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.
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.
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.
???
these so called sciencists should be charged with defrauding the goverment and made to pay all of the grants back
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.
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!
“Such work is essential to inform government policies both in the UK and the US with robust and up-to-date evidence.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/17/friday-funny-new-climate-prognostication-machine-unveiled/
They’ll need a brand new updated climate prognostication machine.
Avoid AVOID!
Soon, the story will be: it’s too late.
Then we can quit worrying about it.
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/
Jack Hughes says: September 18, 2010 at 3:08 am
2 o C … looks like C O 2 backwards.
LOL (works backward too :))
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.
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.
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
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
“[…] 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.
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.
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.
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!
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]
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.
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.
@jim pace
‘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.
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.
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.
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.