As of Monday, poorer nations (the G77) continued to stall talks at Copenhagen. Despite pressure from rich, developed, polluting nations, the group of developing countries have stood firm in their resolve to get 350ppm (concentration CO2) as a stated goal of the Copenhagen Summit. 350ppm has been identified by climatologists as the likely value that can exist without sending the climate system into either a more chaotic state or a stable state which consists of a much warmer and acidified world. Current concentrations have reached 387ppm. Good for the poorer nations. I sincerely hope they maintain their stance and force real action.
China, which last month for the first time publicly announced a target for reducing the rate of growth of its greenhouse gas emissions, is refusing to accept any kind of international monitoring of its emissions levels, according to negotiators and observers here. The United States is insisting that without stringent verification of China’s actions, it cannot support any deal.
Democrats had better take notice: jumping on board with every asinine conspiracy theory the Cons come up with isn’t a good idea. In this case, a U.S. Federal Court has issued a preliminary injuction that the funding ban imposed on ACORN was a “bill of attainder” – a legislative determination of guilt without holding a trial, because it specifically sought to punish one group.
Democrats went along with too many of these kinds of witch hunts when the Cons were “in control” of the Congress. To have seen them go skipping along to the Cons’ tune while they hold decisive majorities in both chambers was embarrassing and, quite frankly, pathetic. Being in the majority doesn’t mean jumping when the minority party says jump, especially when the minority party pulls something as silly as the doctored tapes showing what they want ACORN to be about instead of what really happened.
Double egg on the face of the Democrat/Jellyfish party. Wise up, Democrats. If you keep doing the wrong thing at every opportunity, your base will desert you.
The first official draft on a climate deal has been written and issued. The expectation is the details won’t be worked out for another 6 months or so, which was what a lot of people were thinking going into this Summit. Keep in mind that George Bush’s crew did everything they could for 8 years to make sure the climate crisis was worse when they left than when they took power. President Obama’s administration has had only 10 months so far to undo those 8 years of damage. That little fact will be very handy when the Cons start screaming that the Summit and the U.S. President are failures. Gotta love those patriots! Back to the draft:
A key working group under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) came up with a six-page text Friday. The draft may form the core of a new global agreement to combat climate change beyond 2012, when the present framework, the Kyoto Protocol, expires. However, most figures in the text are shown in brackets – meaning that there is not yet agreement on these specifics. Most importantly, the draft states that emissions should be halved worldwide by 2050 compared to 1990 levels, but it also suggests 80 percent and 95 percent reductions by that year as possible alternative options.
Those two emphasized statements are at the root of a lot of disagreement between parties, as I cover below.
There was an important development at yesterday’s Climate Summit in Copenhagen that should have gotten more attention in the media. There was also a data update that provides additional context for the importance of that development.
The island nation of Tuvalu wanted legally binding language to be written establishing limits in global atmospheric CO2 concentrations to 350 parts per million and global temperature rise to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. For clarity, our current global CO2 concentrations, according to observations, is 387ppm. So we’re already above the limit that scientists have identified as being a threshold we should not be above if we don’t want global temperatures much higher than they are today. Tuvalu was asking, therefore, for nations to agree to reduce emissions drastically so that the atmospheric concentrations begin decreasing. Why would they want legally binding language for such an audacious goal? Because Tuvalu is a set of four reef islands and five atolls whose maximum elevation is 15ft. They are extremely susceptible to any future potential sea level rise. Larger, richer countries (like Saudi Arabia and China) would hear none of it. They want to keep burning dirty fossil fuels and expand their economies like other developed nations did for the past 150 years. Tuvalu and a group consisting of other island countries and poorer nations can’t afford to wait until China decides they’re ready to switch to 100% renewable energy at some point in the future. They’re at risk today from climate change that is already occurring. The issue was suspended for the time being. Expect it to arise again before the end of next week (not that a solution will be found in that time frame, unfortunately).
Which brings me to the bad news of the day. I’ve written for months now that the 2007 IPCC AR4 report was good for its time, but it left significant questions unanswered (I haven’t been the only one). It was good, but didn’t go far enough. Major drawbacks resulting from a far too conservative approach, an approach that didn’t examine extremes as likely enough to spend much time on. Since the collection of papers for the 2007 AR4 release, scientists across the world have worked very hard to try to begin finding answers for the toughest questions remaining. How sensitive is the climate to GHG emissions? How responsive are temperatures to those emissions? When will glaciers and ice sheets melt? What kind of sea level rise can be expected? Another paper was put together to try to answer that last question. As with other facets of the research effort, conditions could very well be much worse than what the 2007 Report may have led people to think:
Sea level rise could occur 3 times faster than previously estimated. Everybody should be able to click on the link and look at the pdf if they want. Here’s the high-level message: based on our current emissions profile, which is as high as the worst-case scenario the IPCC examined, sea levels could rise by 6 feet (~2m) by 2100. The rate at which sea levels have been rising has increased in the past 20 and 10 years. Scientists’ predictions of sea level rise have been too low, contrary to the denialists’ hopes otherwise. Natural causes alone have not and cannot explain the rise observed. Like I wrote above, Tuvalu and many other countries are under immediate threat. They have no more time to wait while rich countries throw tantrums like spoiled children. This situation is likely to get worse before it gets better.
Lots of activity in Copenhagen happened during the past two days. As expected, results in the form of agreements or pacts haven’t come yet – that will happen next week. So here are some more climate-related news items to digest while negotiators do their job. I’ll add them throughout the day as they come out.
The 2000’s will be the hottest decade on record. Read that again: the 2000’s will be the hottest decade on record. Both the World Meteorological Organization and NOAA have come out with separate but agreeing analyses on this topic. Expect NASA to say the same thing when they release their update in the next week. We’ll have to wait until a little while into 2010 to get additional confirmation, but climate change is occurring today, period, end of story. What’s left to debate and decide? How fast and how much we act in the next 5 years. After that, it becomes how do we react, because a great deal of change will have been locked into the climate system.
This year’s climate summit is being held in Copenhagen, Denmark. The summit is scheduled to last through the end of next week. In the run-up to the conference, a large number of analyses and news tidbits have come out. Since little will be decided in the first few days of the summit, I wanted to collect and share some of them.
Within the past couple of weeks, President Obama announced he was prepared to offer a goal of the United States reducing emissions to 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent (baseline?) by 2050. It’s a target, which is frankly all I can say for it. Given the state of the climate, the 2020 goal falls far short of what needs to happen. In contrast, European nations who signed the Kyoto Protocol have already reduced their emissions by 8% of 1990 levels, which were obviously much lower than 2005 levels. The stranglehold that climate change deniers have on U.S. policy has got to end.
The best summary of what to expect can be found at Climate Progress.
Saudi Arabia desperately searches for any reason to prevent any forward progress at the summit. I hope I’m not the only one who sees parallels between the Saudi’s childish behavior and Con Senator’s childish behavior. The Cons would love living in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is the country which wants compensation for oil they won’t sell when the world switches to renewables (WTF?!).
Speaking of Hacker-gate, a crime was committed. Is it any wonder the corporate stenographic media is concentrating on what the deniers want them to concentrate on? I didn’t think so. Hacking is a crime. Scientists communicating with each other is not.
I’ve been sitting on this one for a while, but finally have the time to put up something. I feel like I normally share bad climate- and energy-related news: ice sheets are melting faster than expected, temperatures are rising more than expected, new and dire effects are being discovered, Congress is stupidly delaying progress on legislation, etc. There is plenty of good news in the climate and energy arena. People are taking matters into their own hands and actually doing something, and it’s becoming commonplace that they’re doing much more than replacing light bulbs in their house. This is one of those cases – but on a larger scale.
The New Rules Project in Minnesota released a second and updated edition of a report they originally issued in 2008, “Energy Self-Reliant States“. In this expanded edition, each state is assessed for commercial potential, not technical potential, of renewable electricity. The large picture: 64% of states can be self-sufficient in electricity from in-state renewables. An additional 14% can generate 75% of their electricity within their own borders. It argues for a decentralized energy approach, which makes the most sense to me. Why depend on your neighbor for electricity when you don’t have to, whether that neighbor is the state next door or another country. Keying on that decentralized approach, the report notes that 40 states could generate 25% of their electricity just with rooftop photovoltaic (PV) power. Generating energy exactly where it is used is by far the best way to go.
You can go to the website I link to above and download the report to see results for your own state, read more about the methodology, etc. I’m going to concentrate on my own state: Colorado.
Colorado is one of the most advantageous states when it comes to renewable energy potential for electricity. The report classifies Colorado as being able to generate more than 1000% of our electricity from combined renewable resources (solar plus wind plus geothermal, etc. – note this does not include concentrated solar power, another potentially large source), based on 2007 usage, as seen in this figure:
The state of the Arctic ice in December 2009 is the 2nd worst of any December in recorded history. As has been the case for months now, the areal extent of Arctic sea ice continues to be nowhere near the climatological average. As I’ve stated before, that’s indicative that a new phase of the Arctic (and Antarctic) has been reached. Arctic ice through the month of November mimicked the behavior seen in 2007, the year the extent reached the record low. Slower ice growth was seen in the first half of the month; faster growth was seen in the second half of the month. Not everything is abnormal. Ice growth has been observed in the expected locations for the most part. There is always variability of where the ice grows and when it grows there from year to year. What hasn’t changed too much since 2007 is the lack of long-term (2-year or older) ice, which resists melting in the summer. A key point many climate change deniers miss is that the ice will appear winter after winter for many years to come. The lack of ice in the summer is the issue: increased solar radiation absorption by dark ocean water (instead of being reflected by white ice) adds to global ocean heat content instead of preventing it. Warmer oceans mean higher sea levels and shifting weather patterns – one aspect of climate change.
Here is my State of the Arctic post for November and for September. Here is a satellite representation of Arctic sea ice conditions from yesterday:
For comparison purposes, here is the similar picture from August:
Here is the time series graph with the +/- 2 standard deviations through yesterday:
The NSIDC hasn’t issued their early-month report on the Arctic yet. When they do, I’ll provide a link to it and share anything I find interesting from it. Absent that report, I want to share something else I keep me eye on. The University of Illinois’ Polar Research Group maintains a number of maps and plots for both poles of the cryosphere. Additionally, they track the state of sea ice globally through time. As of today, the maximum global extent of sea ice already occurred a couple of months ago and measured ~21 million sq. km. According to the time series, this is near a record low maximum for the year. The only other times this value was reached was in 2001 and 2007 (the record extends back to 1979). The climatological maximum is over 22 million sq. km. The difference might seem small – 1 million sq. km. – but it’s not. Egypt has 1 million sq. km. of land area. So this year, an area of ice the size of Egypt didn’t form. Of more concern is the low anomalies seen the past three years globally: between 2 and 3 million sq. km. or 2-3 Egypt’s worth of ice. That’s what I’m talking about when I say a new phase of the poles has been reached.
This larger view is probably something I’ll put more focus on in the future, hence the updated title from my ongoing series on this subject. Examining the Antarctic is and will be just as important as examining the Arctic.
Weatherdem's Weblog 
