open Democracy News Analysis - Climate change: all together now, Tom Burke - Comments

pendragon.jay on "The world and climate change: all together now"

pendragon.jay — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:30:11 +0000

Civilisation – The Reckoning For millennia wise men (and women), have told us that what we think creates how we live, and few would disagree. In this 21st century we still understand little about who and what we are as a species, as our technological achievements continue to outstrip our understanding of each other . . . and this is at the heart of our inability to make progress in dealing with climate change. It is our traditional beliefs that cause our ceaseless conflict with each other and have created the desperate global situation we now find ourselves in. Consequently it must follow that these beliefs are totally incapable of providing the solutions to the problems they have created. We believe it is our right to take from this planet whatever, whenever and however we choose, without any thought or responsibility for managing what we are doing – and still continues today in spite of accelerating climate change. We are seeing increasing droughts and drying up of riverbeds, as well as flooding from whatever causes and rising temperatures. All of these changes in environmental balance directly affect our water supplies and seriously hinder food production, leading to our increasing inability to feed ourselves. We are now further increasing this dangerous situation as we begin to our use our food stocks for ethanol production to propel our transport. If we now place in this equation our belief in financial management and the law of supply and demand to regulate what we use, then a growing shortage of food means ever increasing prices. This in turn will see an increasing number of people unable to feed themselves as basic life sustaining nourishment is taken beyond their financial capabilities. We are already beginning to see the price of basic foodstuffs rise to feed the growing demand for ethanol. Rising grain prices directly affect the prices of our other food sources such as meat and eggs, where up to a 20% increase in prices has occurred over just the last 12 months in China alone – and theirs is quite a large population! As this problem escalates our traditional political institutions will need to be seen to be doing something, and so we lapse into blame as one nation accuses another of hoarding. The application of “labels” begins as hatred is stirred up between supposedly differing groups, be they racial, religious or any other ethnic grouping. And so we deteriorate into conflict, further expanding the threat to our existence as a civilisation through the powerful weapons we have now developed, and our inability to manage them effectively because of the ancient beliefs we still hold about each other and our surroundings. The most powerful nation may come out on top by annihilating everyone else - but as global war escalates, who can say with any degree of certainty that they too will not blow themselves off the face of this beautiful planet, given the nature of modern terrorist warfare and the inability to determine who is the ”enemy”? I honestly do not believe I am exaggerating anything within this scenario, but simply applying the effects of our traditional and limiting beliefs to the growing problem we are creating, and which they can only fuel rather than resolve. By challenging what we believe, and in so doing changing our relationship with each other and our surroundings, I believe it is possible to create the opportunity for a huge evolutionary leap forward as a species. We are at a unique moment in time in our history and embedded within this era are the ingredients for either our destruction or survival – the choice is ours. If we do not bother to commit to fundamental changes in what we believe in, and the time comes when we seek to protect our young from rising temperatures - holding them close to us as we huddle precariously on the roofs of our houses, and with rescuers unable to get to us because of the approach of more tidal waves which will sweep over us, it’s no good saying “We’re very very sorry, we won’t do it again!” – Its not right or wrong - it just didn’t work.

steven_12 on "The world and climate change: all together now"

steven_12 — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 19:12:15 +0000

Another important point about computer models:

The critical point in testing them is to validate the way their output is calculated and not what the actual output is.

As such population growth or any other variable is of no importance. Computer models should be able to work out the state of the climate taking as an input as many parameters as are required to do so.

One litmus test could then be which and how many parameters are taken as input. Many other ways of looking at the design of computer models could turn out to be critical tests, even before the actual testing has started.

spamlet on "The world and climate change: all together now"

spamlet — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 21:12:30 +0000

But I expect you have more rewarding things to do. S

steven_12 on "The world and climate change: all together now"

steven_12 — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 14:26:17 +0000

Steven Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that "these infamous computer models are never tested in a verifiable way"? In which way do you feel they might be tested but are not tested? I have seen a model running, showing a mismatch between observed and expected, until they added the sulphate aerosol data, when the match improved. The match will never be 100% because perfection is not attainable, but we have a reasonable approach to a match. Computer models are just hypotheses, rendered into software. If there were a computer model that supported your theory, would you dismiss that also? I suspect not. If you rule computer models that show an AGW effect out of court, given that they are the only way of analysing such a complex system, you are saying in effect that global atmospheric changes must not be analysed scientifically, except in the case that they support your views. What would it take to change your mind on this matter? How much evidence do you require? Richard

If this software is tested in a verifiable way then anybody can have a go with it. I've personally been involved in a project where a user interface under development was demonstrated on a projector to management types. The demonstrator talked his audience through the demo while in the meanwhile demonstrating the functionality of the application.

What the management types were shown however was not the application but a series of powerpoint slides. There was no application to demonstrate because it wasn't ready, there was only a need to demonstrate one.

Software is not tested by someone doing a demo on a screen and other people walking away with conclusions. It's more complicated.

richard on "The world and climate change: all together now"

richard — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 14:18:52 +0000

Modern climate models have become increasingly accurate in reproducing how the real climate 'works'. They are based on our understanding of basic scientific principles, observations of the climate and our understanding of how it functions. By creating computer simulations of how different components of the climate system - clouds, the Sun, oceans, the living world, pollutants in the atmosphere and so on - behave and interact, scientists have been able to reproduce the overall course of the climate in the last century. Using this understanding of the climate system, scientists are then able to project what is likely to happen in the future, based on various assumptions about human activities. It is important to note that computer models cannot exactly predict the future, since there are so many unknowns concerning what might happen. Scientists model a range of future possible climates using different scenarios of what the world will 'look like'. Each scenario makes different assumptions about important factors such as how the world's population may increase, what policies might be introduced to deal with climate change and how much carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases humans will pump into the atmosphere. The resulting projection of the future climate for each scenario, gives various possibilities for the temperature but within a defined range. While climate models are now able to reproduce past and present changes in the global climate rather well, they are not, as yet, sufficiently well-developed to project accurately all the detail of the impacts we might see at regional or local levels. They do, however, give us a reliable guide to the direction of future climate change. The reliability also continues to be improved through the use of new techniques and technologies

richard on "The world and climate change: all together now"

richard — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 13:59:24 +0000

steven_12 on "The world and climate change: all together now"

steven_12 — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 11:51:53 +0000

The article above relates to the northern lights, and does not add any new stuff. It is well known that solar input varies, and that this has an influence on global temperatures, but not enough to account for the changes which we are now witnessing. Conservatives, contrarians, and AGW sceptics operate by finding single reports that seem to back their belief that an enormous AGW Conspiracy is taking place. But AGW is not dependent on single papers or factors. The Earth's climate is a system, and systems can best be reflected in computer models, which bring all the factors into consideration. Our understanding will change with time, but we understand enough now to know that America Canada and Japan, by blocking any effective outcome at Bali, are acting against their own interests and the interests of all mankind.

Computer models have to be tested. They're also impact by various constraints related to computing. Since these infamous computer models are never tested in a verifiable way it's troublesome to take them serious.

richard on "The world and climate change: all together now"

richard — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:18:02 +0000

steven_12 on "The world and climate change: all together now"

steven_12 — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:22:47 +0000

I want to point you lot to this article.

It seems scientists are learning something new every day about how our planet and atmosphere are affected by the sun.

The global temperature is rising, it's a fact. This will have consequences, that's a fact. Trouble is, there are far more plausible - natural - causes that can explain the rising temperature than made-made CO2.

Regarding shutting down democratic debate, I think there's no reason for concern. Even the latest attempt - to let a group of government-sponsored scientists decide in a by invitation only committee on the causes of global warming - is not having any real adverse effects on democratic debates.

ianniscarras on "The world and climate change: all together now"

ianniscarras — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:14:00 +0000

Dear Spamlet, There is no edict against trolls engaging in democratic debate. Up in those northern fiords a bit more sunshine might even seem desirable at this time of the year. Disagreeable trolls may be, but these ones do it ever so politely. Yours, I.C. (down among the lotus-eaters, where it continues to get hotter).

spamlet on "The world and climate change: all together now"

spamlet — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:56:53 +0000

Shame that the point of so many of these columns has been defeated by the likes of the first two trolls above. What they get out of trying to muddy the waters and trying to speed the world towards a chaos for so many species and for humanity in particular, is a mystery to me. Perhaps they share a bed with those dedicating their lives to sending spam that nobody wants? Anyhow, from the few replies to this piece, it is clear that there are few wanting to continue in pointless attempts at reasoning: so congratulations nutters, you are shutting down democratic debate, and no doubt in your own eyes, 'winning'. When we in the UK go into the next big freeze after 'global warming' shuts down the North Atlantic Drift, I am sure you will enjoy the choice between starving or freezing to death with the rest of us. And, as even Burke still steadfastly fails to contemplate even a mention of population growth, the catastrophic nature of the crash, when it comes, is absolutely certain. Enjoy. S

richard on "The world and climate change: all together now"

richard — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:11:34 +0000

We can all relax, and the scientists, government officials, presidents and prime ministers at Bali should be notified that they can relax also, because both Stevens here are agreed that there is no problem.

steven_12 on "The world and climate change: all together now"

steven_12 — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 19:18:34 +0000

Thank you for this extensive clarification :-) Climate realist, I like it. For the record, I don't believe increased CO2 volumes have no affect for that would not be possible. I do believe these affects are unimportant and don't account for other recent periods of rising temperature.

steveapub on "The world and climate change: all together now"

steveapub — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 02:50:36 +0000

steven_12, Like you, I am a climate realist. However, I'd like to make two comments about your posting: 1) CO2 is known to be a "greenhouse" gas. Therefore, it must have some effect on temperature. The problem is that the workings of the atmosphere are, as one person put it, "a complex, non-linear, highly-coupled system". That makes attempting to specify CO2's role very difficult. With the empirical data in hand today, CO2's effect is believed to be very small (unless you are a modeler then you can make the world behave any way you please). 2) Even if CO2 plays a negligible role in global temperature, climate change is a very real issue with potentially devastating implications. People who wish to decrease atmospheric CO2 concentration believing it will resolve the issues associated with climate change will be very disappointed when either: a) temperatures decrease as CO2 continues to increase (which we may already be seeing) or b) when CO2 does decrease but the climate continues to be unpredictable. Either way, alarmists are wasting valuable time and money chasing a phantom solution.

steven_12 on "The world and climate change: all together now"

steven_12 — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 14:59:42 +0000

The problem is there is no problem. The correlation between carbon-dioxide concentration and temperature have been disproved. Humans have no impact on the global temperature.

Climate change: all together now, Tom Burke

Fri, 07 Dec 2007 12:51:03 +0000

The "global" problem of climate change is endlessly discussed, but rarely looked at in a cold light. The crux of the matter is that all of us, everywhere, share this same monumental problem. To prosper we need energy security; but if we persist in using fossil-fuels with current technologies, our prosperity will founder. The roadmap drawn up at the Bali climate-change convention on 3-14 December 2007 will show what we need to do to establish the post-Kyoto regime. But to get through the ferocious complexity of the process, we will need a change of mindset. Moving away from a focus on who is to blame and who should act first, we must gain a new political maturity.

Four key messages

▪ The political torpor round climate change has left us with policies too weak to stem emissions

▪ This could change with the negotiations in Bali, which it is hoped will culminate in a global deal in Copenhagen in 2009

▪ The negotiations, expected to be hugely complex, will focus on a daunting array of core issues, and highlight divisions between supporters and opponents of the Kyoto protocol

▪ The process will work only if it moves beyond claims to the "moral high ground" towards working out ways of moving together towards a low-carbon economy.

A failure of will

Also on openDemocracy, in partnership with E3G: a new blog - Global Deal - tracks the policy debates and arguments at the Bali climate-change conference on 3-14 December 2007.

Read and respond to David Steven's vivid daily reports and commentary here

openDemocracy's Bali-related analyses include:

Paul Rogers, "Climate change: a window to act" (22 November 2007)

Camilla Toulmin, "Bali: no time to lose" (30 November 2007)

Alejandro Litovsky, "The accountability challenge for climate diplomacy" (30 November 2007)

The departing United Nations secretary-general Kofi Annan warned in November 2006 of the growing gap between what scientists say is necessary to avoid dangerous climate change and what politicians are willing to do. Since then, concern among climate scientists has grown along with our knowledge of the impacts of a rapidly changing climate.

Furthermore, the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is growing at a faster pace. In November 2007, the International Energy Agency published new projections in its World Energy Outlook. These now forecast a 57% increase in CO2 emissions by 2030, with coal use due to grow by 73% in a "business as usual" scenario.

But the torpor that afflicts the political response to what former United States national-security advisor Sandy Berger calls "the existential problem of climate change" continues. The world's climate policies, at their current level of ambition, are simply too weak to stem the onrushing tide of emissions.

The window of opportunity to keep the eventual temperature rise below 2 degrees Centigrade - increasingly recognised as the threshold of dangerous climate change - is closing rapidly. It is no exaggeration to say that the fate of the earth and its 6.5 billion citizens largely depends on the success of the United Nations climate-negotiating process being launched in Bali.

The Bali conference is the ultimate in "talks about talks". Its purpose is not to agree what more should be done to tackle climate change. The political conditions simply do not yet exist for such an agreement. Instead, it will try to agree to launch a negotiating process aimed at reaching such an agreement at the conference of the parties in Copenhagen (COP15) in November-December 2009.

The date for reaching this agreement is important because the first commitment period of the Kyoto protocol ends in 2012. Contrary to much press and political comment - some misinformed, some malign - the protocol does not "expire". International treaties do not simply disappear.

Without agreement on a second commitment period, or an agreement that replaces the protocol and all its mechanisms completely, the world's burgeoning carbon markets would collapse. Agreement is needed by 2009 because of the time it will take for it to be ratified by enough governments to come into force before 2012.

The hoped-for outcome from these talks is a Bali roadmap charting the way forward to a "global deal" in two years' time. Quite what this "global deal" will consist of - and who it will include - remains to be seen. The core elements are now on the table:

▪ further steep cuts in carbon emissions by industrialised countries

▪ more money - much more money - for adaptation and technology-transfer

▪ some kind of quantifiable commitments from developing countries

▪ measures to reduce deforestation.

But it is not at all clear how these elements will fit together.

Tighten up or all change?

No one should underestimate the bewildering difficulty of these negotiations. Some want to push forward with the current protocol, tightening the targets for the Annex 1 (industrialised) nations and trying to persuade the developing countries, especially the largest emitters like China and India, to take on binding targets of some kind.

Others want to start again with a replacement of the protocol by a completely new instrument that might or might not include the Kyoto mechanisms. The current United States administration would prefer that we went back to 1992, when the United Nations framework convention on climate change (UNFCCC) was established, and simply agreed to do our best voluntarily.

The political effort required for these negotiations to really succeed is on a par with that the west required to win the cold war. That victory involved creating Nato to counter the military threat and the OECD and address the economic and intellectual challenge. It also involved the willingness of western states to spend untold billions on weapons they hoped never to use.

Tom Burke is founding director of E3G

Among Tom Burke's articles on openDemocracy:

"Three pinches of salt - on Bjorn Lomborg" (5 September 2001)

"Climate change and global security" (16 May 2005) - with John Ashton

"Climate change: time to get real" (25 September 2006)

"Climate change: choosing the tools" (21 December 2006)

A version of this article is also being published by the International Institute of Environment and Development (IIED)The world is some way from making a comparable effort yet on climate change even though the inexorable threat to the prosperity and security of everyone on earth is far more certain. We are currently stuck in an increasingly futile conversation about who caused the problem, who should act first to solve it and how the pain should be shared.

There is no question about where the main responsibility lies. This is a problem primarily caused by the activities of the rich, western industrialised nations. The cumulative nature of the carbon loading on the atmosphere makes the issue of whose current emissions is largest immaterial. To point fingers at the rising level of Chinese or Indian emissions is nothing more than a pathetic and provocative piece of evasion.

But there is equally something pointless about occupying a moral high ground on which very large numbers of your citizens are simultaneously suffering violent storms, floods, fires, droughts and rising tides of salt water and migrants. If we are to arrive at a 'global deal' on climate change we need a much more mature political discussion than is currently occurring.

That conversation must start from the recognition that every country in the world faces the same shared dilemma. All must achieve energy security if they are to prosper. This means using more fossil-fuels. But if they are used with present technologies the climate will change rapidly. If that happens, the very prosperity that required the energy security will itself be undermined.

The "global deal" to be negotiated at Bali and beyond would be better focused on how nations can work together to make a rapid transition to a low-carbon economy than on who should carry the biggest burden for reducing emissions. As the old English phrase has it, if we do not hang together we will certainly hang separately.

A version of this article is also being published by the International Institute of Environment and Development (IIED )

Average rating

(3 votes)