Absolute MUST Read IPCC Report: Debate over, further delay fatal, action not costly
In its definitive scientific synthesis report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) today issued its strongest call for immediate action to save humanity from the deadly consequences of unrestrained greenhouse gas emissions.
This report — signed off by 130 nations including the U.S. and China — slams the door on any argument for delay and makes clear we must under no circumstances listen to those who urge that we wait (who knows how long) to develop as yet non-existent technology [this means you President Bush, Newt Gingrich, Bjørn Lomborg]. As the New York Times put it:
Members of the panel said their review of the data led them to conclude as a group and individually that reductions in greenhouse gasses had to start immediately to avert a global climate disaster that could leave island states submerged and abandoned, African crop yields decreased by 50 percent, and cause over a 5 percent decrease in global gross domestic product.
… this summary was the first to acknowledge that the melting of the Greenland ice sheet from rising temperature [which would raise the oceans 23 feet] could result in sea-level rise over centuries rather than millennia.
And readers of this blog know the IPCC almost certainly underestimates the timing and severity of likely impacts because it ignores or downplays key amplifying feedbacks in the carbon cycle (see “Are Scientists Overestimating — or Underestimating — Climate Change” especially Part II and Part III). Indeed, IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri — a scientist and economist — admitted as much:
He said that since the panel began its work five years ago, scientists have recorded “much stronger trends in climate change,” like a recent melting of polar ice that had not been predicted. “That means you better start with intervention much earlier.”
How much earlier? The normally understated Pachauri warns:
“If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.”
In short — time’s up! America — we better pick the right President in 2008.
To balance the bad news, the IPCC and its member governments agree on the good news — action is very affordable:
In 2050, global average macro-economic costs for mitigation towards stabilisation between 710 and 445ppm CO2-eq are between a 1% gain and 5.5% decrease of global GDP. This corresponds to slowing average annual global GDP growth by less than 0.12 percentage points.
But how is that possible? How can the world’s leading governments and scientific experts agree that we can avoid catastrophe for such a small cost?
Because that’s what the scientific and economic literature — and real-world experience — says:
Both bottom-up and top-down studies indicate that there is high agreement and much evidence of substantial economic potential for the mitigation of global GHG emissions over the coming decades that could offset the projected growth of global emissions or reduce emissions below current levels.
In fact, the bottom up studies — the ones that look technology by technology, which I believe are more credible — have even better news:
Bottom-up studies suggest that mitigation opportunities with net negative costs have the potential to reduce emissions by around 6 GtCO2-eq/yr in 2030.
Wow! A 20% reduction in global emissions might be possible in a quarter century with net economic benefits!! Take that, delayers who oppose rapid, mandatory action and supposedly represent the “pragmatic center on climate and energy” — but who in fact represent the fatal siren song of “wait for new technology, wait for new technology.”
But don’t we need new technologies? Of course, but we don’t need — and can’t afford — to sit on our hands when we have so many cost-effective existing technologies:
There is high agreement and much evidence that all stabilisation levels assessed can be achieved by deployment of a portfolio of technologies that are either currently available or expected to be commercialised in coming decades, assuming appropriate and effective incentives are in place for their development, acquisition, deployment and diffusion and addressing related barriers.
Yes delayers — we need to do two things at once: aggressively deploy existing technology (with carbon prices and government standards) and aggressively finish developing and commercializing key technologies and systems that are in the pipeline. Anyone who argues for just doing the latter is disputing a very broad consensus — and is neither pragmatic nor centrist.
What do we risk if fail to act now?
Anthropogenic warming could lead to some impacts that are abrupt or irreversible, depending upon the rate and magnitude of the climate change.
Partial loss of ice sheets on polar land could imply metres of sea level rise, major changes in coastlines and inundation of low-lying areas, with greatest effects in river deltas and low-lying islands. Such changes are projected to occur over millennial time scales, but more rapid sea level rise on century time scales cannot be excluded.
In short, we risk that our top climatologists’s warnings on sea level rise prove true. What else?
As global average temperature increase exceeds about 3.5 degrees C, model projections suggest significant extinctions (40-70% of species assessed) around the globe.
IPCC to world: The time to act is now or we risk destroying life on the Earth as we know it today!
You can listen to the IPCC press conference, download their PPT presentation, and get the entire synthesis report here.
November 17th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Joe -
Thanks so much for this exec summary. This blog is such a gift to me - you filter useful information from all the data and make me chuckle. What a combination!
- Drew
November 17th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
…Partial loss of ice sheets on polar land could imply metres of sea level rise, major changes in coastlines and inundation of low-lying areas, with greatest effects in river deltas and low-lying islands. Such changes are projected to occur over millennial time scales, but more rapid sea level rise on century time scales cannot be excluded….
If this is what the IPCC is saying it means were in trouble…their statements have always under estimated the actual. We could be looking at this situation before 2100! If that is the case then in the near future the sea level rise will start to accelerate at a frightening rate.
November 18th, 2007 at 1:42 am
Debate is a diversion. Exxon,Chevron et all, love it.
Time for practical clean-up actions. News tip…
Canadian government refuses to grant domestic sales licenses to both Zenn [Quebec] and Dynasty [B.C.] EV manufacturers. The Zenn vehicle is an award winner in other countries.
CBC video news clip.. [Mansbridge]
http:TonyGuitar.blogspot.com
======================
Bio-fuels have some merit …
Canada has two stations serving more than one grade of bio fuel…[Whoop-de-do].
A UN approved campaign to retro-fit thousands of coal-gen plants with various clean technology would make vastly more improvement.
North America is 96% dependent on one single vehicle fuel .. OIL. [Brazil =75% Bio-fuel.] [Which is the banana republic now?]
A swing to battery, compressed air and clean coal-gen would really reduce pollution.
…would lower the value of oil.
…would lower tensions in the M.E.
…would reduce health hazard smog in cities.
…would lead to a kiosk road tax collection system
…would enrage Exxon, Chevron and GM, backers of both Dems and Reps; Libs and Conservatives, not to mention the wrath of Alberta and Texas.
…would lead to unemployment and tax losses during transition.
…would be the correct an honorable thing to do. = TG
November 18th, 2007 at 2:01 am
Deniers:
Game, set, and match.
Check, and checkmate.
Now let’s get moving
November 18th, 2007 at 3:13 am
Joe, What do you mean the debate is over? Are you saying the science of climatology has been perfected; the knowledge we have explains and predicts all matters of climate now and forever? Of course not. The debate in the blogoshere is trivial, indeed, full of misinformation and venom. Few sites play it straight. Climate Progress is one of those good few. You often cite Dr. Hansen. His association with NASA empowers him to be recognized as a reliable authority. NASA provides a standard of scientific rigor that all can see. NASA recently published a report on the cause of the recent positive anomaly in arctic sea ice melt. They sent the top men in the field. They report that the ice melt is perhaps as likely to be caused, not by global warming and CO2, but by decadal changes in the temperature of two ocean systems. I don’t think there is any way to say NASA is a tool of the Deniers. Apparently the actual scientists don’t think “the debate is over.
November 18th, 2007 at 8:54 am
I have no doubt that the moment of climate crisis has arrived, and we need to focus on the actions that have to be taken. Properly managed the climate change crisis will not be expensive to fix. Properly managed the climate change crisis will not lead to the mass improverishment of people and societies, It does require that we understand our priorities and and the actions we must take to accomplish our priorities. Finally we must commit to those actions. I have argued that two major changes, involving proven technology would cut our CO2 emissions by more than half. They are switching base load electrical generation from CO2 emitting sources to nuclear power,
The second step involves the replacement of fossil fuels in surface transportation with electricity. That means cars, trucks, buses and trains should receive most of their power from plug in batteries (or capasitors), or from continuous electrical sources, The most significant system change this switch would entail is that interstate freight movement would have to be entirely by electrical rail. The energy inefficient, and CO2 wasteful interstate trucking industry needs to go away.
At this point there is a very strong case for facilitating these solutions quickly. Given the right priorities, Plug in hybrid cars with up to 50 mile battery range can be rolling off auto assembly lines within 5 years. Reactors must be built in a far quicker time frame than under the current system. If there is a world wide shortage of forges for reactor pressure vessels, then the highest priority must be given to building the forges, even if the government must step in and build them. Rail lines must be electrified, and electrically powered locomotives built. All of these things are possible, but commitments must be made.
November 18th, 2007 at 9:51 am
What I mean is that the debate over whether need to take action immediately is over. The IPCC, by virtue of being consensus based, is a watered down version of reality. When the IPCC starts pleading desperately, the time for debating the science is over.
Does that mean the science is settled? Of course not. We need to understand why the climate is changing (and the sinks saturating) FASTER than the models suggest. It may ultimately be that the science tells us 450 ppm will be fatal to life as we know it. That’s the OTHER reason we must act now, to leave the door open a tiny crack for even more ambitious targets.
November 19th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
What if the reason “the climate is changing (and the sinks saturating) FASTER than the models suggest” is because the hypothesis is flawed and something else besides Man and greenhouse gases are to blame?
November 19th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
“If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late.”
Oh goody. Time for a multiple choice quiz then. By the end of 2012, five years from now, which of the following statements is most likely to be true:
a. Global oil and coal consumption have been reduced by 50%.
b. Global oil and coal consumption have been reduced by 20%.
c. Global oil and coal consumption are at the same levels they are today.
d. None of the above.
November 19th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
d.
What do I win?
November 19th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Well this is what we were hoping to get from the report and we got it. Has the world press run with it yet? I don’t see it. It’s truly pitiful. I had to call my local newspaper today to let them know the story even exists.
November 19th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
The enduring misery of your fellow humans….
November 19th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Shannon,
“this is what we were hoping to get” ??
What if you got some good news on climate? Would it make you happy? Or would you call it Denial?
November 19th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Second multiple choice quiz. When November 19, 2012 actually arrives and we’re all pumping just as much or more CO2 into the fragile, fragile atmosphere as we are today, what will be the response of the IPCC:
a. They release a final “smoke ‘em if you got ‘em, cause we’re all doomed” report. Then they dissolve the whole organization so they can all go home, huddle in a corner, and cry.
b. They release a report that shows that, well, things weren’t as bad as they thought, and we all really have five more years to do something. But they really, really, really mean it this time.
November 19th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
We all get double secret probation.
November 20th, 2007 at 10:33 am
c. They recommend everyone pick up a life jacket and a copy of the instructional DVD “Waterworld”, featuring Kevin Costner.
November 20th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Joe-
It might take people a while to read tha, if ever. This could be a
quicker starting point - http://www.ipccinfo.com/wg4report.php
David -
c) would be a very postive development.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/2/21/22313/9981
February 21st, 2008 at 1:50 pm
There is a different rationale for delay that is not often discussed because it is derived from rather recent economic work on irreversible investments and network externalities. The essence is that once we invest in a certain technology path today, it is quite difficult to move off that path in the future. This is particularly true when the technology is dependent on use of other technologies. The continued dominance of the gasoline automobile is one example of this type if irreversible network technology. The auto tech network includes fuel extraction, production and delivery, the road network, the maintenance network and vehicle production.
The problem is that moving from this network leaves significant stranded investment. While this can be viewed as a “sunk cost,” it has both significant wealth transfer problems, and problems in undermining credible investment signals about the future, so investment costs will go up for all technologies. A mechanism used to recover these types of stranded costs was at the heart of the California energy crisis in 2000, so it is a non-trivial problem.
So the question might be posed in this way: “Do we invest today in a less efficient technology A that reduces GHGs X% for the next 30 years, or do we delay Z years and develop a technology B that reduces GHGs Y*X% for 30 years, and avoid making an irreversible investment into technology A?” Because GHGs are a stock pollutant (a concept that many (most?) people don’t understand the distinction from flow pollutants that typify other air pollutants), we can actually gain over the long run if the sum of X% reduction over 30 years is less than the sum of Y*X% over (30-Z) years.
No, I don’t know the answer to this question, but it is one that should be analytically explored (and would be helpful if the climate scientists would step aside and quit kibitzing on economic issues that they know nothing about.) There is significant value to information right now, but we seem to be rushing headlong into policies that have been ill considered and could be quite counterproductive.
March 23rd, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Re:Rich
Thanks for a reasonable statement. It is a good point and well explained.
If we care about the future we need to combine knowledge from science, engineering, economics, and business to get the job done.
And yes, it is better to work carefully, because not only are there stranded costs, there is a trail of anger and distrust left behind. The only real solutions will provide for everyone.
My first rule is to find solutions that do not require a lot of capital investment.
One example is the history of nuclear power. At one time it was widely acclaimed. Investors put a lot of money into it. Then it became widely hated. Regulations were heaped on regulations and the costs became excessive. Then it became even more hated and the public utility regulators refused to let power companies recover their costs. Then they embraced coal. Guess how hard it is going to be to turn this around. we had better try to find a way that does not require a lot of money.
The great hope of deregulation is another example for California. Calpine hoped to benefit from low cost natural gas and invested in the best set of electric power generating facilities that we know of. Then the wonders of free enterprise set in and the traders ran the price of natural gas up. That was not the only problem, but Calpine went bankrupt and many investors lost their a–. Guess how quickly they will come back.
I understand that our California governor has good intentions in banning new coal fired power plants. This really does not mean much since the power will be bought from wherever. But the law also provides that contracts for power coming from coal plants are not allowed. This only means that California will be subject to the spot price. Wait for the next crisis. When there is another shortage and the electricity traders jump in for the gouging fun, guess what will happen. The law will be changed. Of course that will be too late since it will take years to build more coal fired plants. In the meantime the California public will pay horrendous prices for electricity. Guess what. The then sitting governor will be recalled. And eventually the coal plants will come on line.
I think I am supporting your point that things need to be carefully considered. I suggest further that the needed understanding will come from a range of interests, and yes, it will include both Republicans and Democrats.
March 24th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
If the IPCC report is a must read so is the following:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/ story/ 0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html
Looks like the IPCCC can’t handle or explain the recent leveling out of global temperature since 1998, an event which climateprogress claims hasn’t happened but the IPCC apparently recognizes as happening.
Since the global temperature peaked in 1998 according to recent observations, could the model projections be wrong? I have raised the following question with a number of GW alarmist, including Al Gore and the Royal Society without a response. Perhaps someone has answers?
Question1
-has any projection used by the IPCC or other GW advocates forecasted, predicted or otherwise foreseen a cooling period or a little ice age in the future?
Question 2
-could any of the current computer models with their climate theories, complex assumptions, complex climate models and positive feedback loops forecast, predict, or foresee a cooling period or litttle ice age in the future?
Question 3
-since a rather steady state CO2 content had little or no effect on the earth’s cyclical climate for 10,000 years and the recent warming trend has moderated since 1998 while the atmospheric CO2 increased are the repeated iterations of the computer models falsifying the role of CO2 in the earth’s climate? Repeated iterations of the Mandelbrot set equation drives the results to infinity or zero. it is possible that the GW computer simulations drive the result to ever higher temperatures just by how the assumptions on the CO2 effect are designed, weighted and looped, isn’t it ?
March 25th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Perhaps The Climate Change Models Are Wrong
“Argo monitors are 3,000 yellow sentinels –about the size and shape of a large fence post — free-float the world’s oceans, season in and season out, surfacing between 30 and 40 times a year, disgorging their findings, then submerging again for another fact-finding voyage.
They drift along in the worlds’ oceans at a depth of 2,000 metres — more than a mile deep — constantly monitoring the temperature, salinity, pressure and velocity of the upper oceans.
Then, about once every 10 days, a bladder on the outside of these buoys inflates and raises them slowly to the surface gathering data about each strata of seawater they pass through. After an upward journey of nearly six hours, the Argo monitors bob on the waves while an onboard transmitter sends their information to a satellite that in turn retransmits it to several land-based research computers where it may be accessed by anyone who wishes to see it.”
“The URLs are too complex to reproduce here, but Google “Argo Buoy Movement” or “Argo Float Animation,” and you will be directed to the links.”
To date the Argos have failed to detect any global warming. They are not reinforcing the scientific orthodoxy of the day, namely that man is causing the planet to warm dangerously. They are not proving the predetermined conclusions. In fact, “there has been a very slight cooling,” according to a U.S. National Public Radio (NPR) interview with Josh Willis at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a scientist who keeps close watch on the Argo findings.
Dr. Willis insisted the temperature drop was “not anything really significant.” Probably accurate but would NASA or NOAA or the IPCC– the UN’s climate experts — shrug off even a “very slight” warming. For certain it would be broadcast far and wide as yet another sign that man is destroying the earth. Dr. Wiilis’s spin on to NPR is a classic case of scientific double-speak he describes the results as follows “It may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming,” Dr. Willis told NPR.”
In real science-speak that is cooling.
Source with some editing: 2008/03/24/lorne-gunter-perhaps-the-climate-change-models-are-wrong.aspx
March 30th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Joe, regarding Patrick49 above.
Having researched your thesis in physical oceanography at Scripps, you are well aware that the temperature in the ocean is about 4 to 6 degrees C at depths below about 500 meters. It typically cools rapidly as depth goes from about 70 meters to 500 meters. This is an especially well known fact in the field of underwater sound science, which is of course an extensively studied branch of physical oceanography.
As storms increase, as for example Katrina, we know that significant deep currents occur (we known that oil and gas pipelines were wrecked in some places). Such storms must have a significant mixing effect on the gulf stream, such that cooler waters will be brought to the surface. Since something like 70% of the worlds oceans are greater than 3000 meters deep, it seems that the predicted increase in storm activity with global warming might make this a significant counter action to global surface heating. I do not see anything about this kind of process in the IPCC4 report. Is this in the climate models?
The degree of mixing is quite variable for much less intensive storm effects, so this process would be active on a very general basis.
This might relate to the observed stability of the ocean, mentioned by Patrick49. I tend to think this will be a moderating trend such that temperature will eventually reach an equilibrium that we might not like. Of course the deep water temperatures will slightly increase, and this also might have unexpected consequences.
March 31st, 2008 at 12:56 pm
I read so many people worrying themselves to death but few suggestions. Two reasonable suggestions were convert to nuclear power and convert our cars to batteries.
As to nuclear power, the reason that we aren’t building nuclear power plants is thanks to the environmentalists who block them at every turn.
As to converting our cars to batteries. This has begun with the hybrid cars. But the technology is still primative. When you have a battery that will let you go 300-400 miles on one charge, while using your air conditioner and can be recharged in five minutes, you won’t have any trouble at all getting people to convert.
My experience has been that too many environmentalists whine and complain about everything and then block almost all solutions that don’t result in people having to lower their standards of living.
March 31st, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Tom, your thinking is based on your experience with gasoline vehicles (GVs) where trips to the gas station are both annoying and expensive. You want a big tank to make trips to the gas station infrequent. With an EV one leaves the garage with a full “tank” every morning. That makes the size of the “tank” much less important. And driving on electricity is approximately 2-3 cents a mile. Driving the same vehicle on gasoline is 16 cents a mile. Even a Prius has 8 cents a mile in fuel costs today, and that is rising rapidly.
Despite having less need for range, there are already EVs built with 250 miles of range. However, 150 miles is more cost effective.
The more important issue for long-distance driving (many 100s of miles) is recharge time. A demonstration of 10-minute recharge occurred in May 2007. This is unimportant in your home garage, but on the highway you would like to be able to fill the battery pack at every rest stop. Right now it takes special batteries to take electrical energy that quickly, but I expect this will become more commonplace over time. Until it does, people who want to use their vehicles for long-distance driving will choose plug-in hybrids over BEVs. In a multi-vehicle family, I expect it to be fairly common to see one plug-in hybrid and one BEV.
April 1st, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Re: Earl Killian of comment somewhere else. ( I have trouble keeping track of comments.)
I questioned the cost of PV solar re plug in vehicles hoping to hear how that worked out in the system you used.
Then I was going to point out that the McKinsie study chart that Joe posted somewhere excluded PV solar, presumably because it exceeded the cost threshold of “40 EURO per ton of CO2″ mentioned in note 3 of that chart.
The elegance of a solar source coupled with an electric car is very appealing, and I hope to do something like that myself. However, this is not necessarily something that 3 billion people on the earth will do, which is the scale needed to get the CO2 reduction needed.
My contention is that PV solar prices could converge to a practical point very much sooner if cars were made so we did not excessively waste energy as we do today. I am talking about a 90% reduction in energy without losing high speed capability. I accept the requirement to move about rapidly as we now do, as something that will not be given up by drivers of the developed countries. We can not expect drivers in emerging countries to forego this benefit for very long either.
I tried to find the McKinsie report that goes with the chart that Joe posted but get blocked by a demand that I subscribe. Is there a link that gets it more directly. Without the report it is easy to make assumptions that might not be right about the proposed low cost measures.
May 2nd, 2008 at 8:15 pm
So climate modelers are finally discovering the PDO–Gee wiz—climate depends on the Ocean cooling and not CO2—they are now hedging since the oceans are cooling and the Earth has not warmed in 10yrs and now likely to cool for the next 10yrs—sounds like a climate warming crisis–? Not–you twits!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ earth/ main.jhtml?xml=/ earth/ 2008/ 04/ 30/ eaclimate130.xml