Rachmat Witoelar, Indonesia’s Environment Minister, closed the United Nation’s Climate Change Conference in Bali yesterday with comment that,
“We have a Roadmap!
I am delighted to say that we have finally achieved the breakthrough the world has been waiting for: the Bali Roadmap!
Distinguished delegates,
The decisions we have taken in Bali together create the world’s road map to a secure climate future. The governments assembled here have responded decisively in the face of new scientific evidence and significant advances in our thinking to collectively envision, and chart, a new climate-secure course for humanity.
The Bali Roadmap consists of a number of forward-looking decisions adopted today. These decisions represent various tracks that are essential to reaching a secure climate future.
At this meeting we have launched a new negotiation process, designed to tackle climate change, with the aim of completing this by 2009.
We have also addressed the AWG negotiations, setting a 2009 deadline, firmly launched the Adaptation Fund, and defined the scope and content of the Art. 9 review of the Kyoto Protocol – all of these on the Kyoto track. Similarly we have charted a course forward on reducing emissions from deforestation and on technology transfer, including an exciting new strategic programme.”
For information on these initiatives and the rest of the speech by Mr Witoelar, please click here: http://unfccc.int/meetings/cop_13/items/4049.php
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Yes, well, lets hope they can resolve the other roadmap too.
The UK looks to be opening more nuclear power stations, Sir Bob says so, how much oppostion will they get for that?
“”The reality is that we need to do much more than change the type of car we drive to make an impact on climate change. In the UK, we’ll soon have to scramble for more nuclear power,” Geldof wrote.
“On this issue, I don’t care what anyone says: we’re going to go with it, big-time. We may mess around with wind and waves and other renewable energy sources, trying to make them sustainable, but they’re not. They’re Mickey Mouse,” he added.”
Oh, good. They have a roadmap…to the next luxury conference in some exotic resort and paid for by taxpayers.
Manic Misinterpretations of Climate Change Capitulation by US in Bali
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/12/15/manic-misinterpretations-us-capitulation-climate-change-bali
“Surprisingly, Time magazine’s website reported much more accurately what transpired on the island of Bali Saturday….: ‘The roadmap is essentially the beginning of a beginning. The negotiations to come have a specific end date – 2009 – and for the first time, dismantles…the idea that only the rich nations need to take responsibility for fighting global warming. …Bringing the developing nations (China and India) on board made it possible for the U.S. to join.
“Readers should understand that this was a huge victory for the U.S., and what was indeed missing from the Kyoto Protocol the Clinton administration, with support from then Vice President Al Gore and 95 senators, refused to ratify in 1997. Now, ten years later, developing nations are the ones that have capitulated and agreed to participate in emissions cuts.”
Agreeing and doing are two different things–especially with China. I doubt that anything changed.
What will be overlooked by the media is that essentially the US has won; it has stared down China and India until they broke cover.
It would appear that the US now has the developing countries agreeing to the same roadmap as the developed countries. It was the developing countries that pushed for a consensus which the US joined.
According to AMSU satellite measurements, the planet is approximately 0.2 degrees cooler than a year ago. Over the last nine years, the planetary temperature is approximately flat, with a recent tendency to decline. Coincidentally [?] the sun has gone very quiet over the past few months.
Some of the Bali delegates will fly back to Europe & N America, and find they are extremely cold.
Meanwhile, Arctic ice has reestablished itself abnormally quickly this year, and the Antarctic ice shelf was the largest ever recorded last winter.
At what point do the governments of the world realise they have been sold a pup?
I am proud of the role that I, and the team I was a part of, had in thwarting the Forces of Darkness. The world will continue getting colder as we are in extended solar minimum, losing an average of 0.2 degrees per annum. Next year will be 10 years since the temperature peak of 1998. Do you realise that half the children alive today have only experienced global cooling?
“I am proud of the role that I, and the team I was a part of, had in thwarting the Forces of Darkness” – Dad’s Army trying their best. Helping US delegation were you David – our man on the ground. 007? Thank God you were there. I would have been unimaginable without you. A grateful nation salutes you.
Well dudes – just remember you’re betting the bank on cooling. Better be right. If the temperature goes up – you get hit out of the stadium.
So Doug let me get this right – the Sun has gone quiet after the “temperature decline”.
Doug (or anyone), can you point me in the direction of the re-freeze stats for 2007?
http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/20070810_index.html
this is the latest I can find
“The Bush administration’s strategy on climate change has been to maintain a position in which coming to no agreement is always a possibility.
“With Russia aggressively toying with Europe’s energy system and a populace that is deeply concerned about climate change, the union does not have this luxury. Negotiators in Bali understand that the United States can leave the table at any time, while Europe’s negotiators must come to an agreement — even if that agreement is not EU-led and Kyoto-based.
Even if the United States and European Union wanted the same things out of a global climate regime, wants and needs place different players in different positions. The European Union needs cuts in carbon emissions much more than does the United States, as its shrinking energy supplies and energy dependence on Russia eventually cut into its bottom line. Since Washington does not particularly need restraints on its carbon-based economy in order to remain competitive in the world, it can sit on a climate agreement for some time.
Washington appears to hold most of the cards, especially if Congress passes a climate law in 2009 or 2010 that relies on domestic emissions cuts. This law will become the U.S. negotiating position for the international agreement, and no president will sign a treaty that forces the United States to go beyond the U.S. climate law — agreeing on a U.S. climate policy will be too painful for the U.S. Senate to take on twice in three years. With this in mind, the EU threat to boycott the U.S. talks is a meaningless one. Of all the players at the table, only the union needs an agreement. Boycotting the only venue where that realistically could happen makes no sense.
Read more here: WHY THE U.S. IS WINNING THE CLIMATE POKER, Stratfor, 14 December 2007
http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=299979&selected=Analyses
David – “the world will continue getting colder as we are in extended solar minimum, losing an average of 0.2 degrees per annum.”
Funnily enough we are not in a minimum at all. If you look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum
we are not even close to any of the minimums that were ‘associated’ with cold events. I place the relationship in quotes as correlation does not imply causation.
Also assuming that solar activity is the main driver of climate why is there no lag? Assuming there is a lag and temperatures today are a result of steadily rising solar activity why when solar activity downturns is there immediate cooling? What about the oceans – do they not store heat anymore?
Posted at Andrew Bolts blog:
“I was in Bali to fight the Forces of Darkness, and I am proud of the role that I, and the team I was part of, played in debunking the warmer nonsense. Now that we are in extended solar minimum, the world should continue cooling by 0.2 degrees per annum. Next year will be 10 years since the temperature peak of 1998. Do you realise that half the children alive today have only ever experienced global cooling?
David Archibald (Reply)
Mon 17 Dec 07 (08:51am) ”
What is it David? Not content with blowing your own trumpet at one blog?
Ender – I imagine the world’s scientists were queueing up to get reprints of David’s E&E paper. Probably a decisive factor.
4 of the G8 said ‘no’ to a binding target: Russia, Canada, Japan and the US.
The roadmap has some more holiday resorts on it!
David, when do temperature records begin? 1998? I didn’t realise climate change conformed to such things as Christmas, Easter and Tax time – annual events measured and experienced year to year.
Marc Morano Comments:
The UN climate conference in Bali revealed a few things:
1) The UN certainly knows how to throw a party and choose an exotic island paradise venue.
2) The UN once again displayed its intolerance for dissenting opinion as it squelched a team of scientists attending the conference who were promoting an abundance of peer-reviewed scientific data debunking the IPCC predictions. In addition, the UN and the much of the media shamefully ignored a letter debunking climate fears signed by over 100 prominent scientists (including renowned scientists like Dr. Reid Bryson, “the father of meteorology” and Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists (more on the letter is here).
This follows UN leaders saying it was “immoral” to question predictions of climate doom. The media’s failure to cover many significant issues at the conference underscores the need for news outlets like the Inhofe EPW Press Blog.
3) If the UN were serious about reducing worldwide emissions, it would incorporate the developing worlds’ emissions into its plans. As Senator James Inhofe (Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee has consistently said, technology promotion and sharing are the only real way to achieve meaningful reductions in the future, not a failed Kyoto 2 approach.
4) Once again, the UN conference revealed that politics and the preservation of its bureaucracy are more important than “solving” the so-called “climate crisis.” The idea of a global carbon tax was urged at the conference as well as calls for massive “redistribution” of wealth. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minor ity.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=d5c3c93f-802a-23ad-4f29-fe59 494b48a6&Issue_id=
5) After spending a whole week in Bali, I can say one thing with absolute certainty: If we were facing a man-made climate catastrophe and the United Nations were our only hope to solve it, we would all be doomed.
The UN is only as good as the sum of its parts and if its parts are obstructionist, then the UN suffers.
What an expensive farce. But good for the Bali economy. Not so good for the Bali ecology – what about all that extra poo from 10,000 delegates. Next conference in Somalia or Zimbabwe?
Actually, human waste, if treated properly, can be an invaluable source of energy.
Fair go Ender, last time I looked you had your own blog. It’s a bit rich coming from you to complain about someone commenting on more than one blog.
Once again, the Agenda for Bali was dealing with climate change, not if it was or was not occurring.
http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=299979&selected=Analyses
Got the userid and password for that link, Jennifer?
The wins because it holds all the cards? That doesn’t take any brains, that just takes muscle and a refusal to listen to anyone.
Ender, one of life’s little pleasures is taunting Luke and associated eco-freaks. Thanks for posting my post again, it saves me from doing it. Suffer the little children that have only known global cooling, and that’s half of them.
Meanwhile, it’s busy here – another paper coming out, a New York climate conference in March and then Poznan in December.
Stratfor;
Geopolitical Diary: Climate Negotiations Heat up in Bali
December 14, 2007 03 00 GMT
German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel said on Thursday that if negotiators meeting in Bali, Indonesia, for U.N. climate talks fail to reach a consensus agreement on proceeding, “it would be meaningless” for U.S. President George W. Bush to hold separate climate talks among the world’s major greenhouse gas emitters. Threatening not to send an EU official to the second meeting of Bush’s parallel talks in January is all the European Union can do at this point to prevent the United States from taking the driver’s seat in international climate negotiations.
International negotiators are concluding talks, set to wrap up Friday, on establishing an international climate regulatory environment that succeeds the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. The Bali negotiations are only the beginning of what Kyoto backers hope will lead to two years of negotiations on a final 2009 agreement that specifically lays out climate change obligations for every nation come 2012. But the Bali talks are important because they will determine what can and cannot be negotiated in future meetings.
The de facto negotiations are taking place between three major blocs — the European Union, United States and China. The European Union needs a climate agreement, and it hopes to control that agreement by making it an extension of the Kyoto Protocol process. Since the union already has placed carbon restrictions on its economy, effectively decreasing its global economic competitiveness, it has interests in seeing the rest of the world do the same, primarily by getting all major economies to commit to legally binding reductions of their carbon emissions.
Washington likely will pass a climate law soon, but it does not need an international treaty the way Europe does. Unlike the Europen Union, the United States is not facing dwindling energy supplies and energy dependence on a foreign neighbor (Russia). Because it does not necessarily have to come to an agreement, Washington is telling Europe that if Europe wants an agreement that includes the United States, it will be on U.S. terms. China, meanwhile, is trying to obtain as many concessions as the European Union and United States are willing to give in order to bring Beijing to the preferred negotiating table.
In this light, negotiations are not going well in Bali for the Europeans. Thus far the United States has effectively halted progress on negotiating an important goal of many European Kyoto nations — to define a range of nonbinding emission reduction goals and targets that would serve as a guide for future negotiations. The United States, Canada, Japan and Australia are largely opposed to setting the 25 percent to 40 percent reduction target for industrialized nations as terms for negotiation.
If the European states — France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom — send officials to the January meeting after talks in Bali fail, it would be an implicit endorsement of the U.S. track and an acknowledgement that the Kyoto process is ultimately untenable. The European Union hopes that by shunning the meeting, U.S. authority on the issue will be undermined and the rest of the world will come back to Europe for leadership and participate in the U.N./Kyoto process.
But this strategy is risky. The European portion of Bush’s meeting represents only four of a total of 16 nations; that leaves Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Russia, South Africa and the United States as potential participants in U.S.-led negotiations. The remaining countries would represent the majority of global energy consumption and carbon emissions. The last thing the European Union wants is to be excluded from, or have no role in, shaping the only international climate regime in effect after 2012, particularly since it already has heavily invested in restructuring its economy and regulatory systems in anticipation of future global integration into the carbon markets.
If the European Union were to lure other developed nations such as Australia, Japan and Canada from the U.S. talks, then it might succeed in undermining what could be a U.S. appropriation of international negotiations. However, Canada is presently closely aligned with the United States on international climate policy, and although Australia recently signed the Kyoto Protocol, its appetite for emissions reductions at EU levels is minimal. Japan already is taking part in U.S.-Pacific energy partnerships, and sees its energy future in such an alignment.
Should the Bali negotiations prove unacceptable to Europe and its does try to thwart the U.S. talks, it will be banking on a new U.S. administration to come to the rescue and participate in the U.N. negotiation process. This would result in a frenzied negotiation process, since most nations would like to see a final agreement reached on international emissions reduction obligations by the end of 2009. This would leave time to prepare for the implementation of international climate regulations in 2012.
What the European Union is hoping to do is make what emanates from Bali as weak as possible to gain U.S. backing, but make sure it is worded in a way that allows for binding commitments from the United States once a new administration comes in. Again, this is not without risk. Though current climate legislation in the U.S. Senate advocates U.S. participation in the formal U.N. climate negotiation process, what climate legislation the U.S. Congress eventually passes, which likely will be in 2009 at the earliest, might not be designed to conform to the international will but to shape it.
Further, Washington likely will remain on a Pacific-based strategy, which will prioritize the wishes of China, Japan and the United States over Europe.
The Bush administration’s strategy on climate change has been to maintain a position in which coming to no agreement is always a possibility. With Russia aggressively toying with Europe’s energy system and a populace that is deeply concerned about climate change, the union does not have this luxury. Negotiators in Bali understand that the United States can leave the table at any time, while Europe’s negotiators must come to an agreement — even if that agreement is not EU-led and Kyoto-based. Even if the United States and European Union wanted the same things out of a global climate regime, wants and needs place different players in different positions. The European Union needs cuts in carbon emissions much more than does the United States, as its shrinking energy supplies and energy dependence on Russia eventually cut into its bottom line. Since Washington does not particularly need restraints on its carbon-based economy in order to remain competitive in the world, it can sit on a climate agreement for some time.
Washington appears to hold most of the cards, especially if Congress passes a climate law in 2009 or 2010 that relies on domestic emissions cuts. This law will become the U.S. negotiating position for the international agreement, and no president will sign a treaty that forces the United States to go beyond the U.S. climate law — agreeing on a U.S. climate policy will be too painful for the U.S. Senate to take on twice in three years. With this in mind, the EU threat to boycott the U.S. talks is a meaningless one. Of all the players at the table, only the union needs an agreement. Boycotting the only venue where that realistically could happen makes no sense.
The US does hold all the cards SJT – because they are truly united
The US is being driven by state policies forming a de facto federal position.
The actual federal position will change with the government, exactly what happened in Oz.
Why does China’s position regarding emissions reductions attract so little interest? Considering its current emissions are equal to the US, and are likely to surpass it considerably by 2050, this makes no sense.
‘Warmerists’ following an IPCC ‘roadmap’:
http://stark.udg.es/~emili/docent/diversio/escher/Treppenhaus.jpg
David – “Ender, one of life’s little pleasures is taunting Luke and associated eco-freaks. Thanks for posting my post again, it saves me from doing it. Suffer the little children that have only known global cooling, and that’s half of them.”
So you are happy to taunt however you cannot answer any of my legitimate questions then. I guess this is par for the course with you denier-freaks.
Luke, this is only the beginning of the effects of solar quietitude. The effects are lagged by the [large] thermal capacity of the oceans. If David Archibald is right, Northern mid latitude farming is heading for a “train wreck”, in his words.
For refreeze news, try http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/arctic-sea-ice-47121205
Ender, you assert that your questions are genuine enquiries after truth and not just warmerist whining, so here goes. Between each solar cycle maximum there is a solar cycle minimum, and that was the minimum I was talking about. Apparently, at solar cycle minimum, solar activity hits a floor. If you look at the first figure of Svensmark and Friis-Christensen’s reply to the messianic warmer Lockwood, with Frolich, you will see that global temperature tracks the solar cycle in the 50 years of radiosonde data. My deconstruction of that graph suggests that the Earth, at minimum-like conditions, loses 0.2 degrees per annum.
There is a bit of a lag. The atmosphere responds pretty rapidly and the oceans a little longer, as you would expect. Yes the oceans store heat. There is an enormous literature on these subjects. But that is not the main game at the moment. The main game is modelling what an extended minimum of SC23/24 will look like. Right at the moment I am grappling with Be10 data, and I have hit a rich vein in some US temperature data. The latter are quite alarming when applied to the solar cycle 24 prediction. Schatten is going for 75 but his error bar goes down to 50, where some well regarded people are sitting. These predictions have real world consequences, unlike wishful thinking about CO2 tipping points and the like.
Australia will escape the worst of the cold weather to come (that said, the wine area south of Perth is already being affected by the 1.0 degree decline they have had over the last decade). The last Federal Govt wasted hundreds of millions of dollars feeding AGW and this current Govt is setting up to waste billions. AGW hype is killing Australians right now because of misallocation of resources.
David from your E&E paper you’ll have to excuse a lack of belief in your judgement on matters statistical. When you guys start playing professionally, formally engage CSIRO, BoM, etc in your reviews, instead of playing secret societies and lone rangers you might get a hearing. A full ream out review usually hurts – failure to engage is simply personal indulgence.
You can discuss me as some eco-freak – but I’m not – I simply think your objectivity is totally up the spout. And bad science.
I notice you seem to be going down the road to ruin again having enthusiasm for specific data sets which help with your confirmation bias.
Are we going to see more professional behaviour from the anti-AGW crowd in 2008?
And not dog shit comments like this – “AGW hype is killing Australians right now ” – don’t make me spew eh? Name two?
David – “Between each solar cycle maximum there is a solar cycle minimum, and that was the minimum I was talking about”
So are the clouds increasing? Have you got the cloud data and seen a trend of increasing cloud as the world ‘cools’?
“Right at the moment I am grappling with Be10 data”
Why are you not grappling with the cloud data. That after all is the central pillar of the cosmic ray theory. More cloud = more reflected radiation = cooling. So in your computer modelling did the cosmic rays produce more radiation reflection type clouds or more heat trapping clouds?
“The main game is modelling what an extended minimum of SC23/24 will look like.”
LOL, models are now acceptable.
You can clearly see the fingerprint of the last three solar cycles in the low level cloud anomalies from ISCCP:
http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/zD2CLOUDTYPES/B32glbp.anomdevs.jpg
Cycle 22 started in 1986 and cycle 23 in 1996. Cycle 23 has had a second peak in 2004 and has had a rather long and active tail vis-a-vis CMEs and flares – i.e. three large X-class flares having occurred in December 2006, one of these (an X9.0 flare on Dec 5) stands as one of the largest on record.
Given that cloud albedo supposedly represents a decrease in earth surface TSI of some 70-80Wm-2, a 4% reduction in cloud albedo (as say from 1996 – 2006) represents an additional 3Wm-2 warming on the surface – which is about double that of the 1.66 Wm-2 attributed to CO2 since the 1800’s by the IPCC.
It will be interesting to see how this looks in a year or two’s time when we can extend this to mid 2008 and compare with temps.
cheers
Arnost
Arnost if you reckon you can see that in those data you’d be a magician – or very hopeful.
Has the conference really ended, or is that just consensus opinion?
Opinions from Moonbat etc.
Hilary Benn is an idiot. Our diplomats are suckers. American negotiators have pulled the same trick twice, and for the second time our governments have fallen for it. There are still two years to go, but so far the new agreement is even worse than the Kyoto protocol. It contains no targets and no dates. A new set of guidelines also agreed at Bali extend and strengthen the worst of Gore’s trading scams, the clean development mechanism. Benn and the other dupes are cheering and waving their hats as the train leaves the station at last, having failed to notice that it is travelling in the wrong direction.
George Monbiot, The Guardian, 17 December 2007
Carbon dioxide emissions in China are projected to grow between 11.05% and 13.19% per year for the period 2000-2010. What does this mean? I hope you are sitting down because you won’t believe this. The growth in China’s emissions from 2006-2010 is equivalent to adding the 2004 emissions of Japan, Germany, United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia to China’s 2006 total (source). The emissions growth in China at these rates is like adding another Germany every year, or a UK and Australia together, to global emissions. The graph below illustrates the point.
Roger Pielke Jr., Science Policy, 16 December 2007
Germany, a major manufacturer of heavy luxury automobiles, backed away on Friday from a key European Union target for cutting greenhouse gas emissions from cars, part of the bloc’s fight against global warming. A government official told reporters Berlin would not accept the European Commission’s proposals to force carmakers to reduce average carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions across the fleet to 130 grams per kilometre from engine technology by 2012.
Reuters, 17 December 2007
Luke, that is an easy answer. The five people killed in a head on in northern NSW for starters. Divided highways have much lower death rates. As a society, we make a choice between proper roadworks and idiotic indulgences like windmills. The choice has life or death consequences.
ok David, I was rolling with you for a second there. Then you come out and suggest we choose between windfills and proper roadworks. You are deluded my friend.
ps: What are you suggesting the rate of re-freeze presented in that article means?
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/news/pdfs/4769.pdf
You can’t just look at the area coverage, what is the current ice thickness relative to long-term trends?
Arnost – “You can clearly see the fingerprint of the last three solar cycles in the low level cloud anomalies from ISCCP:”
No you can’t. The link you supplied did not work however a moments examination of the site showed to me no correlation with any sunspot cycle of any of the cloud types.
Which cloud type was supposed to have a ‘fingerprint’?
hold the phone!
More warming the come!
http://www.smh.com.au/news/science/death-star-galaxy-blasting-all-life-in-its-path/2007/12/18/1197740217119.html
David – “Divided highways have much lower death rates. As a society, we make a choice between proper roadworks and idiotic indulgences like windmills.”
What a complete load of shit. Are you trying to say that the Pacific Highway, which has been dangerous for as long as I have ever travelled on it (and I have travelled on it a lot), is the way it is because of funding wind turbines???????????
You really need some serious help here.
BTW here is a link to all the cloud data that you are ever likely to need, kindly suppled by Arnost. How about you start working on this. You do not need Be10 stuff as the central premise that your cosmic ray theory rests on should easily be seen in the comprehensive cloud data. You should easily be able to show less solar activity = more cosmic rays = more clouds = cooling.
So are you going to look or are you afraid of what you might find?
How did I know he was going to say that. You shonk. The level of stupidity in this argument is such that every time someone dies in a climate related event now – I’m blaming YOU !
Incidentally can’t seem to find anything out about Summa. Is there a web site?
David – Perhaps you also should look at this and save yourself a lot of trouble:
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~ignatius/CloudMap/Publications/WarrenEtal2007_CloudSurvey.pdf
“Time series of total-cloud-cover anomalies for individual continents show a large decrease for South America, small decreases for Eurasia and Africa, and no trend for North America. The largest interannual variations (2.7%) are found for Australia, which is strongly influenced by ENSO. The zonal average trends of total cloud cover are positive in the Arctic winter and spring, 60°–80°N, but negative in all seasons at most other latitudes. The global average trend of total cloud cover over land is small, 0.7% decade1, offsetting the small positive trend that had been found for the ocean, and resulting in no significant trend for the land–ocean average.”
So according to you while cosmic rays have been decreasing as solar activity has been increasing until recently cloud cover has shown no average change worth talking about. Sort of shoots the theory down a bit.
More damn denialism! For shame!
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007JD008740.shtml
From the abstract:
“We find that the climate sensitivity is reduced by at least a factor of 2 when direct and indirect effects of decreasing aerosols are included, compared to the case where the radiative forcing is ascribed only to increases in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide. We find the empirical climate sensitivity to be between 0.29 and 0.48 K/Wm−2 when aerosol direct and indirect radiative forcing is included.”
I’m looking forward to AR5 already.
Hopefully, Mark Lynas will re-issue his recent work of fiction under a new title “Three Degrees”.
“resulting in no significant trend…..no change worth talking about”
Ender, sounds very much like world temperatures.
And world sea-levels.
And hey did it come from denialist trenches – NO – note one author was from NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
But how can this be – aren’t they evil?
And tell us Proteus what do the conclusions say – not the abstract?
proteus – “More damn denialism! For shame!”
Do you actually know what this means? They have determined that the heat reflecting shield that has been protecting us from a lot of the warming that we would have already seen is slowly decreasing. The lower amount of reflected radiation produces an net forcing comparable to the forcing of greenhouse gases. So now we have an increased forcing from lowering aerosols plus the greenhouse forcing.
Climate sensitivity is defined as a measurement of what would happen if the greenhouse gases doubled. What they are saying it that the contribution to overall global warming from greenhouse gases will be lower as the contribution from lowering aerosols will be larger.
I can’t quite see how you get a denialist thing here.
Sid – “Ender, sounds very much like world temperatures.
And world sea-levels.”
World temperatures increases are pretty much in line with predictions from the science.
The science of cosmic ray theory says that solar activity modulates cosmic rays that affect cloud cover. So far on observations it fails a very basic test. No significant change in cloud cover as been observed in the period 1971 to 1996 when solar activity was increasing. This should have lead to a decrease in cloud cover according to the theory. No such reduction was observed.
Here is the Summary and Conclusion in full:
“We have deduced empirical climate sensitivity using the currently observed rates of change of global surface temperature, carbon dioxide atmospheric concentration and aerosol optical depth. We have allowed for slow feedbacks
by using model-based values for ocean heat uptake. Considering a hypothetical case that all the current radiative forcing is due to increasing carbon dioxide (at the rate of 1.9 ppmv/a) the estimated empirical climate sensitivity is between 0.67 and 10 K/Wm2 (Table 2) depending on the heat flux into the ocean. Considering satellite and ground observations of aerosol optical depth changes, we have used
a decreasing AOD rate of 0.0014/a. When both the carbon dioxide and aerosol forcing (direct and indirect) are included the deduced climate sensitivity is reduced to a value between 0.29 and 0.48 K/Wm2 depending on the ocean heat uptake. Thus neglecting the radiative forcing due to decreasing aerosol optical depth leads to an overestimate of the empirical climate sensitivity by at least a factor of 2. It will be important to include currently decreasing aerosol optical depth in future three-dimensional climate simulations to explore the regionspecific climate effects of AOD trends.”
No, Ender, that is not what they are saying. The paper is an attempt to empirically deduce climate sensitivity. From the introduction:
“In this paper we derive empirical climate sensitivity (in K/Wm2) from the current climate observations. We allow for slow feedbacks [Kim et al., 1992] using model estimates of the ocean heat uptake [Raper et al., 2002]. We use the term empirical climate sensitivity to indicate that the climate sensitivity considered in this paper is based on empirical observations and that is not necessarily equal to equilibrium climate sensitivity deduced from climate models.
[6] Increasing atmospheric CO2 causes a positive radiative forcing, leading to a warmer climate and a higher annual mean surface temperature. A part of the CO2 induced warming since the beginning of industrialization has been compensated by a simultaneous cooling effect of aerosols, particularly sulfate from power plants. A potential overestimation of carbon dioxide warming in climate models can be compensated by a similar overestimate of aerosol cooling, still allowing good agreement with the observed global temperature change. Consequently, during the period of simultaneously increasing CO2 and increasing atmospheric aerosol loading, there are fewer constraints imposed on estimates of climate sensitivity due to CO2 and aerosol compensating effect.[7] However, the situation has become quite different in recent years, when the global average aerosol optical depth, as indicated by satellite and ground-based instruments, has
been decreasing. A decreasing aerosol optical depth is now causing a warming in a similar way as increasing carbon dioxide does. In this case an overestimate of the climate sensitivity would lead to a disagreement with the observed
temperature rise. Additional simplifications are the lack of volcanic aerosols (the last significant volcanic eruption Mount Pinatubo occurred in 1991), stable atmospheric CH4 concentration [IPCC, 2007], and relatively small
changes in solar radiative output [Fro¨hlich and Lean, 2004]. This leaves the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide and the decreasing trend of atmospheric aerosol
loading as major drivers for the recent global warming scenario.”
This was also most interesting, again, from the introduction:
“According to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)[2007], the likely range of global equilibrium temperature increase for doubling of CO2 is between 2.0 and 4.5K, with values below 1.5K considered very unlikely. Since the doubling of CO2 causes direct radiative forcing of about 3.7 W/m2 [IPCC, 2007], the range of 2.0 to 4.5K for doubling of CO2 corresponds to climate sensitivity between 0.54 and 1.22 K/Wm2. However, some experiments with cloud resolving models embedded within GCMs [Miura et al., 2005; Wyant et al., 2006] suggested lower climate sensitivity with values of 0.44 and 0.41 K/Wm2, respectively. Unfortunately, the equilibrium climate sensitivity cannot be obtained directly from observations, since the Earth’s climate system is always in the process of change, never reaching equilibrium.”
Strangely enough, their study more or less matches cloud resolving models embedded within GCMs. From section 6:
“The deduced climate sensitivity is lower than suggestions of most climate models, however, it is in the same range as the climate sensitivity
obtained with cloud resolving models embedded in global climate models [Miura et al., 2005;Wyant et al., 2006], and it is considerably higher than the climate sensitivity derived from the ocean heat capacity and climate time lag response
[Schwartz, 2007].
So, dangerous or catastrophic climate change may actually be receding into the distance. We are possibly looking at about 1-1.5 degrees C increase for a doubling of CO2, of which we’ve already experienced about half, and 2.5 degrees C at worst.
Now, if most climate models over-estimate climate sensitivity by a factor of 2, we can roughly assume they over-estimate the appropriate emissions reductions by a factor of 2 as well. So, 20-40% cuts by 2020 should be 10-20%, and the 60% cuts by 2050 should be 30%. Hmmm, these targets look much more reasonable to me.
Of course Chylek is a big time denialist. Let’s wait for the critical reviews. Funny I thought the blogs view was that you can’t trust the literature.
proteus – “So, dangerous or catastrophic climate change may actually be receding into the distance. We are possibly looking at about 1-1.5 degrees C increase for a doubling of CO2, of which we’ve already experienced about half, and 2.5 degrees C at worst.”
No they are talking about the increase from CO2 as defined by the term climate sensitivity. This does not mean, as far as I understand it, that the overall temperature increase will be this amount simply that the contribution from CO2, they think, will be smaller.
Ender, I think you’re avoiding their substantive conclusion:
“Thus neglecting the radiative forcing due to decreasing aerosol optical depth leads to an overestimate of the empirical climate sensitivity by at least a factor of 2.”
In other words, the radiative forcing due to CO2 and its equivalents may be over-estimated by a factor of 2.
Luke, you earlier suggested the paper was not ‘denialist’ because one of the authors is from GISS, but then later smear the paper, which you haven’t read, by claiming that the lead author, Petr Chylek, from Space and Remote Sensing, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA, is a ‘big time denialist’, but, apparently not ‘big time’ enough to pick up on your first perusal. Jekyl and Hyde performance, methinks.
And what of those other scientists you smear, are they also in league with the devil?
Ulrike Lohmann
Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
Manvendra Dubey
Earth and Environmental Sciences, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA
Michael Mishchenko
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, New York, USA
Ralph Kahn
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, USA
Atsumu Ohmura
Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
proteus – “In other words, the radiative forcing due to CO2 and its equivalents may be over-estimated by a factor of 2.”
So at the moment we think that the total top of the atmosphere forcing is lets say 10 units. At the moment we think that the major forcing in this is greenhouse gas.
This paper is saying, assuming that it is accepted, that instead of the CO2 contribution instead of being 9 say units, it is only 5 units with the other 4 units being contributed by declining aerosols.
Climate sensitivity, by definition, is the amount of warming that would result from CO2 equivilents alone. Therefore climate sensitivity is said to be halved.
However the total amount of forcing remains the same at 10 units it is just that the CO2 portion, again assuming this paper is correct, is said to be half the forcing instead of the majority of forcing.
The term climate sensitivity, as far as I understand it, does not include reducing aerosol forcings.
proteus – “In other words, the radiative forcing due to CO2 and its equivalents may be over-estimated by a factor of 2.”
Also we may have misjudged the overall warming forcing. I assume that the authors took the generally accepted overall total forcing, noted the increased aerosol forcing and then deduced that the CO2 equivalent forcing is smaller leading to a lower climate sensitivity.
What if in fact the CO2 forcing is unchanged and now we have an extra forcing of reducing aerosols leading to more rapid warming????
“I assume that the authors took the generally accepted overall total forcing, noted the increased aerosol forcing and then deduced that the CO2 equivalent forcing is smaller leading to a lower climate sensitivity.”
Ender, yours is really a ham-fisted, though valiant, effort at confusing what the authors of this paper say clearly. Just read the paper, and, in particular, the introduction.
“What if in fact the CO2 forcing is unchanged and now we have an extra forcing of reducing aerosols leading to more rapid warming????”
This is obviously the reason you call yourself Ender.
proteus – From the conclusion that you posted:
“Considering a hypothetical case that all the current radiative forcing is due to increasing carbon dioxide (at the rate of 1.9 ppmv/a) the estimated empirical climate sensitivity is between 0.67 and 10 K/Wm2″”
and
“When both the carbon dioxide and aerosol forcing (direct and indirect) are included the deduced climate sensitivity is reduced to a value between 0.29 and 0.48 K/Wm2 depending on the ocean heat uptake. Thus neglecting the radiative forcing due to decreasing aerosol optical depth leads to an overestimate of the empirical climate sensitivity by at least a factor of 2”
This is exactly what I said. Please correct me if I am wrong here. They have taken a figure that is assumed to include only CO2 forcings and deducted a new figure for forcings relating to reduced aerosols reducing the CO2 part.
You actually have no clear idea of what the paper is saying do you? Neglecting the climate sensitivity part which is a dodgy measurement anyway consider this.
This paper is showing that the aerosols that the authors admit reduced the amount of warming due to reflecting short wave radiation, are reducing because we have cleaned up coal fired power stations to combat acid rain. The amount of CO2 forcing in the real world, outside of equilibrium models, is increasing with increasing CO2. You join the dots here.
Did I smear anyone proteus – bit of a glass jaw reaction. Chylek is a smart guy as well as being anti-AGW. Let’s see how the paper is received and any comments. Obviously highly technical. And gee “I’m sceptical” which surely you must admit would be a good thing. You see this blog has a history of not just claiming “it’s over” with a single paper. Need to get a copy and digest it.
Luke, so you think calling a scientist a ‘big-time denialist’ isn’t a smear? How interesting. And, yes, I’m looking forward to its reception as well, that was why I initially made a reference to AR5.
Ender, are you serious?
Pretty touchy proteus. You mean he isn’t?
Luke reckons if the “temperature goes up”.
In the climate models or the measured temperature, of a global type, of the earth’s atmosphere.
Better get a little more specific, Luke, or don’t you know and compensate by
Funny how Luke and Ender can have a discussion about aerosols and climate sensitivity whilst avoiding the implications of the El Chichon and Pinatubo eruptions (of aerosols) and their masking of the fact that there has been zero sensitivity to CO2 increases for the past 25 years.
So what, exactly, are the climate muddlers using as their proxy for determining CO2 sensitivity?
As they say in the sinking Carteret Islands, must be bullshithimbillongwanka.
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=t&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4SUNA_en___AU207&q=climate+sensitivity
get reading Mottsa
Is that your idea of a specific response, Anthony?
We both know that the official temp record is a seriously distorted proxy for the past 25 years. And if the climate muddles have been tested against the NASA/GISS or UKMET series then they will have an overstated sensitivity to CO2 due to the distortions from volcanic aerosols.
Minimal temperature change for 25 years can only mean substantially reduced CO2 sensitivity.