Comments on: Must have PPT in disappointing issue of Nature devoted to “The Coming Climate Crunch” http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/29/nature-climate-crunch/ The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics Sun, 22 Nov 2009 02:38:10 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Shannon http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/29/nature-climate-crunch/#comment-198645 Shannon Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:10:42 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=6177#comment-198645 Good article and even better comments. Good article and even better comments.

]]> By: jcwinnie http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/29/nature-climate-crunch/#comment-44795 jcwinnie Sat, 02 May 2009 16:28:14 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=6177#comment-44795 "What were the editors thinking?" Advertising? “What were the editors thinking?”
Advertising?

]]> By: Lennart van der Linde http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/29/nature-climate-crunch/#comment-44243 Lennart van der Linde Fri, 01 May 2009 09:23:13 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=6177#comment-44243 Maiken, I have the same question. Here in Holland the environmental and developmental ngo's are slowly starting to come up to date with the latest science. They are just starting to realize now the great urgency to act very strongly immediately. We have to keep informing media, politicians and the general public that we're playing Russian roulette, as John Schellnhuber, Joe Romm and others have been telling us. In the US Stephen Chu is using the Titanic metaphor. I think we need such strong and vivid language to make the urgency to act now as clear as possible. And I think the scientists themselves need to speak out more and more, and more clearly, as it seems most people really do not understand the implications of the more scientific language. Lester Brown has been speaking about 'mobilizing to save civilization'. Al Gore already in 1992 wrote about 'the earth in the balance' and the need for a new global Marshall plan. We must be close to a social and political tipping point now, or else it may be too late to avoid (more) serious climatic tipping points. So let's continue and intensify our mobilization efforts and hope for the best of humanity's moral and rational impulses to prevail. Maiken, I have the same question. Here in Holland the environmental and developmental ngo’s are slowly starting to come up to date with the latest science. They are just starting to realize now the great urgency to act very strongly immediately. We have to keep informing media, politicians and the general public that we’re playing Russian roulette, as John Schellnhuber, Joe Romm and others have been telling us. In the US Stephen Chu is using the Titanic metaphor. I think we need such strong and vivid language to make the urgency to act now as clear as possible. And I think the scientists themselves need to speak out more and more, and more clearly, as it seems most people really do not understand the implications of the more scientific language. Lester Brown has been speaking about ‘mobilizing to save civilization’. Al Gore already in 1992 wrote about ‘the earth in the balance’ and the need for a new global Marshall plan. We must be close to a social and political tipping point now, or else it may be too late to avoid (more) serious climatic tipping points. So let’s continue and intensify our mobilization efforts and hope for the best of humanity’s moral and rational impulses to prevail.

]]> By: Peter Wood http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/29/nature-climate-crunch/#comment-44129 Peter Wood Fri, 01 May 2009 00:58:16 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=6177#comment-44129 What I have read so far of this issue of Nature suggests to me that its most important contribution is the message that the carbon budget is the best predictor of maximum temperature -- better than the stabilisation target or the level of 2020 emissions or 2050 emissions. The two core papers both seem very good. What I have read so far of this issue of Nature suggests to me that its most important contribution is the message that the carbon budget is the best predictor of maximum temperature — better than the stabilisation target or the level of 2020 emissions or 2050 emissions. The two core papers both seem very good.

]]> By: Maiken Winter http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/29/nature-climate-crunch/#comment-44047 Maiken Winter Thu, 30 Apr 2009 21:02:36 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=6177#comment-44047 Thanks, Lennart. Yes, I like Terry Barker's realism. But reality is being hidden very well behind the naysayers who slow down this development to an extremely worrying snails pace. The question I have been asking myself keeps staying in the foreground of my mind: how do we mobilize enough people to exert the pressure needed to do the changes that are waiting to be realized? When I give presentations here in Germany, most people don't even know that the Arctic sea-ice is NOT 1-30 km thick; people start to argue that science can always be wrong, and scientists justy want more funding....people seem to be able to come up with more and more excuses for inaction the worse it gets. Thanks, Lennart. Yes, I like Terry Barker’s realism. But reality is being hidden very well behind the naysayers who slow down this development to an extremely worrying snails pace. The question I have been asking myself keeps staying in the foreground of my mind: how do we mobilize enough people to exert the pressure needed to do the changes that are waiting to be realized? When I give presentations here in Germany, most people don’t even know that the Arctic sea-ice is NOT 1-30 km thick; people start to argue that science can always be wrong, and scientists justy want more funding….people seem to be able to come up with more and more excuses for inaction the worse it gets.

]]> By: James Newberry http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/29/nature-climate-crunch/#comment-44021 James Newberry Thu, 30 Apr 2009 19:24:04 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=6177#comment-44021 We don't know yet if we will encounter automatic tipping points with the radiative forcing yet to come from today's contamination of about 390 ppm CO2 (higher with all gases included in CO2 eqivalent calculations). Implying that another one or two trillion tons of carbonic acid gas is an adequate limit is not science to me. We don’t know yet if we will encounter automatic tipping points with the radiative forcing yet to come from today’s contamination of about 390 ppm CO2 (higher with all gases included in CO2 eqivalent calculations). Implying that another one or two trillion tons of carbonic acid gas is an adequate limit is not science to me.

]]> By: Lennart van der Linde http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/29/nature-climate-crunch/#comment-44001 Lennart van der Linde Thu, 30 Apr 2009 18:09:04 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=6177#comment-44001 Maiken, I totally agree with you. A 25% chance of overshooting 2 degrees seems an unacceptable risk to me. I think we should aim at complete decarbonization by 2050 at the latest, but preferably sooner. Economists such as Terry Barker think this is not impossible, and might even be economically advantageous. See for example this quote by him on p.15 of this article: http://www.theclimategroup.org/assets/resources/Macroeconomic_Effects_of_the_Transition_to_a_Low_Carbon_Economy.pdf “Political economy has been portrayed by Thomas Carlyle as the dismal science, but on the contrary, a new understanding of the economy suggests that that a transition to a low-carbon, even zero-carbon, economy is feasible; and that if we choose a good mix of policies, such action will benefit economic performance and improve human well-being. Just as Thomas Malthus was wrong (so far!) in his predictions of population growth leading to economic collapse, so rapid decarbonisation need not ruin our economies, and for much the same reason: technological change. GHG-reducing technologies with carbon trading and carbon taxes can accelerate decarbonisation, reduce the risks of dangerous climate change, and contribute to economic development and human well being. The economic feasibility and benefit of a net-zero carbon economy have not been investigated, at least by 2050 or earlier as implied for a long-term “safe” climate. The technologies required for most sectors are available and extrapolation of available studies suggests that the economy could benefit, but the main technical and institutional options have not all been explored and the scale of the transition, especially for the energy sector, is immense. The immediate challenge however is one of devising, then agreeing, international policies and actions that can guarantee results and benefits for the more modest 50 percent target, recognising that this is not strong enough for a safe climate but much better than no target at all.” Maiken, I totally agree with you. A 25% chance of overshooting 2 degrees seems an unacceptable risk to me. I think we should aim at complete decarbonization by 2050 at the latest, but preferably sooner. Economists such as Terry Barker think this is not impossible, and might even be economically advantageous. See for example this quote by him on p.15 of this article:
http://www.theclimategroup.org/ assets/ resources/ Macroeconomic_Effects_of_the_Transition_to_a_Low_Carbon_Economy.pdf

“Political economy has been portrayed by Thomas Carlyle as the dismal science, but on the contrary, a new understanding of the economy suggests that that a transition to a low-carbon, even zero-carbon, economy is feasible; and that if we choose a good mix of policies, such action will benefit economic performance and improve human well-being. Just as Thomas Malthus was wrong (so far!) in his predictions of population growth leading to economic collapse, so rapid decarbonisation need not ruin our economies, and for much the same reason: technological change. GHG-reducing technologies with carbon trading and carbon taxes can accelerate decarbonisation, reduce the risks of dangerous climate change, and contribute to economic development and human well being. The economic feasibility and benefit of a net-zero carbon economy have not been investigated, at least by 2050 or earlier as implied for a long-term “safe” climate. The technologies required for most sectors are available and extrapolation of available studies suggests that the economy could benefit, but the main technical and institutional options have not all been explored and the scale of the transition, especially for the energy sector, is immense. The immediate challenge however is one of devising, then agreeing, international policies and actions that can guarantee results and benefits for the more modest 50 percent target, recognising that this is not strong enough for a safe climate but much better than no target at all.”

]]> By: Robert http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/29/nature-climate-crunch/#comment-43976 Robert Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:01:38 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=6177#comment-43976 The BBC's take on it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8023072.stm "Writing in Nature, they say politicians should focus on limiting humanity's total output of CO2 rather than setting a "safe" level for annual emissions. " ... and that is my take on it. Stopping digging the stuff up is the goal, not messing around with trading permits etc. The BBC’s take on it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/ 2/ hi/ science/ nature/ 8023072.stm

“Writing in Nature, they say politicians should focus on limiting humanity’s total output of CO2 rather than setting a “safe” level for annual emissions. ”

… and that is my take on it. Stopping digging the stuff up is the goal, not messing around with trading permits etc.

]]> By: Lewis http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/29/nature-climate-crunch/#comment-43956 Lewis Thu, 30 Apr 2009 15:47:43 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=6177#comment-43956 Article on further Wilkins break up: http://www.esa.int/esaEO/SEMRAVANJTF_index_0.html The ice bridge disintegrated in early-mid April and now the rest of the shelf is following. In 1992 the ice bridge alone was something like a 100km wide. Lots of pics on it their, look for the 'webcam from space.' Article on further Wilkins break up:

http://www.esa.int/ esaEO/ SEMRAVANJTF_index_0.html

The ice bridge disintegrated in early-mid April and now the rest of the shelf is following. In 1992 the ice bridge alone was something like a 100km wide.

Lots of pics on it their, look for the ‘webcam from space.’

]]> By: Eric Fairfield http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/29/nature-climate-crunch/#comment-43921 Eric Fairfield Thu, 30 Apr 2009 13:12:27 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=6177#comment-43921 Joe, Even when I disagree with your conclusions, you save me a lot of time and get me the data I need in order to draw my own conclusions. Keep it up. Eric Joe,
Even when I disagree with your conclusions, you save me a lot of time and get me the data I need in order to draw my own conclusions. Keep it up.
Eric

]]>