the populace to fund their power maintenance activities.
    They are all thieves.

  87. What is Obama going to do, wave his arms like Moses and stop the temp for rising? These people have losts their minds.

  88. I was amazed when I heard this. It’s actually brilliant. To my ear, it sure sounds like they’re backing off CO2 because they know that there’s no real warming going on now as such, and that what little there was/is is only tangental to CO2.
    They can now pretend to do something and when temperatures fail to rise 2′, then they can crow about how successful they were. It’s brilliant.

    You’re dead wrong, so with the stroke of a pen you redefine the issue so that what is going to happen anyway will make you look good.

    Not only that, but if things don’t appear to be working out, you just send Hansen out to doctor the numbers again (i.e. change ’em back).

  89. Ron de Haan (02:16:04) :
    In the mean time a US Congressman has come up with a clear plan.
    Cut the UN budget because the IPCC only delivers “Junk Science”.
    Some politicians are getting the message.
    It’s a pity he did not made this row before Congress voting in favor of the Climate Bill.
    In politics, timing is everything.
    http://luetkemeyer.house.gov/?sectionid=26&itemid=272

    Bravo! to Congressman Luetkemeyer!

    I attempted to send a “Bravo!” to him via the Contact form on his website, but it rejected my Zip Code because it wasn’t in his district.

    I’d like to see a lot of Congressmen and Senators signing on to this bill. Contact yours (I’m in Ed Malarky’s district in the Peoples’ Republic of Taxachusetts, so there’s no point here).

    /Mr Lynn

  90. This is interesting. They are concentrating on the goal (whether or not 2 degrees C is a goal people would or should agree on), instead of a particular means of getting to the goal.

    This might be progress, actually, in two ways.

    First, it allows for the possibility that the models are way overprojecting, and we might not get to 2 degrees C. So if the feedbacks are strongly negative, economies won’t be wrecked.

    Secondly, should temps skyrocket in ways that VP Gore expects, it allows implicitly for geoengineering options. Not that these are known to be failsafe, but it pulls them into the discussion.

  91. @ Mark Young
    It’s actually brilliant. To my ear, it sure sounds like they’re backing off CO2…They can now pretend to do something and when temperatures fail to rise 2′, then they can crow about how successful they were. It’s brilliant.

    I think this hits the nail on the head. It’s a very nice face-saving maneuver.

  92. “Flanagan (00:10:39) :
    Update: the leaders finally agreed on the 50% reduction… From CNN
    “The leaders said they would “join a global response to achieve a 50 percent reduction in global emissions by 2050, and to a goal of an aggregate 80 percent or more reduction by developed countries by that date.”
    That would be 80% for the US, then. Good luck”

    That’s just the leaders of the G8. “Join the global response” means: If China joins. That will not happen. But of course Obama would easily get a reduction of 80% in the US, just as easily as he created 4 million new jobs by now.

  93. I read this as a serious defeat for the AGW movement.

    In their statement, the G8 has rejected the argument of ‘precautionary measures’ and stated a substantive objective measure of change–2 deg C–as the metric for intervention. By this thinking, no temp anomaly, no action on CO2.

  94. Alexej is right. Obama will claim millions of jobs were created, even as the unemployment rate skyrockets under his Administration. By the same token, he can not, and he will not ever admit defeat in the global warming arena no matter how spectacularly he fails. Words will be spun into heroic deeds, victory will be declared, and the emperor will go shopping for new clothes with the immense new taxes imposed.

  95. To accomplish a reduction of CO2 of 80% in 40 years, western nations would need a reduction of 18% every 5 years. So the logical thing to do would be promising to do the first step: 18% by 2014.
    The danger is that some of the current leaders might still be in power in 2014. And would be judged by their acievement.
    Oh no, I don’t think so. Oh no, they won’t, you know.

  96. Smokey, he already guaranteed his heroic success by defining us into a near guaranteed “solution” that he can take credit for.

    The real powers that be aren’t politically stupid. They will defy reality for a while, sure, but long before they’re embarrassed by it, they’ll spin themselves out of harm’s way.

    This is good news, but it also let’s the evil doers get a pass.

  97. Yes!! We need to be ready for times when fossil fuels are too limited to supply us.

    But the cure is NOT CAP and trade or a total focus on reducing CO2. The cure is money going into science. Support those who investigate all new types of energy supply ideas.

    Imagine that alle these HUGE mountains of money spent on legislation, and CO2 cutback where in stead used on creating new energy knowledge. This would not heart anybody, only prepare us for the future. So why not this obvious approach?
    It would give a much better odds for CO2-reducing, if that was the actual purpose.

    Is it in fact revealing for the whole CO2-movement that they dont just suggest money for new energy-science?
    Why dont they just do that?
    Why is it more appealing to them to limit people than to simply fix the problem with new techniques?

    Am i missing somthing?

  98. Frank Lansner (06:41:19) ,

    These are “zero sum” people. They think of everything as limited and finite. For them to win, you must lose. They don’t think in terms of growth or making you and I better off. It’s really a psychological malady, IMO.

  99. I think this is a very positive sign …. and a very necessary first step for getting out of the hole. It is an indication that they are no longer sure about CO2 and global warming …… but but of course they cannot just come out and say that.

    So they a make a meaningless statement which requires no action and over time will be forgotten. They are smarter than you think ….. the day is soon coming where using the words ‘climate change’ will be a serious poiltical liability … and they know it.

  100. @Just Passing (01:59:13) :

    I’m interested in the climate debate. Can someone please put in laymen terms an answer to my probably stupid 2°C question please.

    At any one typical day throughout a year the temperatures at two points on the earth can be so vastly different. Say one is -50°C in Antarctica and the other is say 40°c in Africa.

    What impact would a fluctuation of 2°C have globally?

    (if by my understanding there are already extremes of temp across the globe on any typical day.)”

    You catch on quick. A global average temperature is meaningless. To paraphrase an old saying, “All climate is local.”

  101. Thank goodness some just say no. We let environmental hysteria prevail over policy, engineering and good sense in stopping nuclear development that would have reduced GHG below the targets now being discussed (and maybe we’d all have a frosty July) (see most recent post). And now we are allowing history to repeat by acquiescing to an anti-scientific campaign to kill the economies of the west. The refusal of the emerging economies to go along with this nonsense is an inspiration and possibly a changing of the guard if developed nations abdicate the essential role for the world of creation of capital to resolve all the world’s problems. If we are poorer, so then will such troubled places as Africa be a lot poorer. When the surplus is destroyed, so is global development, advancement and improved quality of life. Thank you India, China, Brazil….

  102. Just to put a little math understanding behind some of these numbers for anyone who is interested.

    Here is the greenhouse warming formula that the greens are using to convert a CO2 target into a +2.0C temperature target (there are various other forms for this formula but here is one of them).

    +2.0C = 3/Ln(2)*ln(450/280)

    Effectively, if CO2 doubling results in +3.0C global warming, then temps will increase by +2.0C when we reach 450 ppm. [This is also the long-term equilibrium temperature response – the theory now is that there is a 30 year lag time before the +2.0C is reached after CO2 reaches 450 ppm]. But once you reach the 450 ppm, you are already committed to +2.0C warming eventually.

    Right now, CO2 levels are at about 387 ppm and are increasing at 2 ppm per year. The 2 ppm increase each year is slowly rising so that in a few decades at current trends we will we be at 2.5 ppm per year and then 3.0 ppm and so on.

    The IPCC’s AIB scenario has CO2 levels reaching 450 ppm in 2032. My forecast based on the actual trendlines to date is 2036 but that is not much different. Here is a chart of this out to 2100.

    Right now, we are emitting about 31 billion tons of CO2 per year and natural processes are sinking/sequestering about 13 to 14 billion tons of that. So, let’s say, we can cut our emissions by about half – then natural processes could stabilize the CO2 levels assuming the oceans and plants continue absorbing CO2 at the same rates.

    So if we cut our emissions by 50% by 2040 or 2050, (assuming we start cutting emissions now), we could probably stabilize CO2 in the atmosphere at 450 ppm by 2040 or 2050.

    And that is what this target is all about. Start reducing CO2 emissions now. Stabilize at 450 ppm in 2050 and stay within the committed +2.0C warming level eventually (assuming that the theory is right in the first place about 3.0C warming per doubling of CO2/GHGs).

  103. Poor old Canute gets a lot of bad press…

    “P. Hager (18:41:07) :

    Wasn’t there a king in Greek mythology who ordered the tides to stop? Or something like that?

    G. R. Mead (18:43:28) :

    So, they dug up Canute and dosed them all with his cloned stem cells.

    Makes perfect sense now.

    Wonderful what we can do nowadays…”

    Truth is Canute knew he couldn’t do it but was surrounded by flatterers who told him he could. He sat in the water commanding the waves to stop to call their bluff. I wonder…

  104. “Trevor (18:57:29) :

    Canute Lives!

    Robert Wood (19:00:41) :

    I am Canute. I will force back the tides.”

    …etc.

  105. I am wondering if there will be a market for temperature offsets? My area is about 20F below average, that should be worth something on the global climate market.

  106. We give the G8 leaders too much credit in assuming they know CO2 and temperature are not well linked. This is just a face saving cop-out because they couldn’t agree to demolish their economies with an emission reduction.

    Not that the U.S. won’t do that anyway.

    (if needed, the world can devalue the degree and claim success no matter what Mother Nature does.)

  107. Ah ha!

    h/t to

    “Matti Virtanen (23:26:26) :

    Please don’t make fun of king Canute. As I understand the legend, he did not intend to stop the tide. The point of the exercise was to show his courtiers that there are things not even a king can do. Since the G8 does not seem to be that clever, the analogy does not work.”

    I still wonder though if there are some in the G8 for whom the penny has dropped.

  108. Jesse,

    Actually from what I’ve seen lately in the news, I think China is coming in line with the bandwagon. They are definitely pushing for GHG reduction from my perspective.

    Also, you can read realclimate.org from China but WUWT is blocked. Not sure why. China seems to be pushing for clean renewable energy.

  109. Well, Well. For the first time the G8 leaders decided that world tempertures should not rise above 2C. King Canute….You just got fired!

    We are doomed by the cleverness of wise fools.

  110. Phil’s Dad and Matti Virtanen,

    I grew up believing that story of Canute, too, but Wiki tells me that was a later interpretation. Earlier accounts apparently credited the event with the conversion of Canute to fervent christianity.
    So, either a sensible king mocking his sycophantic followers or a vainglorious egotist embracing piety after a humiliation.

  111. John is almost right

    “John Levett (03:22:56) :

    …We think that (politicians) they will alter course once the junk ACC ’science’ has been fully discredited… The truth will not emerge because they and their ilk are constantly reinventing ‘the truth’ aided and abetted by a compliant media.”

    Politicians live or die (politically at least) by the vote. They will alter course when the public realise and accept that “the junk ACC ’science’ has been fully discredited”. This will take time. First the (largely liberal elitist) media have to realise that the truth will not go away. When reality makes their editorial line look ridiculous they will start printing a different story for voter consumption (to stay in business). Then the (largely liberal elitist) education establishment will be forced to stop teaching the next generation the discredited junk science. I estimate a 30 year lag.

    “Imran (06:56:15) :

    They are smarter than you think ….. the day is soon coming where using the words ‘climate change’ will be a serious political liability … and they know it”

    Define soon?

  112. “Oliver Ramsay (08:28:52) :

    Phil’s Dad and Matti Virtanen,

    I grew up believing that story of Canute, too, but Wiki tells me that was a later interpretation.”

    You mean someone altered the historical record! Oh my gosh! How could anyone do such a thing!

  113. Oliver Ramsay (08:28:52) says:
    “I grew up believing that story of Canute, too, but Wiki tells me that was a later interpretation.”

    OK, I’ve read the Wiki thingy and it still has Canute knowing/realising as far back as the 11th century that he couldn’t control the forces of nature. Looks like we have some catching up to do.

  114. While they are at it, they should limit hurricanes to a category 3 or less and tornados’ to a F2 or less. This would save trillions of dollars in damages and uncountless lives.

  115. What a fancy bit of dancing by the pols! Just set a threshold that will never happen! Easy win with no pain as long as they don’t set specific goals for reducing CO2 emissions! They’re still blaring the rhetoric though. That has to end at some point in time!

  116. Why not legislate something useful like making it a requirement that all holidays, school picnics and wedding days have pleasant weather (and that means snow on Christmas Day)? While they’re at it, how about making pi=3 so circumference calculations will be easier?

  117. At the G8 press conference, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd announced the introduction of a Global Clearinghouse for Coal CO2 Sequestration technology.
    Currently 40% of the energy related CO2 is caused by coal and by 2050 this percentage will be 52%.

    Therefore carbon capture and storage technology for coal plants is a priority.

    The consequence of this technology will be that we will use our coal reserves at twice the speed. The additional energy is needed for the capture and compression process.

    Nobody knows what the eventual effects on the electricity prices will be, because this is untested and unproved technology, still to be developed.

    Because the amount of coal needed to produce electricity will double, so will the energy bill that lands on the doormat of the consumer.

    I personally think the price of electricity will triple.

    The interesting aspect of the scheme presented is that it takes the wind out of the sails of the US Senate.

    Some Senators stated that they will not agree to any climate bill that will increase the energy costs for consumers.

    This “Global Treaty” will bypass any instrument of National Control.

    It won’t take long before we are governed by a world wide clan of crooks under supervision of the other gang of corrupt criminals, the United Nations.

    Elections anyone?

  118. Actually I disagree with most commenters here. I think the “limit to 2 degree C above preindustrial levels” thing is brilliant. It ensures success. No matter what happens. Snowball earth and Cambrian earth temperatures are all “pre-industrial”. In either case, no matter what, temperatures will likely stay within 2 degrees above them if you select the right “pre-industrial” time period that fits the 2 degree condition.
    However, to make sure this happens, we will pay a rising “climate tax”.

  119. Bill Illis (07:26:53) :
    (assuming that the theory is right in the first place about 3.0C warming per doubling of CO2/GHGs).

    Bill – it isn’t:

    Lindzen 0.6°C https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/richard-lindzen-3.ppt
    M. E. Schlesinger and N. Ramankutty, Nature 360, 330-333, (1992) 0.7°C
    Spencer – 0.6°C http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/satellite-and-climate-model-evidence/
    Idso 0.4°C (Idso 1998)
    William Kininmonth 0.6°C http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/commentaries/solomon_essays.pdf page 32

    Chilingar: Wentz (2007), Spencer (2008), Lindzen (2008), Schwartz (2008), and Monckton of Brenchley (2008) all find climate sensitivity to be low.

    So taking your analysis and using, say, 0.5°C, how many doublings are available to hit 2°C, and what’s the PPM level then?

    2.0C = 0.5/Ln(2)*ln(X/280) Solve for X:
    X = 4479 PPM. Not bloodly likely of seeing that figure happen!

    4479 is about 16x 280PPM, supposed baseline. How many doublings? =ln(16)/ln(2)= 4 doublings (2^4=16)

    This is key to taking down AGW once and for all…

  120. Why don’t they legislate a maximum number of sunspots whilst they are at it? Oh and stop the tides…

    I never thought that King Canute mentality was real, now we have all witnessed it on a global scale. The story of king Canute was meant to be a warning, NOT a politics guide.

    I suggest we re-write politics 101 with a large box with large bold print stating that KING CANUTE COULD NOT TURN BACK THE SEA, AND WE CANNOT STOP THE SUN FROM SHINING DOWN ON THIS PLANET!

    The leaders of the G8 are certifiably insane

  121. “the developing countries agreed to set a goal of stopping world temperatures from rising by more than 2 degrees Celsius from pre-industrial levels”

    Assuming this report is a correct recitation of the resolution, note that they did not set a goal, rather they agreed to set a goal. This is typical in international agreements. They typically begin with broad, general statements, and then the signatories agree that they will do something later at home in furtherance of the broad agenda. In this case, each leader now gets to go back to his country and try to convince the congress/parliament to pass actual legislation that will set out, for example, the U.S. “goal” of stopping world temperatures from rising by more than 2 degrees.

    It should be noted that these folks are not fools. They get some political press, get to save face, don’t agree to any concrete actions, and, most importantly, there is almost no way the temperature will rise by more than 2 degrees in any of their lifetimes anyway, so there is zero risk to agreeing to this “goal.”

  122. They knew what they were doing. The temperatures will not rise by 2 deg C. They can spend only a million bucks and hire a few people to get rid of the bad UHI stations and further lower the temperature. Then claim success!!

  123. A Jones says,

    As I understand it our political masters at the G8 are agreed they will not let global temperatures rise by more than two degrees Celsius.

    Well simple enough I suppose.

    It just needs an Act of Parliament, Bill in Congress, EU directive and such like, all to be agreed by international conferences, redefining the terms global, temperature, 2, degrees and Celsius.

    There you are, all done and dusted.

    There is an easier way. Just change the baseline.

    Two degrees from what?

  124. Actually from what I’ve seen lately in the news, I think China is coming in line with the bandwagon. They are definitely pushing for GHG reduction from my perspective.

    For whom? Them or us?

  125. Pray God the wisdom to ban temperature increases holds. This is a situation where nobody loses. When evidence of dropping temp is plain, politicians can say “We achieved it!” Scientists can quietly move on to greener pastures under cover of new distractions without their AGW humbug being publicly exposed – as was on the brink of happening IMO. Al Grrr is so stinking rich he can retire. Will he give Hansen a “Get out of jail free” card? Everyone here at WUWT and CA and similar gathering-places has gained a heck of a lot of the most real stuff in life: truth, understanding, new science, reclaimed science, integrity, a sense of community… and fun…

    crosspatch (19:34:21) : I am having trouble figuring out if we now have an idiocracy or a kleptocracy … or both.

    KLEPT-OLIGARCHY. A few thieves hold the rest to ransom. But thieves are ultimately idiots too.

  126. To Bill Illis,

    You suggest that the CO2 rise per year wil rise faster in the years to come to 2,5 ppm/year and 3 ppm/year.
    On this graphic

    I show that for the same temperature the CO2rise/year is in fact becoming smaller and smaller sonsequently over 3 decades. Onless this development changes, the still faster CO2 rise/year you expect can only happen if temperature keeps getting warmer. in a still faster tempo.

    As temperatures are not rising these years, we are more likely to see CO2rise/year leveling of, dropping.

    Graphic is from the article:
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/17/the-co2-temperature-link/

    K.R. Frank

  127. KLA (10:55:44) :

    Actually I disagree with most commenters here. I think the “limit to 2 degree C above preindustrial levels” thing is brilliant. It ensures success. No matter what happens. Snowball earth and Cambrian earth temperatures are all “pre-industrial”. In either case, no matter what, temperatures will likely stay within 2 degrees above them if you select the right “pre-industrial” time period that fits the 2 degree condition.
    However, to make sure this happens, we will pay a rising “climate tax”.

    KLA,
    You don’t understand the scheme.
    The scheme is that the industrialized world commits suicide.
    It’s a UN scheme which is aimed at a reduction in world population because our lunatic leaders believe humanity has become a threat to the survival of the planet.

    This is about steeling our rights, our freedom, our prosperity and our future.

  128. What this decision will allow them to do, and what is most important to them, is to keep and increase the massive bureaucracy that has been built up by the United Nations and our glorious leaders. This is the real goal of the Copenhagen people in December; keep the gravy train going. And for some, like our present and former British Prime Ministers, keep building the system for world government (God help us). That is also what the European Union is about. The methodology doesn’t matter.

  129. Several people have talked about the Indian Government and their rejection of CO2 limits. I have a pdf of a document called:

    National Action Plan on Climate Change

    Government of India

    Prime Ministers Council on Climate Change.

    I can’t remember where I got it, but it’s probably available, in English, on the Indian Government’s website.

    I believe that it was endorsed by and Indian Railway economist called Rajendra Pachauri.

  130. @ Ron de Haan (15:01:56) :

    Yes, your’s is one hypothesis. I will submit another:

    The phrase “pre-industrial includes the entire earth and climate history before about 1850 A.D.
    Which means it includes the agglomeration phase of the earth with molten surface at ~+500 degC. I don’t think their goal is to allow +501.99 degC surface temperature, as that temperature costs voters, they must neccessarily believe in a far shorter climate history. Namely one that was more comfortable for humans.
    For example the last 6000 years. As that is the time-frame cited by Young Earth Creationists, my hypothesis is that our dear leaders MUST be secretly YECs. :-)

  131. KLA (16:08:12) :

    @ Ron de Haan (15:01:56) :

    Yes, your’s is one hypothesis. I will submit another:

    The phrase “pre-industrial includes the entire earth and climate history before about 1850 A.D.
    Which means it includes the agglomeration phase of the earth with molten surface at ~+500 degC. I don’t think their goal is to allow +501.99 degC surface temperature, as that temperature costs voters, they must neccessarily believe in a far shorter climate history. Namely one that was more comfortable for humans.
    For example the last 6000 years. As that is the time-frame cited by Young Earth Creationists, my hypothesis is that our dear leaders MUST be secretly YECs. :-)

    KLA,
    Very funny, but my comment is NOT based on a hypothesis, it’s real.
    http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/
    http://green-agenda.com

  132. 2 degrees from what?

    Actually, great question. The NY Times said today (could be wrong, have to consider the source) that the 2 degrees C is an increase not from pre-industrial levels, but from 1990.

    This means that it is almost 2 1/2 degrees from pre-industrial (say, 1860).

    That is a lot of temperature increase. Especially when temps have been down the last 7 years. So it will be a long, long time until we close in on this amount of temperature increase….probably.

    It does begin to look like they are declaring victory and leaving the field, unless we are all shocked by far higher temperature increases than we expect.

  133. KLA and Ron De Haan

    Kla said something very interesting here which reflects my comments on another thread.

    “The phrase “pre-industrial includes the entire earth and climate history before about 1850 A.D.”

    Are we in effect saying that anything prior to 1850 (before Hansens/Hadley global temperature records) are anecdotal (Romans, Vikings etc) unless reconstructed by modern scientists (such as Michael Mann and his bristlecones)

    Anything from 1850 of course will show a very sharp temperature recovery as it was the end of the LIA. Even if records were taken from 1730 the modern recovery is much less striking as that was a very warm interlude in the LIA. The recovery from the MWP is even smaller as we all know now that ‘the MWP is an outdated concept.’

    Tonyb

  134. Well “smog” (As “smog” today is not the same as it was say in London in the 1950’s, with almost all home heating being coal fires) today is the air emissions we should be concerned with, CO2 being the least of a problem, but the easiest to “police” (Or tax by proxy).

  135. G8, err, G7 ban ice ages and order a global economic collapse
    Listen to this article. Powered by Odiogo.com

    The leaders of several G8 countries suffer from a psychiatric disorder. They have commanded the Earth and the waters to keep their temperature within two degrees. Moreover, the CO2 output of most countries should drop by 80 percent or more – by a factor of five or more – by 2050. Yes, it is hysterical.

    Well, this is actually not an agreement of G8, at most by G7 because the newest eighth member, Russia, finds this talk unacceptable and will reject it.

    The rest of the BRIC group, i.e. Brazil, China, India, only views the climate talks as a method to get some additional money from the richer countries (redistribution is what the left-wing activists actually expect from such policies, anyway!) and to get to their level faster – either by getting richer or by making others poorer. They won’t agree with any genuine reductions on their territories, either.

    What does the “plan” actually mean?

    First of all, the two points of the plan are pretty much unrelated. What will happen with the emissions is pretty much uncorrelated with the temperature change in any time frame that we can talk about. The correlation is small because a substantial part of the global mean temperature change – and probably a very large majority – has always been determined by natural sources and it is likely to remain so. So let us talk about the two issues separately.

    The temperature change is almost certainly going to be less than 2 degrees Celsius in one of the two directions during the following 40 years. The typical change of the global mean temperature in 40 years has always been something like 0.3 °C. So far, it doesn’t look like the mankind has changed anything about it. So getting to 2 °C is nearly a 10-sigma effect, a statistically impossible thing.

    The global mean temperature naturally dropped by 1.3 °C or so between 1000 and 1600. The reconstructions are by Moberg (alarmist, up) and Loehle (skeptic, down) but you can see that there’s no substantial difference here.

    On the other hand, the global mean temperature certainly does change by 2 °C during longer periods of time. The Earth has seen 2 °C natural temperature changes in 500-year intervals many times. See the graphs above to understand that even in the last millenium, we were not far from such changes. But such changes become mundane if you look at longer intervals. The ice ages that alternate with interglacials after many (or dozens of) thousands of years change the temperature by 10 °C or so, sometimes squeezed into a 10-degree cooling in 3000 years (e.g. 130,000 years ago). Have those folks heard about them in the elementary school or did they skip the classes?

    I suppose that for many teenagers, it has been always a better option to drink, smoke, and take drugs outside the school and be sure that you can still become a president of a country even if you are an uneducated … person. And it turns out that they were right. Unfortunately, the list of fundamentally uneducated politicians includes people like Silvio Berlusconi, too. The political representations of many countries are flooded with people who lack basic science education.

    Now, the reductions.

    The global 80-percent reduction of CO2 by 2050 may contribute by 0.05-0.30 °C of cooling before 2050 (our man-made warming with the current CO2 emission rates adds between 0.25 °C and 1.5 °C per century and we’re talking about 20 years worth of erased CO2 emissions here) – depending on the feedbacks that reduce or amplify the bare greenhouse effect.

    And this change will be clearly indistinguishable from other effects and noise (the achieved cooling is smaller than the effect of one El Nino or one volcano eruption), certainly for those people who don’t have very accurate thermometers or who can’t perform very accurate calculations, involving the averaging over time and over the whole Earth. So it makes basically no impact on the climate. Does it impact the economy? You bet.

    Whether or not such a goal is achievable depends on the future technological breakthroughs.

    If the people manage to invent a new technology or efficiently switch all of their industries to electricity produced by nuclear power plants or something like that, the goal is attainable and it may even become a formality. If they won’t, and no one can be really sure whether such a massive replacement of fossil fuels will occur (it hasn’t really occurred for 250 years so far!), the goal will be approximately equivalent to an 80-percent reduction of the GDP. The real problem is not that the plan is “certainly” impossible but it is that someone is promising something that he cannot possibly know whether it is possible.

    Because one may get something like a 1-percent increase of the carbon efficiency (GDP divided by CO2 emissions) a year by “non-radical” technological improvements, these improvements may accumulate to the reduction of the CO2 output by a factor of 1.01^41 = 1.5 by 2050. So the situation is not quite as bad: the desired reduction of CO2 by a factor of 5 may be equivalent to the GDP reduction by a factor of 5/1.5 = 3 or so.

    Nevertheless, a net GDP that drops to 1/3 of the present value is still pretty terrifying – especially if you realize that because the population may jump by a factor of 1.5, we’re back to the five-fold reduction of the GDP per capita. It could make the world look like a world that was just decimated by a pretty large global war, one that may dwarf the World War II: see the picture above for an idea. Instead, most of us used to imagine that the people in 2050 would be richer. Recall that we’re still talking about sacrifices motivated by a desired statistical cooling by 0.05-0.30 °C (relatively to the business-as-usual scenario) which some people consider a good thing for reasons that are not clear to anyone outside the AGW sect.

    By the way, the fact that Russia as a member of G8 won’t join this madness is not just a “perturbation” in the calculation of the CO2 budget in 2050. Instead, Russia plans to increase the CO2 output – a measure of its strength – by 30 percent by 2020. That’s a 3-percent increase per year which, if extrapolated, gives you the increase by a factor of 1.03^41 = 3.35 by 2050. And if the industries will have to be moving from countries plagued by mad, CO2-hating policies (and politicians) to Russia (or elsewhere), be sure that Russia can see much more than a 3-percent increase a year. With such brutally different pro-growth vs anti-growth policies, be sure that all negative things that you (or “we”) often associate with the Russian nation would become economically inconsequential in comparison.

    Because the other G8 i.e. G7 members plan to lower their CO2 output by 80 percent by 2050, it is not hard to see that if the plans of all G8 members are realized, Russia’s CO2 output in 2050 will exceed the rest of the G8 countries combined. Are we supposed to believe that the voters in the West will be happily watching how their previously prosperous countries are decimated and fully superseded by someone else? Or is it more likely that they will declare their politicians to be legitimate targets of daily assassinations and stop this lunacy within days or weeks? I surely guess that the latter would be more likely. In fact, the worst radicals are already becoming legitimate targets of assassinations today because the stakes are just getting too high.

    These calculations of the future are silly childish games so someone must be making unreasonable assumptions about the future 41 years. I bet it is not Medvedev’s aides in Russia.

    What this agreement, if ever fully accepted, would actually mean will depend on the detailed implementation. If the only plan remains a “carbon-free dream” for 2050, nothing will happen until 2045 and the politicians in 2045 (or earlier) suddenly realize that the 2009 plan made no sense and throw it into the garbage bin where it will have effectively been, anyway. However, if someone will try to divide the 40-year plan into annual plans or the traditional communist 5-year plans, such plans can bring a destruction of the national economies that we can actually experience soon. Recessions would become the new standard.

    http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/07/g8-err-g7-ban-ice-ages-and-order-global.html

  136. Patrick

    I certainly agree with you. But that wasn’t the point of the headline, I’m sure.

  137. We have already had disbelief that the scientists were talking about global cooling back in the seventies and unfortunately many of the articles about it from that time have never made it into the internet age.

    Consequently I suggest someone take copies of all the alarmist articles that go along the lines of ‘climate change is irreversible’ OR ‘With all the emissions we have already put out it will take at least forty years before the atmosphere will respond to savage cuts’. When temperatures naturally go down and co2 levels possibly decline with them they will be claiming credit for something they were not responsible for.

    Tonyb

  138. It gets better, WRT the G8 presentations. Allianz and WWS presented this gem as a scorecard for G8 CO2 reduction and policy performance.
    http://www.scienceblogs.de/primaklima/G8_Scorecards_2009.pdf

    One notable alteration of the data is explained in the document.

    “WWF does not consider nuclear power to be a viable policy option. The indicators “emissions per capita”, “emissions per GDP” and “CO2 per kWh electricity” for all countries have therefore been adjusted as if the generation of electricity from nuclear power had produced 350 gCO2/kWh (emission factor for natural gas). Without the adjustment, the original indicators for France would have been much lower, e.g. 86 gCO2/kWh.”

    So basically what they are saying is: “we reject the use of Nuclear as a CO2 reduction scheme and have recalculated all your nasty nuke power as if they were Nat Gas power.”

    This policy analysis is not only unfair to nuclear generators, it exposes an underlying habit of certain political entities of simply changing the numbers to influence policy. This needs the widest exposure possible. Whether you approve of nuclear power or not, this kind of methodology MUST NOT be allowed to influence policy. Write your congressman and demand that the NGO “WWS” be censured and insist that any reference to Allianz/WWS data be removed from policy analysis.

  139. Will London be flooded?
    “Renewables are a waste of time, says James Lovelock”: Britain should abandon its “vain” attempts to stop climate change by increasing its reliance on renewable energy and concentrate on flood defences, the environmental pioneer James Lovelock has said.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/5820038/Renewables-are-a-waste-of-time-says-James-Lovelock.html
    Is Mr. Lovelock a realist, or is he just speaking for the nuclear lobby?

Comments are closed.