• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Moderated Global Warming Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Making climate science more useful

Filed under:
— rasmus @ 29 March 2011
Last week, there was a CORDEX workshop on regional climate modelling at International Centre for Theoretical Physics (ICTP), near Trieste, Italy.
The CORDEX initiative, as the abbreviation ‘COordinated Regional climate Downscaling Experiment‘ suggests, tries to bring together the community of regional climate modellers. At least, this initiative has got a blessing from the World Climate Research Programme WCRP.
I think the most important take-home message from the workshop is that the stake holders and end users of climate information should not look at just one simulation from global climate models, or just one downscaling method. This is very much in agreement with the recommendations from the IPCC Good Practice Guidance Paper. The main reason for this is the degree of uncertainties involved in regional climate modelling, as discussed in a previous post.
Click to expand...

more

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/03/making-climate-science-more-useful/
 
The heart of the problem.....there are just too many of us !!
A city the size of Vancouver a WEEK!!!!!

'The Urban Species': UN warns of "a deadly collision between climate change and urbanization"

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/.a/6a00d8341bf7f753ef014e8711d2b1970d-pi

"As a species we have lived in wild nature for hundreds of thousands of years, and now suddenly most of us live in cities—the ultimate escape from nature. If we do not learn to build, expand and design our cities with a respect for nature, we will have no nature left anywhere.”
Peter Kareiva, Conservancy chief scientist


According to the United Nations, humans officially became an urban species in 2007 when a milestone was reached. Over half of the world’s population now live in cities. By 2030, 60 percent of the world’s citizens, including nearly 2 billion from rural migration, will be living in cities. As industrialized nations and urban living demand more water, natural resources and energy, the world's cities are set to become the battleground in the global effort to curb climate change, the UN has warned. The report by UN-Habitat said that the world's cities were responsible for about 70% of emissions, yet only occupied 2% of the planet's land cover.

The UN-Habitat authors warned of a "deadly collision between climate change and urbanization" if no action was taken. The Global Report on Human Settlements 2011, Cities and Climate Change, said its goal was to improve knowledge of how cities contribute to climate change, and what adaptation measures are available. According to UN data, an estimated 59% of the world's population will be living in urban areas by 2030. The number of people who live in cities and town grows by 67 million each year -- 91% of this figure is being added to urban populations in developing countries.
Every week humans create the equivalent of a city the size of Vancouver.
Click to expand...
continues
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/03/news-flash-climate-changes-impacting-worlds-cities.html

The good news is urban complexes perhaps allow economies of scale in terms of changing to a carbon neutral society - retrofits of multiple dwellings and most of all the switch to EV transport on a wide scale could knock down emissions.

Many cities are moving ahead of their national and regional governments in moving to a lower carbon footprint.

Still.....we are too many. :(
 
macdoc said:
Still.....we are too many. :(
Click to expand...

I'm not. I'm exactly enough :cool:.

A global Malthusian crisis with or without climate change was inevitable, so it's not really an AGW issue.

The UN is using climate change as a way to say what's been known for a long time : the global urbanisation of the last fifty years was never sustainable. Green Revolutions cannot be stacked on each other in ever-shortening cycles.

Climate change will be used as a distraction from deeper societal causes as stuff increasingly happens, mark my words. Even (dare I say it?) in the US one day quite soon.
 
Apologies for the break there, the way the economy is going, I've still got another decade of working for a living before I can securely step away from the race!

CapelDodger said:
The approaches are complementary, top-down and bottom-up. In the top-down sense I'm something of a convert to the Great Wave Theory, with periodic crises followed by long periods of stability and slow but steady economic growth culminating in a relatively short period of accumulating problems leading to another crisis.
Click to expand...

The perspectives do not seem incompatible, at least with respect to the most likely modelled outcomes.

One thing which is not subject to the theory is the advance of technology, which is cumulative and consistently accelerating. This, in my opinion, is the underlying tectonic motion which creates the tension in societies. The old order acts as a drag, and the crisis is necessary to prise their dead hands away from power. Out of the crisis emerges a new order well-adjusted to the current state of the world. Which gradually becomes the new old order and so it goes ...
Click to expand...

Generally agreed, though technology is neither immortal nor omnipotent, it often, largely, seems to survive the collapse of its patron societies far better than most other aspects but this is largely due to the objective, hardware nature of technological application. Gears, nails, wires, I-beams, etc., don't rely upon beliefs or even understandings to perform design function. This isn't to say that dramatic pull-backs aren't possible in times of crisis and during the immediate post-crisis periods, but even if overall technology fell back to a level equivilant to that of a couple of centuries ago, it wouldn't take two centuries to regain the lost understandings, simply because there is too much evidence available to provide clues and insight into the fruitful avenues and paths for applied research.

Technology and science just soldier onwards. Try to ban innovation in one society and there are plenty of others which will welcome it. The future belongs (fleetingly) to them .

I'm thinking in terms of the post-crisis society which will herald the next long phase of stability and (dare I say it?) conservatism which follows. The crisis itself is just going to be ugly.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with conservatism, it is inherent and integral to science and business, though it isn't very good for economics or social engineering. There's a time and space for every notion. There was a time when I held out hopes for greatly expanded life-spans, now, I doubt that I'll witness much more than these, the initial changes in climate and society's copings with the changes it's responsible for, but all indications so far point to science's conservatism having definitively and consistently underestimated the issues and impacts of AGW.

Despite everything that humanity throws at itself, we have actually come pretty far in our societies (never all at once, of course), our science, and above all our technology. Behaviourally, much of us is still appropriate to any forest troop of primates.
Click to expand...

true, but we haven't really faced many global events, at least not of the degree that we can fairly reliably lay (in terms of initiation) at the feet of AGW. I suspect that our species, and those most useful to us, will survive even if most others do not. But, I am coming more and more to the belief that our culture/society will not. Hopefully the best of what we are can yet inspire a future and worthy successor, but that is for the survivors to decide. Behaviorally, we are all ape, self-domesticated (socially adapted) and complex, but there is no denying our nature.

Most generally, power is a measure of influence over events. It can be based on religion, capacity for violence, charisma, talent, inheritance. Money is simply the medium of exchange between these various tradeable commodities.
Click to expand...

thought that was what I was saying?!
:)

In Iran it's just that. In the UK it was from its inception until the 80's privatisation. In France it still is. In Russia it's hard to tell, but it certainly used to be.
Click to expand...

Well, we can't ignore China and the world's largest democracy, India.

It's the false prophets who do the most harm :eek:.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, too often, the only proof of the pudding, distinguishing "false" from "insightful," is in the eating, so to speak. Don't get me wrong, the science is as solid as science gets,...but while science may be useful in helping us to understand the possibilities, it isn't a crystal ball (though in some respects...). We'll see what we see and hopefully, adequately anticipate enough of the worst aspects, soon enough to survive the impacts.
Those that don't, won't.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/50853610/Speech-to-the-Don-Dunstan-Foundation-Julia-Gillard

It's possible to be too cynical about politicians.
Click to expand...

as a philosophy, that might provide comfort, but as a reality, in every instance when I've been inclined to share that sentiment, it has been the politicians who demonstrated the error of thse inclinations. Increments of better or worse are no longer marginal choices I'm open to making.

There's some steel in that speech, a clear undertone of exasperation with the deniers, staight talking in the true Aussie style, and no true Aussie would be impressed by the likes of Viscount Munchkin.
Click to expand...

But, it all means very little if the rhetorical debate is all that is won and the course of action is ultimately little different than the course of no or minimal change.

Australia is where there can be a stand-up fight, and it ain't looking good for the deniers.
Click to expand...

I hope you are right, but it means little, even if all deniers were convinced today, they merely join the 97%+ climatologists, it doesn't mean that anything significant changes. Politicians aren't holding up progress because they just really aren't sure about the science, its because the means of addressing climate change head-on are politically distasteful and unpopular among the people who fund and elect them to office.
 
CapelDodger said:
...suggests that the US Republican party and the billionaire clique which owns it are not simply anti-science, they are anti-academic. For what that's worth.
Click to expand...

shouldn't be a big news flash, this has largely been the case since the early '70s. I may not be much for science blogs, but I still read the occasional book and Mooney's discussion of the history of the falling out between Republican political ideology/public policy and science is an interesting read. Probably fading more toward politics than climate change science, but it is certainly related to the partisan politics related to the American denier affiliations
 
I was afraid that this would be coming:

Japan may review 2020 emission cut target: report

"It is true that our reduction target will be affected significantly," Hideki Minamikawa, vice minister for global environmental affairs, was quoted by Yomiuri newspaper as telling reporters in Bangkok on Sunday.

"The target year and the size of the reduction will be up for review," he added.
Click to expand...


Other countries have also idled nuclear power plants and/or put plans for future plants on hold.

Nuclear Moratorium: 'I' for India Comes After 'G' for Germany?

A top Indian scientist and government advisor, backed by more than 50 prominent figures, has called for a moratorium on all future nuclear projects following the nuclear crisis in tsunami-hit Japan. Dr. P. Balaram's call marks the first direct appeal from within government circles for a temporary stop to nuclear power plans and production and comes a day after prime minister Manmohan Singh sought more transparency, accountability and transparency from the Indian nuclear establishment. Dr. Balaram’s demand for a moratorium -- stopping nuclear power production for the time being -- is likely to pressure the Indian government because of the strategic positions he holds.

German Nuclear Moratorium

Though most countries have announced safety reviews of their nuclear plants following the Fukushima radiation leak, Germany is the only country in the world to opt for a temporary moratorium. In mid-March, German chancellor Angela Merkel shut down the country's seven oldest nuclear stations for at least three months against a backdrop of continued political pressure. Pending the safety review, some of the country's 17 nuclear plants may be decommissioned earlier than previously planned. Merkel has also called for her country to speed up its move towards renewable energy to help fill any gap in electricity supply. Merkel faces a tough battle ahead because members of the Green party accuse her of not going far enough and conservatives in her own party accuse her of having gone too far.
Click to expand...

Has anyone yet calculated the GHG emissions impact of Germany's decision?
 
CapelDodger said:
I'm sure you can choose from any number of estimates :).

We have so little leeway now that incidents like this can seriously mess up our prospects. Such as they are.
Click to expand...

Numerous issues like these are a large part of why I have so little faith in estimates that presume we are already on course to massively reverse CO2 emissions by 2020 and bring them to a virtual halt by 2050. Sounds more like Pigasus spotting to me.
 
TShaitanaku said:
Numerous issues like these are a large part of why I have so little faith in estimates that presume we are already on course to massively reverse CO2 emissions by 2020 and bring them to a virtual halt by 2050. Sounds more like Pigasus spotting to me.
Click to expand...

Sounds unlikely to me as well. Australia is paying for the Queensland reconstruction partly with funds previously allocated to green energy projects, which may be a sign of the future. Treating symptoms may eat away at funds available for dealing with the cause. It's unfortunate that so many governments are getting flailed over deficits just as push comes to shove, and the "private" financial system is living in a world of its own.

China's going to come out of this very well. Free-market democracies, not so much. China won't come out of it with so many Chinese, of course, but really, do they need them all?
 
LarianLeQuella said:
Seems that the scientist hired by the Koch brothers didn't obfuscate like they hoped he would: http://skepticblog.org/2011/04/06/global-warming-skeptic-changes-his-tune/
Click to expand...

That's a little harsh on Prof Muller, I think, but he certainly hasn't come down to denialist expectations. Normally he says all the right things ("alarmist", "climategait", "Al Gore), and even now he says he is "surprised" at how little difference has emerged following this exercise (I wasn't), but in the end he is a scientist with integrity. More of an idiot than a villain, I think, but boy has he been branded as an apostate and heretic!

Judith Curry seems to have gone very quiet all of a sudden.

The implosion of the denialist cult (which was never unified except in ideology) is a joy to watch. The writing was on the wall when Monkton became an overnight star, elbowing McIntyre out of the limelight. Since then they've brought in a new character (Judith Curry) to enliven the format and that's gone sour. The whole show is heading for cancellation and an existence echoing around the lower reaches of Cable (the modern equivalent of Hades). Glenn Beck is going before to prepare the way.

Now a new refrain is being heard : surface temperatures are not of any great signifiance, despite decades of obsession over the Hokey-Stick. MicroWatts is trying to make something of diurnal variation because his surface stations project Mullered him on the data.

When they take their eyes off the Hokey-Stick they have to avert them from Artic sea-ice, and glaciers, and permafrost, and Antarctica, and even the poles of Mars. Who knows what they will alight on next? :cool:
 
CapelDodger said:
That's a little harsh on Prof Muller, I think, but he certainly hasn't come down to denialist expectations. Normally he says all the right things ("alarmist", "climategait", "Al Gore), and even now he says he is "surprised" at how little difference has emerged following this exercise (I wasn't), but in the end he is a scientist with integrity. More of an idiot than a villain, I think, but boy has he been branded as an apostate and heretic!

Judith Curry seems to have gone very quiet all of a sudden.

The implosion of the denialist cult (which was never unified except in ideology) is a joy to watch. The writing was on the wall when Monkton became an overnight star, elbowing McIntyre out of the limelight. Since then they've brought in a new character (Judith Curry) to enliven the format and that's gone sour. The whole show is heading for cancellation and an existence echoing around the lower reaches of Cable (the modern equivalent of Hades). Glenn Beck is going before to prepare the way.

Now a new refrain is being heard : surface temperatures are not of any great signifiance, despite decades of obsession over the Hokey-Stick. MicroWatts is trying to make something of diurnal variation because his surface stations project Mullered him on the data.

When they take their eyes off the Hokey-Stick they have to avert them from Artic sea-ice, and glaciers, and permafrost, and Antarctica, and even the poles of Mars. Who knows what they will alight on next? :cool:
Click to expand...


I think you acquit the movement with a much higher respect for evidence and science than it has ever exhibited. This isn't about proving their understanding of the science wrong (or it never would have been much of a movement to begin with as the movement isn't based upon a desire to understand and explore the science), this is about getting people to understand that many of the necessary accountings and actions are not political decisions, regardless of the potential political implications.
 
TShaitanaku said:
I think you acquit the movement with a much higher respect for evidence and science than it has ever exhibited. This isn't about proving their understanding of the science wrong (or it never would have been much of a movement to begin with as the movement isn't based upon a desire to understand and explore the science), this is about getting people to understand that many of the necessary accountings and actions are not political decisions, regardless of the potential political implications.
Click to expand...

I fully appreciate that. I think Watts and his acolytes viewed Muller as someone who was on their side and so would come up with the answer that side wants (and probably believes in). They have found that not all scientists are like Lindzen or Christy, and Muller's one who isn't.

The denialist crowd which has come to centre around Watts displays all the elements of a cult, and it has responded to Muller exactly as a cult does when it feels betrayed. He has been anathamatised :).

Judith Curry was down-playing her role right from the start; I think she knew what was coming. She used to be a scientists herself once, after all.
 
r-j said:
http://www.thelocal.de/sci-tech/20110331-34095.html
Click to expand...

What do you think accounts for the difference in portrayal?

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n1/full/nclimate1068.html

Global radiative forcing from contrail cirrus
doi:10.1038/nclimate1068
Received13 December 2010Accepted01 March 2011Published online29 March

2011Abstract

Reduction of natural cirrus coverage and optical depth Implications for evaluating the impact of aviation makes a significant contribution to anthropogenic climate forcing. The impacts arise from emissions of greenhouse gases, aerosols and nitrogen oxides, and from changes in cloudiness in the upper troposphere. An important but poorly understood component of this forcing is caused by ‘contrail cirrus’—a type of cloud that consist of young line-shaped contrails and the older irregularly shaped contrails that arise from them. Here we use a global climate model that captures the whole life cycle of these man-made clouds to simulate their global coverage, as well as the changes in natural cloudiness that they induce. We show that the radiative forcing associated with contrail cirrus as a whole is about nine times larger than that from line-shaped contrails alone. We also find that contrail cirrus cause a significant decrease in natural cloudiness, which partly offsets their warming effect. Nevertheless, net radiative forcing due to contrail cirrus remains the largest single radiative-forcing component associated with aviation. Our findings regarding global radiative forcing by contrail cirrus will allow their effects to be included in studies assessing the impacts of aviation on climate and appropriate mitigation options.
Click to expand...
 
CapelDodger said:
I fully appreciate that. I think Watts and his acolytes viewed Muller as someone who was on their side and so would come up with the answer that side wants (and probably believes in). They have found that not all scientists are like Lindzen or Christy, and Muller's one who isn't.

The denialist crowd which has come to centre around Watts displays all the elements of a cult, and it has responded to Muller exactly as a cult does when it feels betrayed. He has been anathamatised :).

Judith Curry was down-playing her role right from the start; I think she knew what was coming. She used to be a scientists herself once, after all.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but I long ago disabused myself of considerations that exhibited dependence upon people adhering to my concept of rational.
 
Climate Change Poses Major Risks for Unprepared Cities

ScienceDaily (Apr. 7, 2011) — Cities worldwide are failing to take necessary steps to protect residents from the likely impacts of climate change, even though billions of urban dwellers are vulnerable to heat waves, sea level rise and other changes associated with warming temperatures.
Click to expand...

more
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110407101702.htm

The world is urbanizing which increases risk but then that also lends to concentrated mitigation strategies.....cities have enough legal power in many areas to offer leadership roles in moving to a sustainable civilization.

Portland Oregon is noteable

http://www.pdxinstitute.org/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom