A Guy in the Pew

The so-called "hockey stick" chart--which shows a rapid rise in global temperature is a mainstay in arguments that humans are causing climate change--a center of attacks by climate change denialists. A new study offers a revised chart that conforms the hockey stick chart. Climat Feedback explains the development: The contentious ‘hockey stick’ climate change graph has again been upheld as broadly accurate, doubtless to the rage of climate denialists/sceptics/whatevers. A team led by Michael Mann of Penn State University has looked at a whole range of proxies for surface temperatures over the last 2,000 years in an attempt to counter criticism of the graph, which showed a long ‘handle’ and a sharp upturn (the blade). Their findings? As the Christian Science Monitor puts it: “It still looks a lot like the much-battered, but still rink-ready stick of 1998. Today the handle reaches further back and it’s a bit more gnarly. But the blade at the business end tells the same story. ”...

Nick Reeves, executive director of the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management, has this post on the Guardian' s "Comment is Free" blog that argues that religious leaders need to take an interest in environmental issus: Profiling the award-winning environmental campaign work of Archbishop Bartholomew of Constantinople, spiritual leader of 300 million Orthodox Christians, Riazat Butt asks if religion can help prevent eco-catastrophe ( The pope of hope , June 18). After all, as the archbishop told Butt: "Religious people were indifferent, or even hostile, to science. Scientists and ecologists could see little relationship between their world and the world of faith." At a global environment conference in London last year, my professional institution, the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management, brought together representatives of all the major faiths. There was one matter on which they all agreed: the need to collaborate for ...

The debate on climate change has seemed to have shifted from whether there is a problem (the overwhelming consensus--except in the Republican caucuses in Congress)--is that there is a problem), to how best to address the problem. do we lower carbon emissions? Or invest instead in dealing with the change? A study out of Minnesota suggest that reducing climate change is feasible: The research team, which will release the new study July 22, modeled emissions for Minnesota and found that it is possible to reduce emissions by 30 percent by 2025 and 80 percent by 2050 and possibly exceed those numbers if a combination of strategies are implemented, including reducing fuel consumption, increasing fuel efficiencies and fuel carbon content and by using new methods for designing communities. However, the researchers point out that the methods could be applied nationally. In fact, history shows that when one state or city implements environmental policy changes, the nation often follows. The emis...

I often talk about the scientific consensus developing on the issue of lcimate change. Here is the latest evidence of this consensus: The scientific academies of 13 countries on Tuesday urged the world to act more forcefully to limit the threat posed by human-driven global warming . In a joint statement, the academies of the Group of 8 industrialized countries — Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United States — and of Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa called on the industrialized countries to lead a “transition to a low-carbon society” and aggressively move to limit impacts from changes in climate that are already under way and impossible to stop. The statement, posted by the National Academy of Sciences in the United States, urged the Group of 8 countries to move beyond last year’s pledge to consider halving global emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050 and “make maximum efforts” to reach this target. The academies recommended speeding the ado...

One of the facts of our current political situation is that our two major political parties are as polarized as ever on so many issues. Sadly, this is true of the issue of Climate Change as well. A new Gallup Report reveals that Democrats and Republicans are becoming more polarized, not less, on this issue (and at the very time when the scientific consensus seems to be increasing): Overall, Gallup has documented changes in Americans' views of global warming over the past decade. There has been a slight increase in the percentage of Americans who view global warming as already happening, and a more substantial increase in the percentage who believe that a majority of scientists think global warming is occurring, with the result that more than 6 in 10 Americans endorse both views (61% and 65%, respectively). There has also been a sizable increase in the percentage saying global warming will pose a serious threat within their lifetimes, although it is still a minority position at 40%...

Now this is really cool--although, it may be a big time killer: The British Antarctic Survey and the UK's Met Office have released a pair of new layers for Google Earth that depict the effects of climate change across a 3D map of the globe. In one fell swoop, this about doubles the amount of climate content that's easily accessible from the Google Earth Gallery and Showcase pages. To check out the maps, download and install Google Earth, then click here to download and open the map file (in KML format) from BAS and here for the Met Office map. (If Google Earth doesn't run when you click those links, you'll have to run it yourself and open the KML files from the File menu.) They will load into the 'Places' bar on the left - checking boxes there displays the content. Both maps make good use of the program's time-series tool: as you watch an animation or drag a slider, BAS shows Antarctic ice shelves receding over recent decades, and then the Met Office...

John Broome, Professor of Moral Philosophy at the University of Oxford and previously a professor of economics at the University of Bristol, has a very interesting analysis of the ethics of climate change in the Scientific American . the ethical issue he focuses on this this: future generations will benefit the most from the current generation's efforts to stop climate change, but the evidence is that future generations will be richer. As any economist will tell you, in doing a cost-benefit analysis, a critical factor is the selection of the discount rate. As I previously noted , the Stern Report did an economic analysis that set the discount rate very low. Broome explains why this makes sense from a moral point of view. It is a long article. Here are some excerpts: Climate change raises a number of ethical questions. How should we—all of us living today—evaluate the well-being of future generations, given that they are likely to have more material goods than we do? Many people, s...

I blogged a few days ago about the old guard right wing of the Evangelical movement's efforts to deny climate change. David Roberts had an interesting take on this group--and why they are fighting so hard against reality: We've written a great deal on Grist about the split in the evangelical leadership between those who recognize the danger of global warming and those who don't. The former includes lots of younger churchgoers who want to broaden the church's mandate beyond abortion and homosexuality , taking on poverty and environmental issues and asserting the church's independence from the Republican party. The latter group, the old guard , is filled with people who have become extremely rich and politically powerful through their association with the Republican party, and are keen to preserve the status quo. Their role is to keep the religious wing of the Republican base in line by stoking (but never resolving) the culture war, providing ground troops and votes...

One of the most important sources of data about the correlation between greenhouse gases (like methane and carbon dioxide) and global warming has been core samples from the ice in Antarctica. Tiny bubble of gas are dropped in the ice and they offer evidence of the composition of the atmosphere over thousands of years. Earlier this week, Nature published a study of ice core date going back about 800,000 years. Critical to the current debate on climate change, there is a strong correlation between greenhouse gases and temperature going that far back: The newest analysis of trace gases trapped in Antarctic ice cores now provide a reasonable view of greenhouse gas concentrations as much as 800,000 years into the past, and are further confirming the link between greenhouse gas levels and global warming, scientists reported May 14 in the journal Nature. They also show that during that entire period of time, there have never been concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane as high as the cu...

What a coincidence. Yesterday, I blogged about the James Dobson et al "We Get It" effort to deny climate change. Yesterday, NASA scientists issued a new report showing a strong causal link between human activity and climate change. Here is the Science Daily report: A vast array of physical and biological systems across the earth are being affected by warming temperatures caused by humans, says a new analysis of information not previously assembled all in one spot. The effects on living things include earlier leafing of trees and plants over many regions; movements of species to higher latitudes and altitudes in the northern hemisphere; changes in bird migrations in Europe, North America and Australia; and shifting of the oceans' plankton and fish from cold- to warm-adapted communities. "Humans are influencing climate through increasing greenhouse gas emissions, and the warming world is causing impacts on physical and biological systems attributable at the global scal...

Apparantly, the religious right is (once again) denying the facts--this time on the issue of global warming. They have started what appears to be a well organized and funded effort to stop efforts to attack climate change. Thanks to Melissa Rogers, here are the details: A coalition of pastors, evangelical leaders, national and state organizations, and policy makers hold a news conference on the "We Get It!" campaign, and to show "that they are united behind Biblical perspectives on the environment and the poor, and don't believe all the hype about global warming." LOCATION: National Press Club, 14th and F Streets NW, Washington, D.C. -- May 15, 2008 PARTICIPANTS: Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla.; Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.; Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga.; Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council; E. Calvin Beisner, founder and national spokesman for the Cornwall Alliance and Environmental Stewardship; James Tonkowich, president of the Institute on Religion and Dem...

The Scientific American has a good assessment of where we are after the meetings on Climate change in Bali: Last December’s agreement in Bali to launch a two-year negotiation on climate change was good news, a rare example of international cooperation in a world seemingly stuck in a spiral of conflict. Cynics might note that the only accomplishment was an agreement to talk some more, and their cynicism may yet be confirmed. Nevertheless, the growing understanding that serious climate-control measures are feasible at modest cost is welcome. The arithmetic is becoming clearer. If the rich nations continue to grow in income and the poor ones systematically narrow the income gap with successful development, by 2050 the global economy might increase sixfold and global energy use roughly fourfold. Today’s anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are around 36 billion tons annually, of which 29 billion are the result of fossil-fuel combustion and industrial processes, and another seven bi...

Paul Klugman has managed to create a chart that best captures the challenges in trying to contain and reduce carbon dioxcide. The original is here . He gives some comment in another post: So the headline today says that the United States, under pressure, has agreed to — well, not to actually do anything about climate change, but to talk about doing something about climate change. Meanwhile, doom marches on. I was recently looking at these data on carbon dioxide emissions from the Energy Information Administration[.] . . . I picked 1997 because that’s the year of the Kyoto Protocol. America — despite full knowledge of the risks to the climate — just keeps pouring ever more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Future generations will not forgive us. And China’s economic success is an environmental disaster. I just thought you should know. That comment is here .

At the second day of the Bali conference on Climate change, a large number of the leading climate change scientists released a manifesto urging action on the problem. Climate Feedback has the story: For the first time this week at the UN conference on climate change, scientists today sounded their views on the specifics they believe the road from Bali should lead to if we are to avoid catastrophically changing the climate. Signed by more than 200 of the world’s most eminent climatologists, the ‘ Bali Climate Declaration by Scientists’ issues a stark warning to negotiators that unless they take immediate, bold action on reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, many millions will be at high risk of some of the most sinister effects of global warming including extreme sea level rise and increased drought and heatwaves. “This declaration makes a clear and unambiguous statement about what our emissions targets have to be. To achieve these targets, we need action now, this week, here in Bali...

Climate Feedback is reporting a rocky start to the Bali conference on Climate change--due in large measure to differences on the fundamental issue of what the conference is all about: The road to building a Bali roadmap was looking increasingly rocky today, as the vastly differing expectations of what will emerge from the two weeks meeting of the 13th conference of parties (COP) to the UNFCCC became increasingly apparent. One of the biggest bones of contention, of course, is whether the roadmap will include an agreement on the need for binding emissions targets from 2012, which signals the end of the second period of commitment of the Kyoto Protocol. At the opening plenary talk on Monday, Yvo de Boer, UNFCCC Executive Secretary said that “A marriage contract is not something to discuss on a first date”, eluding to the fact that the willingness of nations to co-operate must first be established here before they get down to the nitty gritty of asking parties to act on their promises. But...

Worls leaders began meeting today at the United Nations Conference on Climate Change in Bali. The point of the conference is to discuss "next steps" beyond the Kyoto Framework. One of the more interesting developments at this conference is that one of the U.S. allies opposing the Kyoto Frmaework, Australia, has had a change of heart due to a change in Goverments. The climate change blog has this report: The long-awaited United Nations Conference on Climate Change kicked off this morning on the idyllic island of Bali, where some 10,000 delegates from 187 nations will spend the next two weeks discussing how to reach an international agreement on climate change to replace the Kyoto Protocol when it expires in 2012. International governments are now feeling the pressure for urgent action on climate change as the world watches in hope of a Bali breakthrough. At the opening address of the conference, Rachmat Witoelar, Indonesia’s environment minister and newly appointed president o...

The final report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was issued yesterday, and the UN Secretary General had pointed things to say to countries like China and the United States that seem unwilling to take necessary steps: Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, describing climate change as “the defining challenge of our age,” released the final report of a United Nations panel on climate change here on Saturday and called on the United States and China to play “a more constructive role.” His challenge to the world’s two greatest greenhouse gas emitters came just two weeks before the world’s energy ministers meet in Bali, Indonesia, to begin talks on creating a global climate treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. The United States and China are signatories to Kyoto, but Washington has not ratified the treaty, and China, along with other developing countries, is not bound by its mandatory emissions caps. “Today the world’s scientists have spoken, ...

I have repeatedly said that the most serious moral issue involved in climate change is that the real burdens of the effects of climate change fall on the poorest of the poor--who did not benefit from the wealth created by the emissions of greenhouse gases in the past. There is a new study that reinforces my point: The public health costs of global climate change are likely to be the greatest in those parts of the world that have contributed least to the problem, posing a significant ethical dilemma for the developed world, according to a new study. In a paper to be published the week of Nov. 12, 2007, in the journal EcoHealth, a team of researchers led by environmental public health authority Jonathan Patz of the University of Wisconsin-Madison reports that the health burden of climate change will rest disproportionately on the world's poor. "Our high consumption of energy is putting a huge disease burden on places that are quite remote from us," explains Patz, a profes...

Science Daily is reported some very disturbing news about climate change--the Earth's atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is growing much faster than expected: A team of scientists has found that atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) growth has increased 35 percent faster than expected since 2000. The study found that inefficiency in the use of fossil fuels increased levels of CO2 by 17 percent, while the other 18 percent came from the decline in the efficiency of natural land and ocean sinks which soak up CO2 from the atmosphere. The research by the Global Carbon Project, the University of East Anglia (UEA) and the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) shows that improvements in the carbon intensity of the global economy have stalled since 2000 after improving for 30 years, leading to the unexpected growth of atmospheric CO2. The study also states that global CO2 emissions were up to 9.9 billion tons of carbon in 2006, 35 percent above emissions in 1990 (used as a reference year in the Kyoto Pro...

Well, this study offers some very, very bad news: Only the total elimination of industrial emissions will succeed in limiting climate change to a 2°C rise in temperatures, according to computer analysis of climate change. Anything above this target has been identified as "dangerous" by some scientists, and the limit has been adopted by many policymakers. The researchers say their study highlights the shortcomings of governmental plans to limit climate change. A warming of 2°C above pre-industrial temperatures is frequently cited as the limit beyond which the world will face "dangerous" climate change. Beyond this level, analysis suggests the continents will cease to absorb more carbon dioxide than they produce. As the tundra and other regions of permafrost thaw, they will spew more gas into the atmosphere, adding to the warming effect of human emissions. . . . In January 2007, the European Commission issued a communication stating that "the European Union...