"It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity. ..."
That quote comes from the log of a computer modeler known as HARRY_READ_ME, which documents a struggle to make sense of a database of historical temperatures. The log, along with emails from prominent climate researchers, is at the center of the "ClimateGate" controversy.
Depending upon your point of view, hacked computers at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit reveal either a pattern of deceit, cover-up, and double-dealing or a bunch of grumpy, insular scientists frustrated by distractions to their multimillion dollar research, such as answering climate skeptics or exposing their data to public scrutiny.
Whichever side you're on, you've got to admit this stuff is brilliant.
And while climate skeptics have seized on these emails as the work of "a priesthood protecting the temple from barbarians," as John Tierney put it in the New York Times, others have tried to dismiss it as irrelevant to the UN's advice on global warming.
Bret Stephens, writing in the Wall Street Journal, suggests we "follow the money," positing that an entire industry has grown up around proving the validity of the global warming data and its attendant economic ecosystem.
"Why did the money pour in so quickly?" Stephens asks. "Because the climate alarm kept ringing so loudly: The louder the alarm, the greater the sums. And who better to ring it than people like Mr. Jones, one of its likeliest beneficiaries?"
The "Mr. Jones" to whom Mr. Stephens refers is Phil Jones, a climate researcher whose emails initiated the controversy. In one email he refers to a "trick" he applied to raw data to "hide the decline" in global temperatures. He and others may even have lobbied for the firing of a journal editor who published papers questioning scientific consensus on global warming.
These are the kinds of mean-spirited, dirty tricks that were once associated with the Bush Administration. Remember the hew and cry over former Chief of Staff of the White House Council on Environmental Quality Phillip Cooney's tampering with scientific reports to minimize the anthropogenic connection to climate change?
It just shows that no one is averse to cajoling, tricking or brow-beating to get their point across and win the mindshare game. Does it damage their credibility? It sure does. I thought scientists were supposed to be above politics and positioning, and held themselves to a higher standard.
Don't get me wrong. I do believe climate change is happening. I've seen the results in my back yard and places as far away as India and Indonesia. I'm just not sure that the predictions of doom-and-gloom and disaster deserve to be considered without challenging the assumptions that go into making them.
After all, aren't computer models only as good as the data that goes into them?
These emails call into question the validity of assertions that the global warming hypothesis has been proved. Is it not, despite the concordance of a wide array of climate scientists, still only a hypothesis?
The question remains why did the scientists feel compelled to manipulate raw data in order to prove what they wanted to prove rather than defend their assertion that short-term fluctuations have little relevance in the face of long-term trends?
One solution to all of this has been suggested by Judith Curry, a specialist in climate-hurricane interactions at Georgia Tech, writing on Stephen McIntyre's Climate Audit site.
Dr. Curry identifies "two broader issues raised by these emails that are impeding the public credibility of climate research: lack of transparency in climate data, and 'tribalism' in some segments of the climate research community that is impeding peer review and the assessment process."
Hers is a cogent and sober set of recommendations and I applaud her openness and willingness to engage both sides in that forum. She ends her post by calling for the "climate research enterprise" to adapt to the "need for public credibility and transparency" in the wake of the increasing "policy relevance of climate research."
Let's hope this is the beginning of a new chapter where reasonable dialogue and common sense -- and scientific method -- prevail.
Showing posts with label UN IPCC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UN IPCC. Show all posts
01 December 2009
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]">01 December 2008
Present in His Absence: Obama Poses at Poznan, Not
My friends over at Red, Green and Blue report that President-elect Obama is a big presence at the Climate talks this week in Poznan, Poland, even if he's not actually there:
It's the fourteenth session of the Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP14), and the fourth meeting of its kind this year.
"The pending change in American leadership is palpable in Poznan," writes Timothy B. Hurst of RGB. The "global climate conferees see the potential of president-elect Barack Obama ushering in a new era of U.S. leadership on the environment."
Obama didn't send an official delegation; after all, the US still has only one president, according to some. But Massachusetts Senator John Kerry did go to observe the 12-day conference.
President-elect Obama's plan is getting props at the sessions, according to Hurst and other reports.
"It's ambitious," Yvo de Boer, the UN’s top climate official said of Obama's target of slicing CO2 emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, with a further 80 percent by 2050.
He'll have 11 months to work his magic on the global stage and hammer out an agreement that includes the US. The deadline for a new agreement to replace Kyoto is December 2009.
Perhaps Obama could even show up for one of these COP meetings.
Now THAT would send a strong message that change has come to the climate change stage.
Further coverage @: redgreenandblue.org
and http://tinyurl.com/6ng8oq
It's the fourteenth session of the Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP14), and the fourth meeting of its kind this year.
"The pending change in American leadership is palpable in Poznan," writes Timothy B. Hurst of RGB. The "global climate conferees see the potential of president-elect Barack Obama ushering in a new era of U.S. leadership on the environment."
Obama didn't send an official delegation; after all, the US still has only one president, according to some. But Massachusetts Senator John Kerry did go to observe the 12-day conference.
President-elect Obama's plan is getting props at the sessions, according to Hurst and other reports.
"It's ambitious," Yvo de Boer, the UN’s top climate official said of Obama's target of slicing CO2 emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, with a further 80 percent by 2050.
He'll have 11 months to work his magic on the global stage and hammer out an agreement that includes the US. The deadline for a new agreement to replace Kyoto is December 2009.
Perhaps Obama could even show up for one of these COP meetings.
Now THAT would send a strong message that change has come to the climate change stage.
Further coverage @: redgreenandblue.org
and http://tinyurl.com/6ng8oq
17 December 2007
Global Climate Change: At Bali, Everyone Blinked; Bumpy Road Ahead
Compromise is necessary in any negotiation, but in Bali, where delegates from 187 countries met to begin framing a new global warming treaty, the US and EU were holding a staring contest. In the end, everyone blinked.
Meanwhile, in Washington, the Senate settled for a compromise energy bill instead of one that sets out a clear path to a cleaner energy future.
The Bali delegates agreed to negotiate by 2009 a new and more comprehensive global treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.
The countries pledged to address deforestation, which accounts for one-fifth of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions. There was also a vague offering from China, likely to assume the lead as a producer of greenhouse gas emissions, that they will pursue "measurable, reportable and verifiable" emissions reductions.
The US delegate pledged only to participate in the forthcoming negotiations, but they rejected setting provisional targets for greenhouse gas cuts, and they flat-out refused to commit to reducing their own emissions.
"The Bali road map sets out a process but it doesn't tell us where we'll wind up," head of The Nature Conservancy delegation Andrew Deutz told Asia Times. "The science should have given us a clear picture of where we need to go. But the agreement doesn't paint a picture of the destination."
Indeed, it seems a bumpy road from Bali to Copenhagen, where the final deal will be sealed in 2009.
Despite the drama of extending the meeting by a day, the hard-line stand of the US -- its refusal to accept a target of 25-to-40 percent cuts in GHG emissions by 2020 -- was the headline grabber. It points to a bumpy road ahead, as the US continues to assert its muscle and insists on doing things its way.
White House Council on Environmental Quality chairman James Connaughton is quoted in Asia Times, saying, "The US will lead, and we will continue to lead, but leadership also requires others to fall in line and follow."
Fasten your seat belts; it's going to be a bumpy two-year ride.
Update: download the Bali Action Plan here.
Meanwhile, in Washington, the Senate settled for a compromise energy bill instead of one that sets out a clear path to a cleaner energy future.
The Bali delegates agreed to negotiate by 2009 a new and more comprehensive global treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.
The countries pledged to address deforestation, which accounts for one-fifth of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions. There was also a vague offering from China, likely to assume the lead as a producer of greenhouse gas emissions, that they will pursue "measurable, reportable and verifiable" emissions reductions.
The US delegate pledged only to participate in the forthcoming negotiations, but they rejected setting provisional targets for greenhouse gas cuts, and they flat-out refused to commit to reducing their own emissions.
"The Bali road map sets out a process but it doesn't tell us where we'll wind up," head of The Nature Conservancy delegation Andrew Deutz told Asia Times. "The science should have given us a clear picture of where we need to go. But the agreement doesn't paint a picture of the destination."
Indeed, it seems a bumpy road from Bali to Copenhagen, where the final deal will be sealed in 2009.
Despite the drama of extending the meeting by a day, the hard-line stand of the US -- its refusal to accept a target of 25-to-40 percent cuts in GHG emissions by 2020 -- was the headline grabber. It points to a bumpy road ahead, as the US continues to assert its muscle and insists on doing things its way.
White House Council on Environmental Quality chairman James Connaughton is quoted in Asia Times, saying, "The US will lead, and we will continue to lead, but leadership also requires others to fall in line and follow."
Fasten your seat belts; it's going to be a bumpy two-year ride.
Update: download the Bali Action Plan here.
14 December 2007
Global Climate Change: Bali Yields REDD, a Deal on Forest Conservation
Reuters reports that the Bali talks have achieved at least one positive outcome, and it has greens seeing REDD:
Reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD) is an indicator of the sense of urgency felt by developing nations in the face of global warming.
"The breakthrough might eventually allow poor but forested nations to turn conservation into a tradeable commodity, with the potential to earn billions of dollars selling carbon credits," according to the Reuters article.
"But," Reuters reports, "one of the scheme's key architects warned that, if successful, it will create such large emissions reductions that carbon markets could collapse unless rich nations take on more stringent reductions targets."
Forest destruction produces about 20 percent of human generated carbon dioxide emissions, and groups such as The Nature Conservancy have long argued that forest conservation, also known as "avoided deforestation," is central to reducing emissions globally.
"Deforestation had been left out of previous climate deals," such as Kyoto, "because of concerns about how to work out which trees were threatened, and that any scheme would reward countries destroying forests rather than those protecting their resources."
"'Forests have been the elephants in the corner of the climate change process,' said Andrew Mitchell, executive director of Global Canopy Programme, adding that markets were the only way to find the billions of dollars a year needed to protect forests.
"'We cannot expect philanthropy or governments to come up with this amount of money sustainably,' he said."
read the full story: Reuters
(Full disclosure: While with The Nature Conservancy, I was part of its Climate Change Strategy Team, which developed the strategy linked to above. I am no longer employed by the Conservancy.)
Reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD) is an indicator of the sense of urgency felt by developing nations in the face of global warming.
"The breakthrough might eventually allow poor but forested nations to turn conservation into a tradeable commodity, with the potential to earn billions of dollars selling carbon credits," according to the Reuters article.
"But," Reuters reports, "one of the scheme's key architects warned that, if successful, it will create such large emissions reductions that carbon markets could collapse unless rich nations take on more stringent reductions targets."
Forest destruction produces about 20 percent of human generated carbon dioxide emissions, and groups such as The Nature Conservancy have long argued that forest conservation, also known as "avoided deforestation," is central to reducing emissions globally.
"Deforestation had been left out of previous climate deals," such as Kyoto, "because of concerns about how to work out which trees were threatened, and that any scheme would reward countries destroying forests rather than those protecting their resources."
"'Forests have been the elephants in the corner of the climate change process,' said Andrew Mitchell, executive director of Global Canopy Programme, adding that markets were the only way to find the billions of dollars a year needed to protect forests.
"'We cannot expect philanthropy or governments to come up with this amount of money sustainably,' he said."
read the full story: Reuters
(Full disclosure: While with The Nature Conservancy, I was part of its Climate Change Strategy Team, which developed the strategy linked to above. I am no longer employed by the Conservancy.)
13 December 2007
Global Climate Change: Showdown in Bali, EU and US Deadlock Threatens Talks
According to reports from Bali (wish I was there; for the diving, not the talks...)the European Union (EU) is now in a "showdown" with the US over climate change policy, saying the US needs to "wake-up."
Deadlocked (as usual). In what are the final hours of the Bali talks, EU officials called President Bush's Hawaii summit to be held next month "meaningless" without binding targets and an "ambitious roadmap" coming out of Bali.
According to reports, the US opposes the directive that industrialised countries reduce emissions by between 25% and 40% by 2020. But Stavros Dimas, EU commissioner for the environment, called the 25-40% cuts for rich countries "indispensable."
The deadlock threatens failure for the Bali talks and a huge waste of time for officials and reps from more than 180 countries. Surprise, surprise. Anyone who thought things would be different in Bali was kidding herself.
"What is a roadmap without a destination?" Dimas said in a statement. "Now is the time for other industrial nations to wake up and show leadership, not only in words but in deeds."
More hot air and carbon emissions generated to fuel the acceleration of climate change. When will we learn that there has to be a better way?
I hope at least the diving was good for the delegates!
Deadlocked (as usual). In what are the final hours of the Bali talks, EU officials called President Bush's Hawaii summit to be held next month "meaningless" without binding targets and an "ambitious roadmap" coming out of Bali.
According to reports, the US opposes the directive that industrialised countries reduce emissions by between 25% and 40% by 2020. But Stavros Dimas, EU commissioner for the environment, called the 25-40% cuts for rich countries "indispensable."
The deadlock threatens failure for the Bali talks and a huge waste of time for officials and reps from more than 180 countries. Surprise, surprise. Anyone who thought things would be different in Bali was kidding herself.
"What is a roadmap without a destination?" Dimas said in a statement. "Now is the time for other industrial nations to wake up and show leadership, not only in words but in deeds."
More hot air and carbon emissions generated to fuel the acceleration of climate change. When will we learn that there has to be a better way?
I hope at least the diving was good for the delegates!
03 December 2007
Global Climate Change: Expecting a Miracle in Bali? Don't Hold Your Breath
The Bali Climate talks begin today. The goal is to develop an agreement that can replace Kyoto.
Perhaps it's the skeptic in me, but I don't hold out much hope for this week's sessions. Especially with continued posturing by the US and China.
Maybe they'll prove me wrong. I doubt it.
I continue to feel we need stronger economic incentives before we will seriously address climate change.
Perhaps this will come out in Bali, but I'm not holding my breath.
Perhaps it's the skeptic in me, but I don't hold out much hope for this week's sessions. Especially with continued posturing by the US and China.
Maybe they'll prove me wrong. I doubt it.
I continue to feel we need stronger economic incentives before we will seriously address climate change.
Perhaps this will come out in Bali, but I'm not holding my breath.
02 December 2007
Global Climate Change: Glen Barry's pre-Bali Essay Calls for Equitable Emissions Cuts
Before the Bali Climate Talks begin next week, everyone should read the latest Earth Meanders essay by Dr. Glen Barry, called "Poverty Sucks, the Earth and the Soul."
Barry writes that "To avoid run-away abrupt climate change, all nations must embrace equitable, ambitious and urgent emission cuts in Bali.
"The rich are richer and the poor, poorer -- even as the Earth they share shrivels and dies. Billions live a life of misery on a dollar or two a day, as a sizeable minority enjoys creature comforts fit for kings of old, and a relative few with more wealth then entire nations live in unimagined splendor...
"Humanity is well along the path of cutting and burning ourselves to oblivion. The combined filth from centuries of burning fossil fuels and clearing native vegetation -- primitive practices that continue to this day -- is causing the climate and global ecology to not only change, but collapse...There is perhaps Bali and a few years to get policy right to reduce emissions and avoid total global ecological decline through cooperative international policy-making..."
Read the full essay
Source: Climate Ark
Barry writes that "To avoid run-away abrupt climate change, all nations must embrace equitable, ambitious and urgent emission cuts in Bali.
"The rich are richer and the poor, poorer -- even as the Earth they share shrivels and dies. Billions live a life of misery on a dollar or two a day, as a sizeable minority enjoys creature comforts fit for kings of old, and a relative few with more wealth then entire nations live in unimagined splendor...
"Humanity is well along the path of cutting and burning ourselves to oblivion. The combined filth from centuries of burning fossil fuels and clearing native vegetation -- primitive practices that continue to this day -- is causing the climate and global ecology to not only change, but collapse...There is perhaps Bali and a few years to get policy right to reduce emissions and avoid total global ecological decline through cooperative international policy-making..."
Read the full essay
Source: Climate Ark
18 November 2007
Global Climate Change: UN Summary Report, Dire Warnings
Associated Press reported this morning that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) successfully completed its summary report yesterday.
That's the good new. The bad news is the panel concluded that we are in deep doo-doo.
"The Earth is hurtling toward a warmer age at a quickening pace," according to the Nobel-winning UN scientific panel, and heading toward a future of "inevitable human suffering and the threat of species extinction."
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon said climate change imperils "the most precious treasures of our planet."
I'll be posting reactions to the Summary for Policymakers, which I've previously read in draft form, over the next day or so. Meanwhile, you can access the Summary here: IPCC Summary for Policymakers
That's the good new. The bad news is the panel concluded that we are in deep doo-doo.
"The Earth is hurtling toward a warmer age at a quickening pace," according to the Nobel-winning UN scientific panel, and heading toward a future of "inevitable human suffering and the threat of species extinction."
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon said climate change imperils "the most precious treasures of our planet."
The potential impact of global warming is "so severe and so sweeping that only urgent global action will do," Ban told the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change after it issued its fourth and final report this year.
The IPCC, following six days of sometimes tense negotiations, adopted a concise briefing paper on the science of climate change and the effects of human-produced greenhouse gases. It lays out various scenarios of future impacts, depending on how quickly and decisively action is taken.
The Summary for Policymakers, and a longer version called the synthesis report, distill thousands of pages of data and computer models resulting from six years of research compiled by the IPCC.
It will be a how-to guide for policy makers meeting next month in Bali, Indonesia, who will begin discussing a successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol.
I'll be posting reactions to the Summary for Policymakers, which I've previously read in draft form, over the next day or so. Meanwhile, you can access the Summary here: IPCC Summary for Policymakers
12 October 2007
Global Climate Change: Can Gore-UN Panel Nobel Prize Tip New Green Economy?
Arguably, no one has done more over the past few years to elevate the issue of global climate change than Al Gore. Except perhaps the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Now Mr. Gore and the UN panel are sharing the Nobel Peace Prize. Does this mean climate change, the issue, has reached the big time?
A larger question on my mind is: Will this recognition help us get our act together to do something about it?
Let's hope that someday the winner of the Nobel in Economics is the person who figures out how to address climate change action by transforming the global economy into something sustainable, profitable, and green.
A new green economy.
We need to make this moment the tipping point to turn green into gold.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)