AVOID

Via Eurekalert: Avoiding dangerous climate change: An international perspective

The world will need to make substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions below current levels over the next few decades if the worst impacts of dangerous climate change are to be avoided. This was a key conclusion from UK and US climate scientists at an international workshop on the UK AVOID program in Washington, DC exploring the most policy-relevant aspects of understanding dangerous climate change.

Latest results from AVOID have shown that strong mitigation action to limit temperature rise to below 2 °C avoids many of the climate impacts, but not all of them. Examples show that 50% of the impact of water scarcity, and almost 40% of the impact of decreasing crop suitability can be avoided through early action on greenhouse gas emissions. Time is short and delaying action reduces the chance of limiting temperature rise to 2 °C and increases the chance of significant impacts.

The AVOID program is a unique inter-disciplinary research collaboration across the physical sciences, climate impacts and the technical and socio-economic implications of climate change. AVOID is targeted to provide policy-focused research and evidence needed to allow policymakers to develop mitigation and adaptation policy that is strongly grounded in scientific evidence. This workshop, the first international meeting of AVOID, was designed to discuss, engage and partner with US scientists.

Jason Lowe, Head of Mitigation Advice at the Met Office, United Kingdom, and Chief Scientist for the AVOID program, said “This workshop has provided the opportunity to compare approaches in the UK and US to identify the results that are the most robust. The aim now is to work together to find concrete ways of taking forward the best UK and US science for the benefit of policymakers.

“Such work is essential to inform government policies both in the UK and the US with robust and up-to-date evidence.”

Peter Backlund, Director of Research Relations at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado, and Director of NCAR’s Integrated Science Program, said “Designing mitigation and adaptation strategies to avoid dangerous climate change is a major challenge for the US, the UK, and other nations. Scientific research is critical for informing this process, but the scientific community needs to do a better job in focusing research efforts on issues that are central to making decisions about how to respond to climate change.

“The UK AVOID program, with its integration of research from multiple institutions across the physical, social, and economic sciences, is one of the best examples of delivering advice that is directly relevant to policymakers. The program is producing useful information about the probabilities of achieving emissions reductions, the consequences of different levels of emissions, and options for reducing impacts. I am hopeful that we can create a similar program here in the US.”

Participating UK and US scientists agreed to explore further options for collaboration in this area of science of relevance to policymakers.

###
Advertisements

101 thoughts on “AVOID

  1. No statisticians in the preparation of their papers, and now no engineers in the discussion of mitigation. These guys are creaming the grants and by anyone’s standards are sub-standard scientist/activists.

  2. climate scientists […] exploring the most policy-relevant aspects of understanding dangerous climate change

    FAILED

  3. First step, get them to sign the Nil C02 carbon pledge and, give 10 per cent of their earnings to the poor. Lead by example.!!

  4. …I’m just back from two weeks in China, and if someone can tell me how we will convince that nation to reduce their carbon emissions, please do so. They are building about 1 major coal-burning electrical plant/week and have no intentions of slowing down.
    According to the Shanghai Daily, Sept. 11, 2010 edition: “Shanghai and Bejing will each have populations exceeding 50 million by 2050, more than double the current level due to rapid urbanization and economic growth, researchers and officials said yesterday.”
    Without China on board with a carbon mitigation plan, it’s all a joke, no matter what the community of climatologists might think. I’d say we are on the brink of all-out trade war, but I try to be much more positive than that. Thoughts?

  5. Proverbs 26.11
    “As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.”
    Especially when he’s making a very comfortable income, flying round to nice back-slapping international love-ins and can look forward to a very agreeable index linked pension on the strength of just carrying on promoting BigSnakeOil.

  6. But worst case scenario is speculative guess work that not even IPCC themselves seem to think is a rational outcome.
    So essentially the Boulder Dash people just want more money . . . again.

  7. Which will require fistful of funding.
    I`m suspicious,we`re more used to seeing figures after the decimal point. I mean really, forty percent? fifty percent? It`s a bit nebulous isn`t it?
    Imagine them pitching this on `Dragons Den`
    File under `open begging letter,transatlantic jollies`.

  8. Amazing how these climate scientists activists loons can make stuff up. And what science was used to set this 2 degree C threshold anyway?

  9. Even accepting the ridiculous concept of catastrophic AGW, the concept of “mitigation” would mean things like building sea walls, reducing use of seashores for homes and buildings, etc. The misuse of the word “mitigation” is just another example of the kind of sloppy thinking involved in this charade.
    Perhaps they meant “prevention”, however that was already taken for other junk science pushes.
    It really is difficult to have ANY respect for these people, or their cheerleaders.

  10. I like the name they chose, ‘a void‘ seems an apt description of the way the scientific method is treated by the church of CAGW climatologists, as the pursue their belief driven cargo cult science…
    Latest results from AVOID have shown that strong mitigation action to limit temperature rise to below 2 °C avoids many of the climate impacts, but not all of them. Examples show that 50% of the impact of water scarcity, and almost 40% of the impact of decreasing crop suitability can be avoided through early action on greenhouse gas emissions. Time is short and delaying action reduces the chance of limiting temperature rise to 2 °C and increases the chance of significant impacts.
    Utter alarmist drivel, designed to keep the research grants coming in!

  11. “The world will need to make substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions below current levels over the next few decades if the worst impacts of dangerous climate change are to be avoided…….. The UK AVOID program………delivering advice that is directly relevant to policymakers……..create a similar program here in the US.”
    The hijacking of science for religous activism with a single unchanging and unproven hypothesis as a mantra. Tiresome, omnipresent, wrong-headed & pernicious. A religion where original sin is industrialisation for profit and emission of carbon the continuing and amoral action which requires penance. To defeat a religion, a negative has to be proven and because of this, most religions survive.

  12. Has anyone been called a ‘Climate Cynic’ yet. (in light of ‘Global Climate Disruption’)
    The new way of saying ‘Climate Deniers’ without the holocaust denial smear…
    I’m not bein flippant… These green media guys are ahead of the game, advicing the UN.
    From a green media company – Futerra:
    Sell the Sizzle – The New Climate Message
    http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/Sellthesizzle.pdf
    “Cynics versus Activists
    If you think the climate argument is won, then think again. Myriad climate battles continue to rage. On the science, or the policy response to the science, on the responsibilities of business, government and people, on the right moment to act, on who gets the blame, on who pays, on who benefits…
    However, these battles have largely taken place beneath the public’s radar. Played out between CLIMATE CYNICS and Climate Activists in boardrooms or staterooms but only recently in living rooms.”
    These guys Futerra were way ahead of me…
    They provide their service to the UN environment Program, UK Government,
    In fact, the UK government used them in creating the UK Climate Change Communications strategy.
    Futerra – Rules of the Game.
    http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/RulesOfTheGame.pdf
    “Futerra and The UK Department for Environment published the Rules of the Game on 7 March 2005. The game is communicating climate change; the Rules will help us win it. The document was created as part of the UK Climate Change Communications Strategy.”
    I mentioned DECC earlier – The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) was created in October 2008, bringing together energy policy previously with BERR and Department for Environment.
    http://www.decc.gov.uk/
    And yet, Futerra still can’t quite help themselves though….
    “Sell the Sizzle – The NEW Climate Message”
    http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/Sellthesizzle.pdf
    “Climate Change Deniers
    Unfortunately, these guys are back (if they ever went away). The edge of this group are the conspiracy theorists who are sure that climate science is an excuse for either (a) the environmentalists to curtail consumption or undermine our way of life, or (b) for the developed world to hold back the developing world.”
    Fun Quotes From – Branding Biodiversity
    “Need is essential
    for policy makers
    and business”
    My favourite:
    “Our audiences are
    emotional rather
    than rational.”
    http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/Branding_Biodiversity.pdf
    About Futerra.
    “Futerra is a communications agency. We do
    the things great agencies do; have bright ideas,
    captivate consumers, build energetic websites
    one day and grab OPINION FORMER’S attention
    the next. We’re very good at it. But the real
    difference is that since our foundation in 2001,
    we’ve only EVER worked on green issues,
    corporate responsibility
    and sustainability.
    Not that I’m trying to point it out, they advice the UN ENVIRONMENT Program.
    http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/WebEN21.pdf
    “Futerra, in partnership with the UN Environment Programme, published Communicating Sustainability: How to produce effective public campaigns in September 2005.”
    So a reasonable, direct from the source, bit of evidence that the ‘creative’ tools of PR are being used by government and the UN, (futerra since 2001) see their client list (Greenpeace, etc) has/is being used to ‘win’ the AGW consensus amongst the public..
    As a bit of popular culture.
    Anybody here remember when ‘carbon footprint’ actually started being widely used…?
    Futerra focus grouped ‘Carbon Footprint’ in 2007…..
    in ‘Words That Sell’
    http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/Words-That-Sell.pdf
    Nive little nicje earner, for Futerra, all thing green media since 2001.
    Taking a look at the directors other ‘green’ interest is enlightening.
    http://www.futerra.co.uk/about_us/directors
    Especially Ed Gillspie… campainging for emmisson trading..(whilst advicing UN/UKGov.Greenpeace)
    Ed was also recently appointed as a London Sustainable Development Commissioner and is a Director of the carbon emissions campaigning organisation Sandbag.

  13. Code Tech says”It is really difficult to have ANY respect for these people or their cheerleaders.” Similarly James Delingpole is reporting on the UK government using virtual propaganda techniques to convince taxpayers that something has to be done and soon.
    Don’t these people read the research espousing natural variability or observe what the real world is saying. We are being led by idiots. In Australia the government is staging a consensus council to figure the best way to introduce a carbon price. Sceptics are expressly forbidden. Our premier science org, CSIRO, is totally corrupt.
    So Code Tech, I agree. There are very few scientists or orgs we can believe any more and pathetically, the lack of respect has spread beyond the climate change scammers. There are mothers questioning the safety of vaccinations, of food additives and so on.

  14. “AVOID is targeted to provide policy-focused research and evidence needed to allow policymakers to develop mitigation and adaptation policy that is strongly grounded in scientific evidence.”
    It is there in black and white – Policy based evidence making.
    Some more detail about the AVOID programme is available here.
    The Living With Environmental Change programme has its own website – http://www.lwec.org.uk/. It is a £200 million a year project that works with more than 20 other Government agencies.

  15. Latest results from AVOID have shown that strong mitigation action to limit temperature rise to below 2 °C avoids many of the climate impacts, but not all of them.

    So they have abandonded the “all will be OK below 2 °C” mantra and expanded the scope for using climate scares as an excuse to control and tax populations whatever the current temperature predictions are.
    I notice the met office of mythical barbequeue summer fame were prominent partners in this enterprise, whoose weather forcasts I now tend to AVOID.

  16. I get it now.
    The two degrees C
    looks like 2 o C
    which looks like C O 2 backwards.
    That’s where they got the idea from…

  17. ‘Jason Lowe, Head of Mitigation Advice at the Met Office, United Kingdom, and Chief Scientist for the AVOID program.’
    The simple act of accepting, or creating, a post with this title assumes:
    1. that climate change is an established fact
    2. that climate change needs mitigation as it is inherently bad for the earth
    3. that climate change is brought about by actions of humans that can be mitigated
    From the above extract it is obvious that the group have carried out no new research, simply regurgitating other peoples research, opinions and alarmism to spin a miasma of endeavour that begs futher public funding.
    The real way forward is to employ real economists to evaluate the damage that change will bring to the global economy. These same will then put forward fundable, non-destructive proposals to use human ingenuity and economic power to change human behaviour. People will only, in the real world, change their behaviour, en mass, if their standard of living is shown to improve through a certain course of action. Scaring people does not work, leads to clever and well reasoned opposition and is self defeating.
    We were not scared into adopting the motorcar as opposed to the horse, we were not scared into moving from gas to electricity, we were not scared into using anti-biotics as opposed to herbal remedies. We chose to move because they offered genuine improvements to our standard of living, this is the way that mankind reacts. Give us cheap, renewable power and we’ll use it, give us increases in crop production and we’ll respond by breeding faster. Trying to frighten the world back to the stone age will not work

  18. Nothing if not relentless. This is exactly how political activist continue even after an election loss. A number circulating around the web is the global climate disruption and related industries are racked up over 1/2 trillion dollars in 2009. Even panhandlers lash out if they are asked to move from their best producing corner. They need to continue the Golden Years.
    Expect another push for carbon control/tax in Australia after they sort out all the payoffs to form a government. Then there’s the Lame Duck session of Congress with the House Democrats leaving town and folks like Snowe deciding whether it’s time to pull an Arlan Specter. If nothing else, it will be a real spectacle as the Dems lash out one last time with some Senate Republicans “moderates” deciding whether to change parties and some Senate Democrats reading the Tea Leaves for their re-election runs in 2012. One things for certain, if one bad bill passes then all of them will.
    AVOID is merely a symptom.

  19. Many of these scientists teach, give public speaches and know the system for funding requirements. Being tied to a Institution of some sort and bringing in funding is all the educational system cares about.
    “Damn the science, funding is top priority”.
    The scariest senerio brings in the biggest funding as they are still researching this issue.
    “My inferior model states….”
    Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Righhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhht!

  20. I find it incredible that there’s a space for people like this around a subject that is, at best, idle speculation. I fear for the future with these people trying to pull the strings.

  21. Massive funding cuts in the near future are unavoidable.
    The people with the biggest mouths are usually the last to get slashed.
    Meanwhile actual science is suffering for arrogance and funding.

  22. I have yet to hear on the massive amount of water being trapped and changed daily, and pumped away into oilwells and the effects it has on evaporation cycles.
    ???

  23. these so called sciencists should be charged with defrauding the goverment and made to pay all of the grants back

  24. CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
    September 18, 2010 at 1:18 am
    …I’m just back from two weeks in China, and if someone can tell me how we will convince that nation to reduce their carbon emissions, please do so. They are building about 1 major coal-burning electrical plant/week and have no intentions of slowing down.
    According to the Shanghai Daily, Sept. 11, 2010 edition: “Shanghai and Bejing will each have populations exceeding 50 million by 2050, more than double the current level due to rapid urbanization and economic growth, researchers and officials said yesterday.”
    Without China on board with a carbon mitigation plan, it’s all a joke, no matter what the community of climatologists might think. I’d say we are on the brink of all-out trade war, but I try to be much more positive than that. Thoughts?
    ——————
    If I am not mistaken the argument in China and India is: you first.
    Given that we (USA, Europe, USSR) have emitted the great share
    of the carbon already in the atmosphere, it is indeed a good argument
    and a prerequisite for any progress.
    …which won’t be politically easy, for sure, as China seems to
    adapt a strategy of delay
    But, the Chinese are no fools, they see the negative environmental and
    public health effects of coal, the price and scarcity threats, the potential
    of renewables (top investor in Green technology), the severe
    water supply problems of NE China and their connection to warming
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7311/full/nature09364.html
    The urbanisation rate you mentioned is not in itself a climate threat.

  25. cedarhill says:
    September 18, 2010 at 3:22 am
    Oh no it is NOT a symptom by the European J of Public Health
    It seems all the d**niers are to be DSMed (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
    http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/
    enter your disorder, it is a ‘an -ism’ [d**ialism] into the search box…….presto……. instant diagnosis
    If no luck 2009 90(1) p2-4
    Viewpoint: Pascal Diethelm and Martin McKee
    Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond?
    And the article is free!

  26. Examples show that 50% of the impact of water scarcity, and almost 40% of the impact of decreasing crop suitability can be avoided through early action on greenhouse gas emissions.
    Oh Gak! Someone needs to tell these folks that a warmer world is a WETTER world. During glacials we have much more desert than during interglacials, for example, and the Sahara turns into a lush zone when it’s just a bit hotter (the desert forms when it cools…)
    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/08/10/cold-dry-sahara-hot-wet-savanna/
    And they need to be told that Phoenix Arizona as one of the hottest places in the Southwestern USA is one of the best places to grow crops with one of the longest growing seasons available. What the 125 F summer takes away, the perfect winters, spring and fall give back 3 time over. Only really outdone by the southern California growing zones where you can grown darned near anything. Get a Sunset Garden book and look up the growing zones and temperature limits (theirs are much better than the USDA zone maps). So if the UK warmed, oh, a dozen degrees in winter it might, maybe start to get close to the perfect growing climate…
    There is NOTHING BAD to mitigate on either of those two fronts.
    http://www.sunset.com/garden/climate-zones/sunset-climate-zone-san-diego-area-00418000067314/
    more zones available for the whole USA here:
    http://www.sunset.com/garden/climate-zones/climate-zones-intro-us-map-00400000036421/

  27. Jack Hughes says: September 18, 2010 at 3:08 am
    2 o C … looks like C O 2 backwards.
    LOL (works backward too :))

  28. This workshop has provided the opportunity to compare approaches in the UK and US to identify the results that are the most robust.
    Robust is the trigger.

  29. I guess they didn’t get the memo that it’s “climate disruption” that we need to fear now, not “climate change”. If they are going to spout nonsense, they should at least try to stay on message. It will help AVOID making them look quite so foolish.

  30. Any pronouncement containing the word “robust” or “inform” (as in forming a view, etc.) is to be regarded with suspicion. I noted both words used twice.
    As others have also noted, this is predicated on a belief, not on facts, and is as valid as using religious leaders in forming government scientific policy. (Religion may have its place in encouraging the better side of our nature, but its ultimate foundation is belief and not anything provable.)
    IanM

  31. This was the Google ad attached to this post.
    Somehow I think this is very appropriate – the concept is the same: AVOID
    Ads by Google
    SHEWEE – urination funnel
    Stand to wee! Avoid unhygienic WCs Essential Festival Item For Women
    http://www.shewee.com

  32. “[…] Examples show that 50% of the impact of water scarcity, […]”
    Dang! E.M. beat me to it.
    Warmer world means more water liberated from ice means more ocean surface area to evaporate water vapor means more clouds means it has to rain more somewhere.

  33. The recession has caused a 2.5% drop in carbon enissions from the developed countries. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations continue to rise. So much for mitigation. Just think about the future – 2 more Chinas burning mainly coal. So much for European and US mitigation.

  34. Michael Philstroem,
    You cite:
    “According to the Shanghai Daily, Sept. 11, 2010 edition: “Shanghai and Bejing will each have populations exceeding 50 million by 2050, more than double the current level due to rapid urbanization and economic growth, researchers and officials said yesterday.” ”
    Funny, that Chinese fertility rates of at best 1.5 children /female for the last generation people still predict explosive population growth there. Yes, with longer life-spans, China will see increased populations in the future -but the median age will begin to shoot-up. China currently has a very large population bulge, but with fewer and fewer offspring, its population growth will begin to slow down; it will hit a peak sometime during the next 2-3 decades, and then decrease. The same thing is happening through-out the G-20 nations. Yes, China now has overtaken Japan GDP wise; but it needed almost 7 times the population to produce the same amount of goods and services. And all of this infrastructure they are now building is akin to Germany pouring in hundreds of billions of dollars into Eastern Germany while the population of East Germany rapidly decreased (due to mass migration out, and supressed birth-rates). In places like Saxony and Thuringia officials now must go around to near empty villages and flush toilets in order to keep the water pressure stable. No, China will get old before it gets rich
    This demographic time bomb is one of the least reported problems facing the First World. The kind of global economic growth we saw circa 1983-2007 will not return for the simple fact that the majority of the G-20 nations are aging rapidly. The economic and finanical stresses we see in Greece, Spain, and Italy are just the beginning. China will be no exception. Already CO2 concentration growth rates are slowing, and oil demand remains supress when compared to 2006-2007 levels. The US is about the undergo a massive reform of its federal entitlements; but, no amount of reform will change the huge amount of income transfers (from the young to the old) that will take place for the next 30 years. And with that transfer, the US consumption engine will be shut-off. There just won’t be that many younger people with the incomes to support it. And without US consumers China’s GDP growth rates will fall.
    China and Japan represent a huge problem for all of Asia (Russia isn’t far behind). India may continue growth; but without US consumers, even India will be effected. The days of rapid CO2 growth supported by US consumers is over.

  35. The article on “Denialism” reference above is one that everyone should read.
    http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/1/2.full
    All of these examples have one feature in common. There is an overwhelming consensus on the evidence among scientists yet there are also vocal commentators who reject this consensus, convincing many of the public, and often the media too, that the consensus is not based on ‘sound science’ or denying that there is a consensus by exhibiting individual dissenting voices as the ultimate authorities on the topic in question. Their goal is to convince that there are sufficient grounds to reject the case for taking action to tackle threats to health. This phenomenon has led some to draw a historical parallel with the holocaust, another area where the evidence is overwhelming but where a few commentators have continued to sow doubt. All are seen as part of a larger phenomenon of denialism.
    It gets worse….
    Cheers!

  36. CRS, Dr.P.H. says: …I’m just back from two weeks in China, and if someone can tell me how we will convince that nation to reduce their carbon emissions, please do so. They are building about 1 major coal-burning electrical plant/week and have no intentions of slowing down.
    They are also signing 20 year AND LONGER contracts for delivery of coal and oil. They are NOT going to slow down at all.

    Without China on board with a carbon mitigation plan, it’s all a joke, no matter what the community of climatologists might think. I’d say we are on the brink of all-out trade war, but I try to be much more positive than that. Thoughts?

    Well, Maurice Strong has moved himself and his investments to China. Kind of convenient that he is convincing the rest of the world to de-industrialize and make his investments all that much more valuable as he pushes the AGW agenda.
    Further, Soros has moved large holdings into gold (he made his first billions shorting the British Pound and broke the bank of England…) and is encouraging runaway spending and de-industrialization in the west. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that that will make him more billions. I’d sure love to see his whole book of trade and see just what currencies he is shorting this time.
    When you have a “Whale” trader pushing an agenda, always ask to see the book of trades… When you have 2 of them, working to the same direction… (Wonder what Al Gores book of trade looks like…. )

    Mikael Pihlström says:
    If I am not mistaken the argument in China and India is: you first.
    Given that we (USA, Europe, USSR) have emitted the great share
    of the carbon already in the atmosphere, it is indeed a good argument
    and a prerequisite for any progress.

    No, it’s not. It’s a delaying tactic. Not done much negotiations with the Chinese, eh.
    You get great promises, lots of sweet words, deflections and delaying tactics, excursions to places that occupy your time and consume your resources. They proceed methodically to their plan. Period. And you can see the plan in what they buy. LARGE coal and oil buys lately. And not just an annual delivery. 20 year and longer buys. In some cases, buying the whole property. Building coal burning power plants 1 a week with 50 year lifespans. And no, they will NOT be shutting them down early.
    And, if they really believed we were all going to suffer catastrophe in a dozen years, they would be working to build the alternatives now, for their own benefit. They are not. They are laughing all the way to the bank.

    But, the Chinese are no fools, they see the negative environmental and
    public health effects of coal, the price and scarcity threats,

    Which is why they will be installing scrubbers on those coal plants eventually, and why they are buying up all the coal they can right now while it’s still cheap.

    the potential of renewables (top investor in Green technology),

    Which makes the Obama admins claim about green jobs a horrible joke. China intends to dominate ALL products. Green, black, whatever. So yes, they make the majority of solar cells. And will dominate windmills and anything else that is manufactured too. As long as there is someone willing to buy…

    the severe water supply problems of NE China and their connection to warming

    Hate to break it to you, but warmer is wetter. Any water supply issues are not a result of the fictional 1/2 C we’re supposed to have warmed. Warmer water evaporates more, leading to more precipitation, not less. See “hurricane season” and “monsoon season” for examples.

    The urbanisation rate you mentioned is not in itself a climate threat.

    This is true. It’s a side effect of the rapid industrialization and an indication of their intent to use cement, steel, and coal in abundance for decades to come. Cement produces loads of CO2 in the making, and steel takes loads of ‘coking coal’ in the making. Their intent is to use as much of any and every energy supply they can to become THE dominant economy in the world. And they are succeeding at it.
    I give it about 10 more years to complete world domination. I suggest you learn to speak Chinese, or at least have your kids learn. One of the best traders in the world, Jim Rogers, sold out of New York and has moved his family to Singapore for that very reason.
    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNcecTvHf_s&fs=1&hl=en_US]

  37. Our pllaaanet will squash you like a bug and not think twice about it. Just ask the quarter million people killed in Haiti if they feel like a threat to the pllaaanet this year. Or ask those drowned in the 2004 Asian tsunamis, more than 283,000 dead, if they feel like a threat to the pllaaanet.
    People are no bigger that ants compared to the size of our planet and are no threat. This planet will shake you off like a bad case of flees and couldn’t care less about your feelings concerning it’s health.
    The great pyramids will look like no more than a couple of piles of sand 10,000 years from now and the planet laughs at their size when it compares what it has built like Mt. Everest.
    Give me a break already. Where do people get off, even collectively, thinking they have any major affect on the entire planet whatsoever? People have these superiority complexes they just can’t get over. Let me tell you all something, (for the lurkers) you’re nothing compared to the size, destructive capabilities, and the ability of our planet to take care of itself. Get over it already.

  38. We used to be a very proud nation, of our people, & our produce. Sure we have our faults, but who hasn’t, apart from good old Tony & Mandy Mandleson, they’re perfect & flawless, just like Obama in our wonderful “post-democratic” society in the PDREU/UESR! However, one thing we were brilliant at during WWII was feeding our enemies large amounts of bovine faeces, & guess what, the grandchildren & great-grandchildren of those who fed our enemies all that, err……, crap, are doing it to our friends today, thta’s how much we appreciate our friends! This AVOID stuff is brimming over with PC psycho-babble & gobbldy-gook.

  39. @JP
    ‘Funny, that Chinese fertility rates of at best 1.5 children /female for the last generation people still predict explosive population growth there.’
    I believe their predictions include the fact that China is planing to put the one child rule on hold since they are seeing the obvious negative economic impact of having an elderly population that lives longer but not enough young and middle age to support just that growing elderly more long lived population.
    In the west we support that fact with immigration, China on the other hand aren’t as lucky to have the option of immigration what with their already sizable population. Japan is facing the same problem as China but more so because Japan don’t have a five hundred million untapped ready and willing work force to off-set some of that problem.

  40. Doug in Seattle says: September 18, 2010 at 1:50 am
    Amazing … what science was used to set this 2 degree C threshold anyway?
    Hi Doug. If you are ever in Christchurch New Zealand they have an excellent Antarctic exhibit adjacent to the airport. It contains fossils of plant life from Antarctica, none of which exist today. The level of CO2 present at the time can be deduced by studying the density of stomata present in each leaf. In the pliocene, some 3 million years ago CO2 is estimated by this technique to be 360 to 400 ppm – very similar to today’s levels. Studies of various fossils from this period suggest global temperatures were 3C warmer with sea level 25m higher than today.
    Please note that direct comparisons with today’s situation require thought. How long did it take seas to rise? Were other climate factors were at play? Can accurate conclusions be made by comparing pliocene flora and fauna with todays? …
    A conglomeration of such studies (all with the usual brace of uncertainties that beset scientific endeavour) suggests 3C and over will present many potentially intractable problems. Where will dry season waters come from if source glaciers melt too far? China, Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan etc all rely on this mechanism to keep their major rivers flowing consistently.

  41. Tenuc says:
    September 18, 2010 at 2:18 am
    Utter alarmist drivel, designed to keep the research grants coming in!

    Wrong, with respect. Yes, it is drivel, and transparently so. But you have it the wrong way round. Indeed, it is our governments who are now DRIVING this BS, and our governments who will very happily throw our tax money at any individual or organisation that is willing to sell its soul in return for these said grants. So, rather than this being “drivel designed to keep the research grants coming in”, I would suggest that it would be more accurate to say that the research grants are designed to keep the drivel coming in.

  42. I spy a ridiculous comment:
    “Examples show that 50% of the impact of water scarcity, and almost 40% of the impact of decreasing crop suitability can be avoided through early action on greenhouse gas emissions.”
    A warming world means MORE precipitation, more rain over a greater land area. No reductions in CO2 will have ANY impact on either rainfall or crops and the very idea is simply scaremongering nonsense.
    The surface of the earth is 70% water and its been around for billions of years, there is no shortage of water whatsoever, we have all the water we will ever need. What we need to do is supply water via irrigation to where it is needed and to devise water treatment technologies.
    The only thing CO2 emission controls will do is make energy more expensive and restrict our ability to grow and prosper, the very notion that making energy more expensive and so making rich people richer and poor people poorer will have any impact on precipitation and crops is why acceptance of the AGW fraud is falling off a cliff. The mumbo jumbo trash science scaremongering is only acting as a recruiting poster for the sceptic side.
    The ONLY way to ensure adequate supplies of water is by building great big dams and investing in great big industrial scale irrigation and water transportation infrastructure along with new water usage and reclamation technologies. All the lies in the world cannot cover up the pathetic joke the AGW cult has become.

  43. I’m glad to hear that they are finaly giving mitigation some attention. I’m wondering how they will explain to the public the manner in which they are going to mitigate the top few effects of global warming:
    o longer growing seasons
    o increased crop yields
    o reduced extreme weather events
    o increased total arable land
    o increased precipitation
    I’m in particular confused on that last one as they keep talking about positive feedback from increased water vapour and then babbling about decreased precipitation. Perhaps they have the prefixes “in” and “de” reversed?
    I’m also very concerned about “decreased crop suitability”. I think that’s a big one. Farmers have a great deal of expertise in growing low value grain crops on land marginaly capable of supporting it. It would be a shame if all that expertise went to waste just because they could start growing high value fruits and vegetables instead, and that’s a different skill set from grain so they probably couldn’t do it anyway, or the change would be so stressfull, the increased income in particular, that they would have to take increasingly extravagent vacations in exotic locations during the decreasing winter season to get rid of their stress.
    Awful this global warming stuff. All out on the mitigation effort I say!

  44. Okay, Anthony links to http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-09/ncfa-adc091610.php and that links to http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-09/ncfa-adc091610.php and that (the NCAR & UCAR News Center) has nothing of interest on that page other than “Arctic sea ice: the Great Recession continues” and “Rescue Plane En Route to Evacuate Man in Antarctica.”
    I’ll send Email dave.britton@metoffice.gov.uk asking if he has a better link.

  45. Whats wrong here, developing the information needed for policy makers to limit global warming. Have policy makers not done enough by forcing green technology that does not work . And they done it based on flawed information, never checking the facts or other views. They tried this in the old USSR and look what policy makers did for them.
    Of course research should continue but the results should be determined by the research and honestly reported. Not reported to satisfy a pre determined outcome.

  46. Time is short and delaying action reduces the chance of limiting temperature rise to 2 °C and increases the chance of significant impacts.
    ===============================================
    Since they haven’t gotten it right so far, actually they got it as wrong as they could..
    Who in their right mind still thinks they could get the future right?
    Truth is, we’ve done nothing so far, changed nothing, and they still can’t get their temperature predictions right………and it’s a travesty

  47. From: E.M.Smith on September 18, 2010 at 5:29 am

    Further, Soros has moved large holdings into gold (he made his first billions shorting the British Pound and broke the bank of England…) and is encouraging runaway spending and de-industrialization in the west. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that that will make him more billions. (…)

    I have long heard the limiting factor to extraction of gold from seawater is the energy cost, from decades past when gold was far cheaper than today. So we’ll use solar, which is free energy. We can start the development of ocean-based photovoltaic-powered electrolytic harvesters, small and unmanned, for which federal research funding is assured as they will use clean green carbon-free power. They can be free-floating as buoys, although tethered to a GPS-equipped solar-powered tender vessel that would hold position would be better. Rather than be specifically limited to gold, they can be more generally set towards heavier elements thus also collecting uranium, which I understand would normally only be marginally more expensive than mining thus the use of free energy should make seawater extraction equally or more profitable.
    So we announce that by the use of clean green carbon-free energy, the world will soon have a practically-unlimited supply of gold, as well as a bonanza of other heavier elements, including uranium thus there also will be a nigh-infinite supply of cheap energy for those countries willing to use nuclear power.
    Problem solved.

  48. I notice two phrases in the story. “that is strongly grounded in scientific evidence” and “the consequences of different levels of emissions”. It seems to me that these are mutually exclusive. You cannot have consequenses unless you make predicitons. However, there are no validated models when it comes to AGW, and, therefore, any predicitions cannot be “scientific”.

  49. Ammonite
    ” Where will dry season waters come from if source glaciers melt too far? China, Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan etc all rely on this mechanism to keep their major rivers flowing consistently.”
    Get with the program, it’s 2C for the tipping point, not 3C. You must use “studies with robust results”, to indicate truth; “conglomeration of studies” doesn’t even sound scientific.
    Haven’t you heard, Pachauri was wrong? Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035?
    BTW: River water supplies for these countries come from the monsoons, not the glaciers.

  50. So, fp, @ 6:49 AM, is Maurice Strong in China advising them on climate policy or is he there being advised of his rights?
    =============

  51. The people writing the agit-prop of which this AVOID conference is an example are simply making junk up and calling it science to give it an air of authority.
    It is long past time to reject this and demand our money back. It was, after all, paid for by tax payer money.
    We deserve our money back.

  52. Ammonite
    “Where will dry season waters come from if source glaciers melt too far?”
    You got it the wrong way. The more they melt, the more water they spend. The more they grow, the less.
    BTW, we don’t use glaciers to regulate water flow, we use dams.

  53. Anyone else feel we’re on board the Titanic during her maiden voyage across the Pond, going full speed and avoiding all caution to slow down; that the crew is busy shoveling away, be it coal or wine or food; that the band is playing a beautiful song and that the passengers are blissfully unaware that fools are in command and danger lurks dead ahead? What we’re about at the dawn of this new century sounds more and more of Classic Titanic Anthropogenic Global Suicide than anything else.
    “Full Speed Ahead!!!”
    “Aye! Aye! Captain. Aye! Aye!
    C R A S H… G R I N D… S N A P… C R A C K L E… P O P…

  54. CRS, Dr.P.H. at 1:18 am –
    You’re absolutely right!
    Mikael Pihlström at 4:02 am
    Except for the potential of renewables you’re absolutely wrong!
    E.M.Smith at 4:41 am
    Thank you for saving me a lot of typing. And you’re absolutely right about Strong, Soros and the Chinese, which leads us to what –
    Cassandra King said at 6:16 am
    The ONLY way to ensure adequate supplies of water is by…. THAT is exactly what the likes of Strong, Soros and the Chinese do NOT want: adequate supplies that are easily accessible to the masses of anything that perceptually is needed to survive. Therein it’s all about sources and distribution which can be summed into one word-
    “FLOWS”! Control the flow of whatever a given population needs and you control that population. And think about it for a moment: that is what this whole “climate” issue is about. The environment of the Earth IS all about the flow/distribution of energy – in the oceans (including ice), the atmosphere (including water vapor & clouds) and the total mass of life forms on the planet. And it’s so dynamic and massive it’s impossible to model! The scientist and a few smart politicians know this AND they know therefore it’s NOT possible to disprove anything they say about it.
    Oil, coal, water, power in all forms, food, products, gold, money, even services (like medical care & insurance), the magical CO2, copper, uranium, on & on & on – – control the flow and you control the population. But how can you “control” the flow of energy in something so massive as the environment? YOU CAN’T! But “make” something you can control into something that is “scientifically proven” to negatively modify the flow – Ah Ha! Now we have something to control the population with and – with control comes trillions! And I’m not talking beans here…

  55. H.R. says:
    September 18, 2010 at 5:11 am
    “[…] Examples show that 50% of the impact of water scarcity, […]“
    Dang! E.M. beat me to it.
    Warmer world means more water liberated from ice means more ocean surface area to evaporate water vapor means more clouds means it has to rain more somewhere.

    You mean denialist blog forecasts catastrophic floods with warming of 2C surely?
    Remember whatever the climate does there is no good news it is change that is bad – only if everything remains in perfect stasis will the fixed-climate people be content.

  56. The unfortunate reality of “dry season waters” coming from “source glaciers” is that if the glaciers have to melt to supply this water they will also have to disappear, and if mountain glacier ice increases then the water for the dry season won’t be available either. Two situations work. One is for lots of snow at high elevations that then melts late in the year. As some commenters here think – warming should do that. Situation two is a cyclical pattern where massive mountain glaciers build during one time period and then melt in the next. While they are building there are “lean” years, to be followed by the “good” years. Which pattern has the world seen in the last 30 years? Which do we see next?

  57. Mikael Pihlström says:
    September 18, 2010 at 4:02 am
    “[…]If I am not mistaken the argument in China and India is: you first.
    Given that we (USA, Europe, USSR) have emitted the great share
    of the carbon already in the atmosphere, it is indeed a good argument
    and a prerequisite for any progress.”
    It’s the argument that China uses. The Chinese government is concerned about maintaining a high growth rate. They need this to keep the people on their side; they can’t afford failure. They will use all tricks they have available – snatching up cheap Australian coal, undervalue the Renminbi, buy African land to produce food there – to maintain their growth rate. Their last concern is CO2 emissions. And their argument – “the developed world has to de-industrialize first” – is simply tactics. They could just as well say “look at the poor baby seals” or whatever they deem likely to resonate in the brain-dead media of the West.

  58. Milwaukee Bob;
    Control the flow of whatever a given population needs and you control that population.>>
    I believe the term is “water empire” used to describe the practice of several Chinese dynasties. They would dam all the rivers and build huge resevoirs ostensibly to control damage from flooding and so on. Then when some foolish province was fomenting rebellion, up go the dam levels, cutting off fresh water for crops, livestock, and people just long enough to put down the rebellion without so much as stringing a bow.
    May I also suggest that for those that think the Chinese position is reasonable, that you read Art of War by Sun Tsu. It isn’t as much about war on the battlefield as it is about winning at minimum cost, without a battle at all if possible. The most important part of the strategy is to sew disinformation that leads your opponent into bad decision making regarding his own resources, as well as disinformation about what you are doing with yours.
    Ignore what China says they are doing, ignore what they say about what we should be doing, ignore all the logic they present. Study instead what they are actually doing. Building fossil fuel infrastructure, investing in foreign fossil fuel reserves, and signing long term contracts. They’re even funding exploration as joint venture partners with western companies. So put aside what they say about what we should or should not do and why. It has little or nothing to do with their actual strategy, which is fossil fuel. The more we damage our own economy by accepting the AGW premise, the better it is for them, and they will be happy to lend us the money to buy the windmills and the rest of their manufactured goods until we go bankrupt.

  59. Attention People of Earth: Climate Disruption is nigh. Throw away your energy sources used to duck the wrecking ball heading straight for you, and succumb. It’s all your fault. Survival is now a privilege granted by the government, not a right.
    Report to the DNA screening center nearest you. We will decide if you meet the qualifying criteria for the Superrace authorized gene pool. Successful candidates will be issued a survival ration card.
    Oh, and did we mention it’s all your fault?

  60. John F. Hultquist says:
    September 18, 2010 at 8:26 am
    It works much the same way as El Nino/La Nina as regards ocean heat content delta.
    What monkeywrenches the GCM’s is that there are far more than 2 states to consider.

  61. Thanks, all, for responding to my post regarding China and carbon policy!
    Please remember that China has about 1.3 billion people on a land area that is nearly equal to the USA, but concentrated in the coasts due to lack of arable land in the mountainous regions. The population densities of the urban areas is just stunning.
    One unintended result of my visit was learning of some vast internal conflicts in China, essentially class warfare (rural vs. urban populations). It seems to me that China is following some modified form of the “Great Leap Forward,” whereby rural populations are being herded into vast, new company towns on the outskirts of the major financial centers (Shanghai, Bejing etc.), to populate new factories.
    It was mind-boggling to view the scale of this movement, including vast new apartment complexes in the middle of nowhere, new roads & power plants etc. This in a country where you cannot flush toilet paper because the sewage treatment systems cannot accommodate the loading!
    Also, one child/family policy is only being enforced on the rural populations, as the Chinese government is desperate to boost family size of the educated classes who are leading their economic revolution. Just amazing, out & out class warfare.
    Anyone who thinks that the Chinese will do more than merely provide lip-service to global warming are ignoring history. These folks have a remarkable population dating back many thousands of years, and if nothing else, they are patient. They will sell us all the low-carbon technology that we wish to buy (batteries, windmills, solar panels etc.) and use the proceeds to leapfrog us by using conventional dirty power.
    Therefore, the West cuts carbon emissions at our own risk. There’s nothing wrong with buying more efficient autos, industrial equipment etc., and this is good business policy that should be encouraged. However, by signing onto the de-industrialization of the west (per John Holdren’s recommendations of the 1970’s) and voluntarily reducing carbon emissions, the USA risks becoming the new Portugal of the world…a former great power, now irrelevant.

  62. From: NeilT on September 18, 2010 at 1:14 am

    Might I remind everyone that it is now the 3rd week in September

    Which means… what? Must you be so oblique? It seems to be an acute condition on your side, you like to watch us triangulate to figure out your point. What’s your angle? In any case, we know you think you’re right, even when we find you obtuse.
    😉

  63. Pascvaks says:
    September 18, 2010 at 8:04 am
    Actually, most of us do not feel that we are “on board the Titanic” but we do recognize in your post the eternal theme of impending catastrophe. It’s just modern makeover of the biblical Armageddon, end of days, mankind paying for sin theme. Perversely, there is an element of humanity that seems to obtain comfort from such thinking. On the other hand we try to concentrate on science, not superstition, on this site.

  64. davidmhoffer said at 9:30 am
    May I also suggest …. that you read Art of War by Sun Tsu. It isn’t as much about war on the battlefield as it is about winning at minimum cost, without a battle at all if possible.
    It’s highlighted, earmarked and sitting within arms reach.

  65. davidmhoffer says:
    September 18, 2010 at 9:30 am
    <>….
    Ignore what China says they are doing, ignore what they say about what we should be doing, ignore all the logic they present. Study instead what they are actually doing. Building fossil fuel infrastructure, investing in foreign fossil fuel reserves, and signing long term contracts. They’re even funding exploration as joint venture partners with western companies. So put aside what they say about what we should or should not do and why. It has little or nothing to do with their actual strategy, which is fossil fuel. The more we damage our own economy by accepting the AGW premise, the better it is for them, and they will be happy to lend us the money to buy the windmills and the rest of their manufactured goods until we go bankrupt.
    <>

    The Chinese are following the rule of Napoleon Bonaparte: “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.”

  66. comments to several posts above:
    1. I did acknowledge that China uses a delay strategy … and they will
    use it as long as possible. And they clearly forage global resources (land,
    fuels, metals).
    2. It does not remove the validity of the ‘first world jumps first’ argument.
    3. China will keep all policy options open.
    4. Although growing stronger all the time they cannot disregard the global
    community, for economic reasons, no single country can.
    5. Their domestic demand is presently not enough to sustain their growth rate.
    For the domestic demand to increase, the low wage advantage will decrease.
    6. We don’t know that strong growth will continue. In the 1980’s everyone
    thought the Japanese would buy America (acc. to Mike Davis, City of Quartz).
    7. To make the coal power plants clean will have high costs.
    8. The PDSI drought index is already dropping in the NE/E of China. Even
    a more moderate warming is excessive in view of the great water withdrawal in
    the wheat-growing areas. Rice yields is likely decreasing because of warmer
    nights (Tmin) even at present warming level.
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7311/full/nature09364.html

  67. Mikael Pihlström says:
    September 18, 2010 at 4:02 am
    1. Given that we (USA, Europe, USSR) have emitted the great share
    of the carbon already in the atmosphere, it is indeed a good argument
    and a prerequisite for any progress. …which won’t be politically easy, for sure, as China seems to adapt a strategy of delay.
    =========================================================
    Well Mikael, You know as well as I do that the reason given by China and India has nothing to do with the conclusions you so blithely state. If you have been around as long as I suspect you have you will know very well that what CRS, Dr.P.H. says is perfectly true. They have no intention of stopping using coal or any other carbon derived energy source for their development program. Nor do they give any credence to the AGW crap science from what I have been able to discern. So wake up to yourself Mikael.
    Doug

  68. From: NeilT on September 18, 2010 at 1:14 am
    For god’s sake get a grip man!
    Here in UK the CET has fallen dramatically over the past 3 years, and in the South East of the country the reservoirs are well within normal levels at this time despite people there having been advised a few years ago to plant desert gardens!
    Climate scientists are out and out idiots with second rate degrees, and prove it with their every utterance. It’s time they got a real job sweeping the streets.
    When this is all over, can we take out a class action for a refund of the Renewables Obligation levy on our utility bills?[snip]

  69. CRS, Dr.P.H. says: September 18, 2010 at 9:53 am
    Therefore, the West cuts carbon emissions at our own risk. There’s nothing wrong with buying more efficient autos, industrial equipment etc., and this is good business policy that should be encouraged. However, by signing onto the de-industrialization of the west (per John Holdren’s recommendations of the 1970′s) and voluntarily reducing carbon emissions, the USA risks becoming the new Portugal of the world…a former great power, now irrelevant.
    ========================================================
    CRS, Dr.P.H. – I agree with your whole post at 9:53 am but particularly with the above. Got it in one!
    Thanks – Doug

  70. Being the defacto bank upon which the US floats it’s spending, China is in a perfect position to lobby AGW upon US policy.
    Yeah, they are definately not interfering with our utopian illusion.
    Quite the contrary, they appear to be feeding it until it pops, or we wake up and smell the coffee
    The worst part of waking up, is finding paregoric in your cup.

  71. Rabe says: September 18, 2010 at 7:43 am
    Ammonite “Where will dry season waters come from if source glaciers melt too far?”
    You got it the wrong way. The more they melt, the more water they spend. The more they grow, the less. BTW, we don’t use glaciers to regulate water flow, we use dams.
    “The more they melt, the more water they spend” – until they are gone or can no longer sustain previous flow rates. And who are “we”? Loss of a glacier (or snow pack) is the equivalent of a dam running dry. This type of problem is being faced by Bolivia across the next decade or so. Consider the expense of building many dams where none were previously needed. Each class of problem at +3C will represent a haphazard tax on the nations affected. While a nation has a reserve things are manageable. If its reserve is spent (like a dam running dry) problems become dispropotionately difficult to deal with.

  72. NeilT says: “Ooops. Second week in September. But the context is the same……”
    LOL. Nice try. You were only 25% off. Not bad for climate science, which does well to get the decimal point in the right place.

  73. Mikael Philstrom;
    2. It does not remove the validity of the ‘first world jumps first’ argument.>>
    The point is that they don’t believe it is a problem. The “first world jumps first” is just a ploy to convince us that they believe it is a problem but not their responsibility to fix, they lay the guilt trip in the first world instead. If they really believed it was a problem they would not be building out the massive fossil fuel infrastructure that they are, nor would they be making multi-decade investments to assure supply. So ask yourself, what are their scientists telling their government? It sure isn’t the same thing as our scientists are telling ours.
    As for the “first world jumps first” argument itself, why do you suppose the first world is the first world? Why is the 3rd world the 3rd world? I shall answer that.
    We are the first world because we earned it. We worked for it, we implemented democracy, market economies, rights for minorities and women, property rights and on and on. We invested in education, protected intellectual property, and lived by the rule of law. What did the 3rd world do during those decades? They fought wars against their own citizens, exterminated minorities, repressed free speech and thought, murdered dissenters, expropriated land and resources. They took hand out after hand out from the first world and squandered it. They are mired in corruption and repression, and the “you first” argument from them is nothing but a set up for another round of concessions and hand outs which they will also squander.

  74. Robert Austin says:
    September 18, 2010 at 10:50 am
    I tend to be obtuse. Mea Culpa!
    PS: National and worldwide Crusades trend toward great loss of life and treasure.

  75. Kadaka,
    You are right about harvesting the ocean, it contains most of what we need.
    However solar will not work without a team constantly cleaning the salt from the panels.
    Wind , tide and wave generation would work as intermittent output would not be a bother. Grid connection for these devices is dumb as they are better pumps than generators.
    Using these devices as pumps it is easy to produce electricity on demand, any land mass close to the ocean with elevation could have holding dams to run hydro when needed. No new technology needed and reliable power when needed.
    Similarly these devices as pumps could desalinate water i.e. high pressure across a membrane equals freshwater.
    These people involved in the renewable energy scene do not think outside the square. The AGW crowd seem to trapped inside a box with no way out and no way in for new thoughts.

  76. How can these people sleep at night? I could understand the greens, but if all these scientists had an ounce of common sense they’d no this CO2 AGW is a pile of steamy stinking BS. There are too many people out there with common sense (I hope) to prevent the worst travesty in world history. OTOH, there are many drinking the cool aid after being brainwashed.

  77. Jack Hughes Sep 18, 3:08 am
    2oC comes from Co2 – Brilliant! I wouldn’t be surprised if this is actually a subliminal subconscious creation of which the author(s) are unaware.

  78. co2fan says: September 18, 2010 at 7:06 am
    Ammonite ” Where will dry season waters come from if source glaciers melt too far? China, Vietnam…”
    Haven’t you heard, Pachauri was wrong? Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035?
    BTW: River water supplies for these countries come from the monsoons, not the glaciers.
    co2fan, you might note that I specifically mention river response in the “dry season”. As for 2035, I suggest you take that up with Mr Pachauri as it does not appear anywhere in my text. If you are at all inclined, please review the current response of Tibetan plateau glaciers within the altitude range 3000 to 5000 meters. Consider the implications of their melt rate today (without regard to any potential future temperature rises).

  79. NeilT said on September 18, 2010 at 1:15 am

    Ooops. Second week in September. But the context is the same……

    18 days divided by 7 days per week equals 2 and 4/7 weeks elapsed. Looks to me like we are in the third week of September.
    Must be that post-normal new math they use for (C)AGW calculations.

  80. The FUTILITY of Mankind trying to Control Climate

    On average world temperature is +15 deg C. This is sustained by the atmospheric Greenhouse Effect 33 deg C. Without the Greenhouse Effect the planet would be un-inhabitable at -18 deg C. The Biosphere and Mankind need the Greenhouse Effect.
    Just running the numbers by translating the agents causing the Greenhouse Effect into degrees centigrade:
    • Greenhouse Effect = 33.00 deg C
    • Water Vapour accounts for about 95% of the Greenhouse Effect = ~ 31.35 deg C
    • Other Greenhouse Gases GHGs account for 5% = ~1.65 deg C
    • CO2 is 75% of the effect of all accounting for the enhanced effects of Methane and Nitrous Oxide GHGs = ~1.24 deg C
    • Most CO2 in the atmosphere is natural, more than 93%
    • Man-made CO2 is less than 7% of total atmospheric CO2 = ~0.087 deg C
    • the UK contribution to CO2 is 2% equals = 1,740 millionths deg C
    • the USA contribution to CO2 is ~20% equals = 17,588 millionths deg C
    As closing carbon economies of the Whole World could only ever achieve a virtually undetectable less than 0.01deg C. How can the Green movement and their supporting politicians think that their remedial actions can limit warming to only + 2.00 deg C?
    So the probability is that any current global warming is not man-made and in any case such warming could be not be influenced by any remedial action taken by mankind however drastic.
    As this is so, the prospect should be greeted with Unmitigated Joy:
    • concern over CO2 as a man-made pollutant can be discounted.
    • it is not necessary to damage the world’s economy to no purpose.
    • if warming were happening, it would lead to a more benign and healthy climate for all mankind.
    • any extra CO2 is already increasing the fertility and reducing water needs of all plant life and thus enhancing world food production.
    • a warmer climate, within natural variation, would provide a future of greater opportunity and prosperity for human development. This has been well proven in the past and would now especially benefit the third world.
    Nonetheless, this is not to say that the world should not be seeking more efficient ways of generating its energy, conserving its energy use and stopping damaging its environments. And there is a real need to wean the world off the continued use of fossil fuels simply on the grounds of:
    • security of supply
    • increasing scarcity
    • rising costs
    • their use as the feedstock for industry rather than simply burning them.
    The French long-term energy strategy with its massive commitment to nuclear power is impressive, (85% of electricity generation). Even if one is concerned about CO2, Nuclear Energy pays off, French CO2 emissions / head are the lowest in the developed world.
    However in the light of the state of the current solar cycle, it seems that there is a real prospect of damaging cooling occurring in the near future for several decades. And as power stations face closure the lights may well go out in the winter 2016 if not before.
    All because CO2 based Man-made Global Warming has become a state sponsored religion.

  81. The quotes of AVOID participants are stellar examples of Post-Normal Science at work.
    Remember that you probably saw it here first:
    Ravetz, Ph.D., Jerome. “Climategate: Plausibility and the blogosphere in the post-normal age. [Part 1].” Scientific Blog. Watts Up With That?, February 9, 2010.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/09/climategate-plausibility-and-the-blogosphere-in-the-post-normal-age/#more-16262
    ———. “Jerry Ravetz part 2 – Answer and explanation to my critics.” Scientific Blog. Watts Up With That?, February 22, 2010. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/22/jerry-ravetz-part-2-answer-and-explanation-to-my-critics/
    Ravetz, Ph.D., Jerome, and S. Funtowicz. “Post-Normal Science – Environmental Policy under Conditions of Complexity.” Philosophy. NUSAP net, 2001. http://www.nusap.net/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=13

    “In relation to policy, “the environment” is particularly challenging. It includes masses of detail concerning many particular issues, which require separate analysis and management. At the same time, there are broad strategic issues, which should guide regulatory work, such as those connected with “sustainability”. Nothing can be managed in a convenient isolation; issues are mutually implicated; problems extend across many scale levels of space and time; and uncertainties and value-loadings of all sorts and all degrees of severity affect data and theories alike.
    “This situation is a new one for policy makers. In one sense the environment is in the domain of Science: the phenomena of concern are located in the world of nature. Yet the tasks are totally different from those traditionally conceived for Western science. For that, it was a matter of conquest and control of Nature; now we must manage, accommodate and adjust. We know that we are no longer, and never really were, the “masters and possessors of Nature” that Descartes imagined for our role in the world (Descartes 1638).
    “To engage in these new tasks we need new intellectual tools. A picture of reality designed for controlled experimentation and abstract theory building, can be very effective with complex phenomena reduced to their simple, atomic elements. But it is not best suited for the tasks of environmental policy today. The scientific mind-set fosters expectations of regularity, simplicity and certainty in the phenomena and in our interventions. But these can inhibit the growth of our understanding of the problems and of appropriate methods to their solution. Here we shall introduce and articulate several concepts, which can provide elements of a framework to understand environmental issues. They are all new, and still evolving. There is no orthodoxy concerning their content or the conditions of their application.”

  82. “This was a key conclusion from UK and US climate scientists at an international workshop on the UK AVOID program in Washington, DC exploring the most policy-relevant aspects of understanding dangerous climate change.”
    Uh oh, missionaries, with full personal carbon footprint dispensation of course. We pay for this tosh, in more than one way.

  83. Ric Werme says:
    September 18, 2010 at 6:33 am
    > [List of sites that don’t get me to AVOID.]
    > I’ll send Email dave.britton@metoffice.gov.uk asking if he has a better link.
    He says: The website for the UK avoid programme is at http://www.avoid.uk.net
    It says:
    AVOID providing key advice to the UK Government on avoiding dangerous climate change
    [Methinks there ought to be an organization about beneficial climate change. Oh yeah, the climate before 1980 was perfect, wasn’t it?]
    AVOID is a research programme funded by the Department of Energy and Climate Change and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. AVOID will be carried out by a consortium comprising the Met Office Hadley Centre (project lead), the Tyndall Centre, the Walker Institute and the Grantham Institute. It will be integrated with other national programmes, e.g. Living With Environmental Change (LWEC), in order to optimise its outputs and maximise its benefits.
    Aims
    * Policy-relevant evidence and research needed to achieve international agreement on greenhouse gas emission reductions for CoP15 and beyond.
    * Core research for understanding dangerous climate change and its implications (including impacts, economic and social consequences and responses).
    * A framework that will further encourage the integration and communication of scientific and socio-economic research on climate change.
    Benefits
    * The UK Government better placed to achieve international agreement on emissions reductions.
    * Mitigation and adaptation policy even more strongly grounded in scientific evidence.
    * Scientific information more accessible and relevant to a wide range of stakeholders.
    * Research on all aspects of climate change more effectively integrated in the UK.

Comments are closed.