Comments on: The 2007 IPCC synthesis report http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/11/26/55 A critical appraisal of issues in the move to a low-carbon economy Wed, 20 Aug 2008 18:28:24 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: pete best http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/11/26/55#comment-469 pete best Mon, 07 Apr 2008 14:03:49 +0000 http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/11/26/55#comment-469 James Hansen now believes that 450 ppm and not 550 ppm is the target for CO2 level limits. Thats only 35 years away from being reached at present emission rates of 2 ppm per annum. As the existing energy infrastructure items such as cars, aeroplanes, power stations have lifecycles of 10 to 60 years in length it is looking increasingly unlikely that a 2C global warming can be avoided and that we will all be seeking to avoid >2C temperature rises which is worrying. James Hansen now believes that 450 ppm and not 550 ppm is the target for CO2 level limits. Thats only 35 years away from being reached at present emission rates of 2 ppm per annum. As the existing energy infrastructure items such as cars, aeroplanes, power stations have lifecycles of 10 to 60 years in length it is looking increasingly unlikely that a 2C global warming can be avoided and that we will all be seeking to avoid >2C temperature rises which is worrying.

]]> By: Robert Palgrave http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/11/26/55#comment-101 Robert Palgrave Sat, 01 Dec 2007 09:19:59 +0000 http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/11/26/55#comment-101 To reinforce Jim Woods' comments on the conservative nature of the IPCC's predictions - read the excellent booklet from Colin Challen's APPCCG titled "Planet Earth we have a Problem". It's a summary of a presentation given to this group in June 2007 by Peter Cox, Deepak Rughani, Pater Wadhams and David Wasdell. A detailed but accessible review of the positive feedback mechanisms in the biosphere which are in danger of being triggered by rising temperatures and rising CO2 levels. Once triggered, there is little prospect of them being reversed, however much we cut back on emissions. (APPCCG - All Party Parliamentary Climate Change Group) To reinforce Jim Woods’ comments on the conservative nature of the IPCC’s predictions - read the excellent booklet from Colin Challen’s APPCCG titled “Planet Earth we have a Problem”.

It’s a summary of a presentation given to this group in June 2007 by Peter Cox, Deepak Rughani, Pater Wadhams and David Wasdell. A detailed but accessible review of the positive feedback mechanisms in the biosphere which are in danger of being triggered by rising temperatures and rising CO2 levels. Once triggered, there is little prospect of them being reversed, however much we cut back on emissions.

(APPCCG - All Party Parliamentary Climate Change Group)

]]> By: Jim Woods http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/11/26/55#comment-99 Jim Woods Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:13:20 +0000 http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/11/26/55#comment-99 Thanks for a very valuable piece of analysis, which really highlights the risk of relying on IPCC reports as the main basis for planning. I think the IPCC has very valuably proved there is agreement amongst scientists that climate change is real and man-made. However, its conservative and consensual nature of the IPCC may undermine its ability to provide valuable climatatic forecasts. Chris touches on this when he mentions the "IPCC report writing process is collegial, and individual scientists can alter the tone of what is written." I would further add to this; 1) the IPCC is a panel set up by the United Nations comprising representatives from about 140 governments to consider what we currently know about climate change. We should not expect them to find new material; rather, they are consolidations of what we know, and do not seem to move the subject forward. 2) Most of the models that are used by the IPCC rely on rely on atmospheric physics, and do not take into account the influence of the clouds. The ocean are incompletely included and that of the Earth's natural ecosystems hardly at all. 3) It is my understanding that the IPCC models to not take into account new findings since the end of 2006, which show that artic ice is melting faster than expected, the oceans are absorbing less carbon dioxide. In an area of fast-changing science, this is an issue. To be very clear, I am immensely grateful for the work that IPCC has done to wake the world up, but I think the most valuable climate modelling will be done by teams who best understand the science and can provide a defintive view that people can act upon. And we need to get down to site level. Is it time for the private sector to get involved? Thanks for a very interesting piece. Thanks for a very valuable piece of analysis, which really highlights the risk of relying on IPCC reports as the main basis for planning. I think the IPCC has very valuably proved there is agreement amongst scientists that climate change is real and man-made. However, its conservative and consensual nature of the IPCC may undermine its ability to provide valuable climatatic forecasts.

Chris touches on this when he mentions the “IPCC report writing process is collegial, and individual scientists can alter the tone of what is written.” I would further add to this;

1) the IPCC is a panel set up by the United Nations comprising representatives from about 140 governments to consider what we currently know about climate change. We should not expect them to find new material; rather, they are consolidations of what we know, and do not seem to move the subject forward.

2) Most of the models that are used by the IPCC rely on rely on atmospheric physics, and do not take into account the influence of the clouds. The ocean are incompletely included and that of the Earth’s natural ecosystems hardly at all.

3) It is my understanding that the IPCC models to not take into account new findings since the end of 2006, which show that artic ice is melting faster than expected, the oceans are absorbing less carbon dioxide. In an area of fast-changing science, this is an issue.

To be very clear, I am immensely grateful for the work that IPCC has done to wake the world up, but I think the most valuable climate modelling will be done by teams who best understand the science and can provide a defintive view that people can act upon. And we need to get down to site level.

Is it time for the private sector to get involved?

Thanks for a very interesting piece.

]]>