Unpicking Kyoto
Jo Abbess
20 June 2010
CONTINUED FROM PART 1
PART 2
Why Was Copenhagen Such A Washout ?
The international community, in the form of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) established the Kyoto Protocol back in 1997, a treaty that was ratified only as late as 2005 after compromises from the World Trade Organisation (WTO) for Russia. Global Climate Change negotiations, even before the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 have been beset by recurring problems.
Unpicking Kyoto
Jo Abbess
20 June 2010
PART 1
Introduction
The governments of the world are, by and large, well-informed about Climate Change by their trusted scientific advisers and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). However, there is a disconnect between this knowledge and concrete policy action. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has not been successful in achieving control of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions through the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. Plus, annual negotiations have not reached a form of an agreement to succeed Kyoto, as evidenced by the inconclusive round of talks in December 2009 in Copenhagen. Suggestions of a way forward include a radical re-think about the formulation of the Kyoto Protocol, and the connection of Climate Change to other global concerns.
Kyoto Isn’t Working
For a period during the late 1980s and early 1990s, the world economy appeared to reach a stable point, whereby Carbon Dioxide emissions per person (per capita) levelled off. Many of the world’s major economies were switching fuels – from coal to Natural Gas. And some heavily industrialised countries were going through revolutionary change, and reducing their Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions as a result of the ensuing loss of industrial output.
For a few days last week, I was afraid that the University of Alabama in Huntsville had had their computers hacked, as Channel 5 of their satellite record showed just a single data point.
By the 16th June 2010, however, full data for the year to date was visible again, but it seemed that data from previous years was not available, as the chart legend said that the temperature at 14,000 feet above the Earth’s surface was 457.01 degrees Fahrenheit higher than last year (as you can see in the snapshot above). I concluded, quite logically I feel, that something was amiss.
What’s up with UAH, I asked myself ?
Another chapter in the ongoing saga of the exhausting struggle to educate the mainstream media journalists to check their Climate Change stories thoroughly before publishing.
You may have heard of “Amazongate” – the Amazon would seem to be capable of withstanding more frequent drought caused by Global Warming – according to one interpretation of an isolated piece of research.
However, if you believed that take on things, you’d be very much mistaken in doing so. And the person you’re most likely to be able to have believed on this story would be Jonathan Leake, writing in The Sunday Times.
An article that he wrote, published on 31 January 2010 has been retracted after a submission to the Press Complaints Commission by Dr Simon Lewis. The link to the original article has been removed from the Times Online website :-
https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009705.ece
“UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim”
Searching for this article title using Google produces thousands of pages that refer to the original publication :-
https://www.google.co.uk/search
The retraction is apparently published here, but I have no access to it, because it requires subscription, which I will not register for, so I do not know what it says :-
Centre for Alternative Technology
Burning things wastes a lot of energy – even burning waste.
1. Plain Old Inefficiency
The systems and infrastructure for the generation and distribution of electricity in the United Kingdom is extremely poor, nigh on immorally wasteful. See the diagram above from the Zero Carbon Britain 2030 report :-
There are so many things that could be done to improve on that enormous loss of energy, and save on Carbon Dioxide Emissions at the same time.
Tough on grime; tough on the causes of grime.
American President Barack Obama declares that as regards environmental pollution, “we shall fight them on the beaches”.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-nation-bp-oil-spill
“Already, this oil spill is the worst environmental disaster America has ever faced. And unlike an earthquake or a hurricane, it’s not a single event that does its damage in a matter of minutes or days. The millions of gallons of oil that have spilled into the Gulf of Mexico are more like an epidemic, one that we will be fighting for months and even years.”
“But make no mistake: We will fight this spill with everything we’ve got for as long as it takes. We will make BP pay for the damage their company has caused. And we will do whatever’s necessary to help the Gulf Coast and its people recover from this tragedy.”
I’m sure you’ll be interested to know that the second Zero Carbon Britain report from the Centre for Alternative Technology is now available for free download from this website :-
https://zerocarbonbritain.org/
https://zerocarbonbritain.org/downloads/ZCB2030.pdf
Here are a few articles about the report release :-
https://neweconomics.org/publications/zero-carbon-britain-2030
https://www.cat.org.uk/news/news_release.tmpl?command=search&db=news.db&eqSKUdatarq=37990&home=1
https://www.greenbang.com/uk-carbon-from-637m-tonnes-to-0-possible-by-2030_14526.html
https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2010/06/453523.html
Enjoy !
Professor Mike Hulme is far too clever for most other people to understand.
He has spent many years trying to challenge dogmatism, undermine polarised extremes, create a broader church for Climate Change.
Trouble is, people tend to misuse his words.
Here he was, back in 2006, trying to unpick some alarmist tendencies :-
https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6115644.stm
https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5236482.stm
His intention, presumably, was to avoid the “doom and gloom” trap of people placing too much urgency on an apparent emergency, then being disappointed by political failure to rise to speedy action.
But, of course, his approach was picked up, warped, and propagated by those who want to delay action on Climate Change by pouring doubt on the Science.
Most famously perhaps, last year he went public on his view that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had run its course, (when of course it’s more necessary now than ever, and a Fifth Assessment Report has been commissioned) :-
Seems the world wants Mike Hulme to slip up.
Here’s a little something I concocted last year, when trying to get inside Mike Hulme’s mind :-
https://www.joabbess.com/2009/12/06/untidy-minds-6-mike-hulme/
His personal statement on what he believes about Climate Change is here :-
https://www.mikehulme.org/wp-content/uploads/the-five-lessons-of-climate-change.pdf
It seems he is an obvious target for the Skeptical Brotherhood, as this week’s hyperbolic reaction to one of his publications has shown :-
https://deepclimate.org/2010/06/15/mike-hulme-sets-solomon-and-morano-straight/
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2010/06/hulmes-contents-on-ipcc.html
Another trouble is, Mike Hulme’s own correction to the fabricated stories being carried by the Climate Change denier-sceptic websites doesn’t really clear anything up :-
https://mikehulme.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Correcting-reports-of-the-PiPG-paper.pdf
“The IPCC consensus does not mean – clearly cannot possibly mean – that every scientist involved in the IPCC process agrees with every single statement in the IPCC! Some scientists involved in the IPCC did not agree with the IPCC’s projections of future sea-level. Giving the impression that the IPCC consensus means everyone agrees with everyone else – as I think some well-meaning but uninformed commentaries do (or have a tendency to do) – is unhelpful; it doesn’t reflect the uncertain, exploratory and sometimes contested nature of scientific knowledge.”
This is just going to heap fuel on the fire.
There are a number of websites that have covered this story along the lines of “IPCC insider says consensus was phoney”. If I were you, I’d anti-bookmark all these sources, as they are clearly unreliable :-
https://www.thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1092-the-ipcc-consensus-was-phoney-says-mike-hulme.html
https://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/6/11/quote-of-the-day.html
https://www.climatechangefraud.com/
https://opinion.financialpost.com/tag/thomas-kuhn/
And of course, since the story is picked up by David Icke, it must be true and we should all believe it (irony alert) :-
What’s wrong with this picture ?
Yes, that’s right. There’s no mention of the Gaza Strip or the West Bank.
Besides blurring the land boundaries, it seems that Israel is also blurring the maritime and sub-sea borders into the bargain.
So, digging up dirty old decaying fish causes massive coastland and marine pollution. Would bioethanol from corn be better ?
https://blogs.ft.com/energy-source/2010/06/14/is-bps-oil-spill-an-opportunity-for-the-ethanol-lobby/
Not really. First there’s the amount of land required to grow all that corn to burn in all those tanks (see diagram at top of page).
Image Credit : Nick Turner : “BP Exec” : Image Owned By : Art Not Oil
Phew ! That’s a relief ! The American President Barack Obama has personally spoken to British Prime Minister David Cameron apparently to reassure him he meant no harm to the reputation of Britain by blaming BP for the Gulf of Mexico oil spill :-
https://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/13/gulf-oil-spill
I should hope not ! BP stopped being “British” Petroleum some time ago. Forty percent of BP’s business is in the United States :-
https://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/jun/10/us-bloodlust-bp-oil-spill
NASA GISS compute that the period January to May for 2010 has been the hottest ever on record.
Of course, the Sun is the ultimate cause of rising temperatures on Earth. The energy from the Sun is the driving force behind all the weather systems, ocean currents, wind storms and cloud activity.
But it’s the things you can’t see that are the most significant.
While Europe has been enjoying an early Summer, elsewhere in the world high air temperatures have been record-breaking.
When the heat gets this bad, public services need to provide air-conditioned community shelters as a key adaptational strategy.
But any plans of this nature are being thwarted by power shortages, for example, in India and Pakistan :-
https://www.ecanadanow.com/world/2010/06/01/200-dead-in-india-heatwave/
“200 Dead In India Heatwave”, 01 June 2010
https://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/07/pakistan-energy-policy-proving-deadly
“Pakistan’s heatwave and a deadly lack of energy policy : The blackout-blighted country should be free to accept development help from China, and not rely on US financial aid : Nosheen Iqbal”, 07 June 2010
Clearly, the time has never been more right for clean, renewable energy.
What’s wrong with this picture ? Although it has been amended in the online version (click the picture for the link), the latest United States Geological Survey of the Levant Basin in the East Mediterranean completely omitted to label Gaza :-
https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2010/3014/pdf/FS10-3014.pdf
The file is downloadable from here :-
https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2010/3014/
Why is this important ? The most significant Natural Gas finds in the Eastern Mediterranean are technically in Gazan maritime territory.
You may be familiar with the Christian theology of Trinity – God the Father, Jesus (Messiah or Christ) his Son and the Holy Spirit all somehow united, living together, one being together, different aspects of the same Goodly Godness.
And you may be also be familiar with Communion, the communal ritual of eating bread and drinking wine as a church community, the coming together of the Children of God. “Remain in me”, says Jesus, talking about grafting his followers into this new and universal church Vine :-
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+15&version=NLT
Ex-Members of Parliament and ex-Ministers of Government usually have a lot to say about Climate Change and Energy. Colin Challen, formerly MP for Morley and Rotherwell, is a prime case in point.
What the world needs now is a new world order – a global framework for carbon emissions control – and that framework is Contraction and Convergence. Colin Challen has written a powerful statement to Chris Huhne MP, the new Minister for the Department of Energy and Climate Change, and would like us all to co-sign it :-
https://www.gci.org.uk/politics.html
Naturally, I have already signed this letter, because I know that Contraction and Convergence has to be at the heart of future international negotiations on Climate Change :-
https://www.joabbess.com/2010/04/30/the-price-of-carbon/
I hope you can all co-sign the letter with me.
To : The Diocese of Chelmsford, Environment Group
Date : 30 May 2010
Subject : Motion for the Church of England Synod
Dear Environment Group,
I am aware that you are soon to decide on bringing a motion to Synod, in support of the Church of England’s Seven Year “Church and Earth” Climate Change Action Plan.
I am also aware of recent news that may affect your deliberations :-
“Rebel scientists force Royal Society to accept climate change scepticism”
The Times of London, 29 May 2010
https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7139407.ece
“Royal Society to publish guide on climate change to counter claims of ‘exaggeration'”
Daily Telegraph, 29 May 2010
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7778917/Royal-Society-to-publish-guide-on-climate-change-to-counter-claims-of-exaggeration.html
“Harrabin’s Notes: Getting the message : In his regular column, BBC environment analyst Roger Harrabin looks at the fall-out from complaints that some of the Royal Society had oversimplified its messages in public statements on climate change.”
BBC, 29 May 2010
https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_environment/10178454.stm
May I commend to you the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the National Academy of Sciences in the United States of America, and in Great Britain the work of the Meteorological Office and the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, in reaching resolution to your deliberations.
Image Credit : SkepticalScience.com
It should come as no surprise that the United Nations (under UNFCCC) commissioned a report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), way back in 2007.
The revelation is that very few people appear to have read any of it.
So I thought I would present just a little about the “robust findings” of Working Group 1 (WG1 or WGI) of the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). I think the IPCC’s science needs a wider public readership, and so I hope that this post in some way enables that.
The unpacking of the Working Group 1 report “Climate Change 2007 : The Physical Science Basis” could begin by looking at the Technical Summary, or the overall AR4 Technical Summary, or the Synthesis Report, or their respective Summaries for Policymakers.
What’s the difference ? Why is Global Warming not the same as Climate Change ? And why do we call Global Warming “anthropogenic” ? How do we know recent Global Warming is caused by mankind’s activities ?
So, what is Global Warming ?
1. Carbon Dioxide is a Greenhouse Gas
Without Carbon Dioxide and other Greenhouse Gases in the Atmosphere (air), the temperature at the Earth’s surface would be something like 30 degrees Celsius colder than it is now.
This is a well-established fact, about which there there is no dispute. Well, OK, some people dispute it, but the fact that they dispute it does not alter the data.
It’s also a well-established old fact : the original science about the Greenhouse Effect was done over 100 years ago :-
https://www.aip.org/history/climate/
https://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm
Yes, why does the heat dip in the Stratosphere, when it bumps up in the Troposphere ?
And why has the temperature in the Stratosphere averaged downwards over the years as the temperature in the Troposphere has pushed upwards on average over the same period ?
Wouldn’t have anything to do with…Anthropogenic Global Warming, would it ?
I believe it might…
PLEASE IGNORE ADVERTISEMENT AT START OF VIDEO
The Gulf of Mexico just now is no oil painting, and it’s costing BP in share price and reputation.
Just how much do BP care about Nature, about life, about humanity ? The answer can be found, perhaps, in their liberal sponsorship of the Arts :-
Criticised by some as a blatant attempt to court public favour and tacit acceptance, BP have continued to financially support the Tate Britain gallery :-
https://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9026067&contentId=7048078
It is a statement of the most culturally sensitive kind. Yet, the key question in my mind is : will they be able to continue to afford this, what with their excessive liabilities in the Gulf of Mexico ?
https://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g3hy5jGjeu796BUwgHljsdxqNqHQ
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/index.php?report=global
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Steady-rise-in-temperature-since-1970-Nasa/articleshow/5951409.cms
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/goa/It-was-Goas-hottest-April-in-40-years/articleshow/5895875.cms
The Times of London is probably under instruction to show some “balance”, so ignore the last paragraph here :-
https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/weather/uk_and_roi/article7134047.ece
Behind Paywall :-
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20127011.500-arctic-meltdown-is-a-threat-to-humanity.html?full=true
Select “CH4” for Methane :-
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/iadv/
https://cdiac.ornl.gov/ndps/alegage.html
https://agage.eas.gatech.edu/data.htm
https://agage.eas.gatech.edu/images/Data_figures/gcmd_month/ch4_monS5.pdf
Watch it while it all melts away…this isn’t modelling, it’s data :-
https://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
https://climateprogress.org/2010/05/21/arctic-sea-ice-area-extent-volume-record-low/
https://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/IceVolume.php
https://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=73&&n=182
https://psc.apl.washington.edu/IDAO/rothrock_zhang_2004JC002282.pdf
