Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/

WGII AR5 Chapter / Annex Downloads
https://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/report/full-report/

Regional Chapters - North America
https://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WGIIAR5-Chap26_FINAL.pdf

Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/

Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/

Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Regional Chapters - North America
https://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WGIIAR5-Chap26_FINAL.pdf
Executive Summary
Overview

North America’s climate has changed and some societally relevant changes have been attributed to anthropogenic causes (very high confidence). {Figure 26-1} Recent climate changes and individual extreme events demonstrate both impacts of climate related stresses and vulnerabilities of exposed systems (very high confidence). {Figure 26-2} Observed climate trends in North America include an increased occurrence of severe hot weather events over much of the USA, decreases in frost days, and increases in heavy precipitation over much of North America (high confidence). {26.2.2.1} The attribution of observed changes to anthropogenic causes has been established for some climate and physical systems (e.g., earlier peak flow of snowmelt runoff and declines in the amount of water stored in spring snowpack in snow-dominated streams and areas of western USA and Canada (very high confidence). {Figure 26-1} Evidence of anthropogenic climatic influence on ecosystems, agriculture, water resources, infrastructure, and urban and rural settlements is less clearly established, though, in many areas, these sectors exhibit substantial sensitivity to climate variability (high confidence). {26.3.1-2, 26.4.2.1-2, 26.4.3.1, 26.5.1, 26.7.1.1, 26.7.2, 26.8.1; Figure 26-2; Box 26-3}

Many climate stresses that carry risk—particularly related to severe heat, heavy precipitation, and declining snowpack—will increase in frequency and/or severity in North America in the next decades (very high confidence). Global warming of approximately 2°C (above the preindustrial baseline) is very likely to lead to more frequent extreme heat events and daily precipitation extremes over most areas of North America, more frequent low-snow years, and shifts toward earlier snowmelt runoff over much of the western USA and Canada. 26.2.2.2} Together with climate hazards such as higher sea levels and associated storm surges, more intense droughts, and increased precipitation variability, these changes are projected to lead to increased stresses to water, agriculture, economic activities, and urban and rural settlements (high confidence). {26.3.2, 26.5.2, 26.7.1.2, 26.8.3} Global warming of approximately 4°C is very likely to cause larger changes in extreme heat events, daily-scale precipitation extremes and snow accumulation and runoff, as well as emergence of a locally novel temperature regime throughout North America. {26.2.2.2} This higher level of global temperature change is likely to cause decreases in annual precipitation over much of the southern half of the continent and increases in annual precipitation over much of the northern half of the continent. {26.2.2.2} The higher level of warming would present additional and substantial risks and adaptation challenges across a range of sectors (high confidence). {26.3.3, 26.5.2, 26.6.2, 26.7.2.2, 26.8.3}

We highlight below key findings on impacts, vulnerabilities, projections, and adaptation responses relevant to specific North American sectors: ecosystems, water, agriculture, human health, urban and rural settlements, infrastructure, and the economy. We then highlight challenges and opportunities for adaptation, and future risks and adaptive capacity for three key climate-related risks.
 

Attachments

  • WGII_AR5_Fig26-3.jpg
    WGII_AR5_Fig26-3.jpg
    94.6 KB · Views: 57
  • WGII_AR5_Fig26-4.jpg
    WGII_AR5_Fig26-4.jpg
    93.8 KB · Views: 57
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.vancouverobserver.com/news/kinder-morgan-serves-legal-papers-pipeline-opponent-facebook

Kinder Morgan serves legal papers to pipeline opponent via Facebook

The battle over Burnaby Mountain heated up in a Vancouver courtroom. Several residents were hastily served with legal notices claiming they have been interfering with Kinder Morgan's survey work.

Mychaylo Prystupa
|Nov 1st, 2014

Adam Gold given legal papers from Kinder Morgan via Facebook - Mychaylo Prystupa

Adam Gold shows the Kinder Morgan legal papers he was served via Facebook, outside the B.C. Supreme Court on Friday - photo by Mychaylo Prystupa

The battle over Burnaby Mountain took an unusual turn Friday in a Vancouver courtroom where it was revealed that Kinder Morgan had served several residents with legal papers using hasty methods.

“I was served papers via Facebook,” said Burnaby resident Adam Gold on Friday, outside the B.C. Supreme Court.

The Texas-based pipeline giant is applying for a quick court order that would prevent local residents from interfering with the company’s controversial pipeline survey work in Burnaby for the proposed $5.4-billion Trans Mountain pipeline expansion.

“The attachments were legal documents that were served through Facebook Messenger. I am not [the Kinder Morgan lawyer’s] friend in Facebook, so they ended up in a folder that is not usually viewed.”

“It doesn’t seem very professional or in accordance with proper legal practice,” said Gold.

By luck, Gold happened to check it, and discovered that the multinational corporation’s legal team was targeting him with allegations that he was “trespassing” and interfering with the company’s survey crews.

Company spokesperson Ali Hounsell said late Friday: “Trans Mountain was authorized by order of Master Baker of the B.C. Supreme Court to serve the materials on Mr. Gold in the manner it did.”

SFU biochemistry professor Lynne Quarmby Burnaby Mountain - Mychaylo PrystupaSFU biochemistry professor Lynne Quarmby on Burnaby Mountain on Wednesday - Photo by Mychaylo Prystupa

Others got the 1,000-page legal paperwork at their work places, including SFU biochemistry professor Lynne Quarmby. Kinder Morgan's lawyer told the court that her op/ed submission to the Vancouver Observer showed the long-time scientist's willingness to be arrested to stop the pipeline, over climate change concerns.

Another defendant, Mia Nissen, spotted her papers outside her apartment door. All defendants discovered the paperwork late Thursday, when they learned they had less than 24 hours to appear in court. Some did not have time to get lawyers.

Kinder Morgan asked the court to have its application heard in just two hours. The rush appears to be for financial reasons. The company claims it is losing $80 million in revenues for every month that its proposed Edmonton-to-Burnaby bitumen oil pipeline is delayed.

Kinder Morgan crews on Burnaby Mountain - Mychaylo PrystupaKinder Morgan crews confronting citizens on Burnaby Mountain on Wednesday - Photo by Mychaylo Prystupa

The issue heated up Wednesday, after dozens of citizens clashed with Kinder Morgan’s survey crews deep in the conservation forest on Burnaby Mountain – the last leg of the proposed pipeline, towards the oil export terminal that would feed 400 super tankers per year.

Kinder Morgan’s lawyer told the court that Adam Gold had held a bullhorn to within inches of a company surveyor, and blasted it at loud volume. Gold will have the opportunity to defend against that allegation.

Another factor for pushing through these legal proceedings may be a federal deadline.

SFU professor Stephen Collis, who is also named by Kinder Morgan for leading the obstruction of the pipeline work, said the company is trying to complete its work before a critical December 1st deadline set by the National Energy Board.

Legal battles heat up

Collis makes no bones about the fact that he is not just expressing his opinions in the park – he is intent on stopping the pipeline, period.

“We’re trying to halt a pipeline project altogether,” said Collis in the courtroom elevator, on his way out to a crush of reporters outside the B.C. Supreme Court, late Friday.

He said two other major legal efforts are underway to stop the pipeline – and he and others want to give them more time.

“We’re hoping the City of Burnaby can [stop the pipeline] in the courts. We’re hoping that the Tsleil Waututh Nation can do that through the courts. Anything, anything except this pipeline,” said the literature professor.

Meanwhile, ForestEthics Advocacy is waging a third legal challenge to the pipeline. The enviro-lobby group is challenging the very constitutionality of the National Energy Board, which under new Harper government legal changes, will not permit the expression of climate change views as part of the regulatory review of pipelines.

Kinder Morgan’s lawyer Bill Kaplan – who said he prefers his client described as “Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC” (which is wholly owned by Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, NYSE: KMP) – said there are very good reasons to force the removal of the residents from Burnaby Mountain.

For starters, he told the court that explosive charges will need to be detonated on the mountain as part of technical work to “geo-physicate” the grounds for the pipeline. The company wants to determine the land’s suitability for a possible underground tunnel for the oil conduit. So for safety reasons, people need to be removed.

Police may have to intervene

Also appearing in court was a lawyer for the RCMP, who said that “things are heating up” on Burnaby Mountain. He advised that possible criminal charges for civil disobedience are in the works, and mentioned the 18-year-old who pinned himself under a Kinder Morgan SUV to prevent the vehicle from leaving.

"Things are progressing that police may have to intervene," said the police lawyer.

A lawyer for a citizens’ group “BROKE” (Burnaby Residents Opposed to Kinder Morgan Expansion) said the company’s claim that residents are “trespassing” in a public park has no legal merit.

About 100 people packed the court room for the proceedings, many identified as pipeline opponents.

Among them was 23-year-old Christopher Life. He was videotaped Wednesday by Kinder Morgan crews during the citizen-company clashes. He took issue with the company lawyer's assertion that citizens were trespassing.

"How can we be trespassing on public lands?" said Life.

Christopher Life and Kinder Morgan crew on Burnaby Mountain - Mychaylo Prystupa

Christopher Life being videotaped by a Kinder Morgan crew member on Burnaby Mountain on Wednesday - Photo by Mychaylo Prystupa

"I think they have [legal] expensive guns.... this is the only type of peaceful forum we have to oppose the pipeline."

During the proceedings, Professor Collis claims he got texts from people at Burnaby Mountain that the company was "secretly" continuing its survey work Friday afternoon, while most of the (opposing) residents were away from the mountain in the courtroom.

Friday, a company spokesperson denied that Kinder Morgan had continued its survey work.

The judge ruled that the proceeding would need more time for defendants to look over the "voluminous" three-inch binder claim made against them. The hearing will now last three days, and will resume Wednesday.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.vancouverobserver.com/ne...urnaby-residents-multi-million-dollar-lawsuit

Kinder Morgan slaps Burnaby residents with multi-million-dollar lawsuit

“I feel outraged politically that this could happen in a democracy – that a foreign massive company can accuse you of trespassing on a park" - SFU professor Stephen Collis

Mychaylo Prystupa
|Oct 31st, 2014
Kinder Morgan crews meet citizens on Burnaby Mountain - Mychaylo Prystupa

Texas-based Kinder Morgan has hit several Burnaby residents and two SFU professors, who have spoken out against the company’s pipeline test work on Burnaby Mountain, with a multi-million-dollar lawsuit according to the defendants' lawyer.

SFU professor Stephen Collis received the 1000-page stack of legal papers at his university office, just before he went out to teach his literature class late Thursday.

“Personally, you feel pretty freaked out – when they start saying $5.6 million in damages, and all this jazz.”

“I feel outraged politically that this could happen in a democracy – that a massive foreign company can accuse you of trespassing on a park. That they can use the courts and their money and influence from barring you from your constitutional right to free speech,” said Collis on Friday morning.

SFU professor Stephen Collis on Burnaby Mountain - Mychaylo Prystupa

SFU professor Stephen Collis on Burnaby Mountain on Wednesday after citizens clashed with company crews - photo by Mychaylo Prystupa

In court papers, the company states several citizens have obstructed and interfered with its field studies to assess the feasibility of an underground tunnel for the last leg of its proposed Edmonton-to-Burnaby pipeline.

Adam Gold, Mia Nissen, Stephen Collis, Lynne Quarmby, Alan Dutton and the pipeline-opponent-citizen’s group "BROKE" were all served papers late Thursday. Many of the defendants are expected to appear in court Friday at 2pm in the B.C. Supreme Court in Vancouver.

“Trans Mountain is seeking an injunction order against trespassers on Burnaby work sites so that we can safely continue field studies mandated by the [National Energy Board]," wrote Kinder Morgan's senior project director, Greg Toth.

"Our preference is to work cooperatively, and we respect the right to peaceful protest. However, we are required by the NEB to complete these studies in order to support our application, and we are pursuing our legal options,” he added.

Kinder Morgan: delays costing millions of dollars per month

In the affidavit, Kinder Morgan states that each month the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project is delayed, the company incurs $5,643,000 in expenses, as well as $88 million per month in lost revenues.

Many of the defendants were on Burnaby Mountain on Wednesday when company crews clashed with dozens of citizens deep inside the forest conservation park. Many citizens got in the face of the crew members and hurled insults. An 18-year-old also pinned himself under a Kinder Morgan SUV to prevent it from leaving.

The company crews responded by filming the protesters with videocameras. The multinational giant was recently granted access to the area by Canada's National Energy Board, against the wishes of the City of Burnaby.

Kinder Morgan crew member videotaping protester on Burnaby Mountain - Prystupa

Kinder Morgan crew member videotaping a protester on Burnaby Mountain on Wednesday - Photo by Mychaylo Prystupa

The company is now seeking to have residents barred from interfering with its field work further, and have provided a map to show where it would like citizens to not go.
The lawyer for BROKE (Burnaby Residents Opposed to Kinder Morgan Expansion) said the law suit will be fought vigorously.

“It’s intimidating, it’s bullying, it’s a tactic they are employing,” said lawyer Neil Chantler on Friday.

“Kinder Morgan has been given temporary access to do survey work. That does not exclude the access rights that everyone else has to that land. And they are asserting exclusive access,” he added.

Kinder Morgan Burnaby Mountain pipeline corridor - company map

Kinder Morgan's revised pipeline corridor on Burnaby Mountain, leading to the Westridge Terminal - company map in affidavit

Another SFU professor – biochemistry lecturer Lynne Quarmby – also got served, and called the legal action "crazy."

She recently wrote an op/ed to the Vancouver Observer explaining her willingness to be arrested to stop the pipeline project, citing mainly climate change concerns as a long-time scientist.

“The only world in which it is okay to continue building new infrastructure for fossil fuels with no consideration for climate change is a world where we don’t care about the future, or about other places on the globe, or about disappearing species, or about ocean acidification,” she wrote.

The Trans Mountain pipeline expansion would triple the current pipeline's current flow of Alberta oil, and result in the movement of 400 super tankers per year out of the Port of Vancouver.

One of the company's largest shareholders is Rich Kinder - a reclusive American billionaire, and former Enron executive.
 
ICSC: IPCC focus on stopping global warming and extreme weather is unscientific and immoral
Anthony Watts / 8 hours ago November 2, 2014
Ottawa, Canada, November 2, 2014: “IPCC Chairman Dr. Rajendra Pachauri was right to advocate “a global agreement to finally reverse course on climate change” when he spoke to delegates tasked with approving the IPCC Synthesis Report, released on Sunday,” said Tom Harris, executive director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC). “The new direction governments should follow must be one in which the known needs of people suffering today are given priority over problems that might someday be faced by those yet to be born.”

“Yet, exactly the opposite is happening,” continued Harris. “Of the roughly one billion U.S. dollars spent every day across the world on climate finance, only 6% of it is devoted to helping people adapt to climate change in the present. The rest is wasted trying to stop improbable future climatic events. That is immoral.”

ICSC chief science advisor, Professor Bob Carter, former Head of the Department of Earth Sciences at James Cook University in Australia and author of Taxing Air explained, “Science has yet to provide unambiguous evidence that problematic, or even measurable, human-caused global warming is occurring. The hypothesis of dangerous man-made climate change is based solely on computerized models that have repeatedly failed in practice in the real world.”

New Zealand-based Terry Dunleavy, ICSC founding chairman and strategic advisor remarked, “U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon often makes unjustified statements about climate change and extreme weather. However, in their still unanswered November 29, 2012 open letter to the Secretary General, 134 scientists from across the world asserted, ‘The U.K. Met Office recently released data showing that there has been no statistically significant global warming for almost 16 [now 18] years. During this period…carbon dioxide concentrations rose by nearly 9%…The NOAA “State of the Climate in 2008” report asserted that 15 years or more without any statistically-significant warming would indicate a discrepancy between observation and prediction. Sixteen years without warming have therefore now proven that the models are wrong by their creators’ own criterion.”

“Although today’s climate and extreme weather are well within the bounds of natural variability and the intensity and magnitude of extreme events is not increasing, there is, most definitely, a climate problem,” said Carter. “Natural climate change brings with it very real human and environmental costs. Therefore, we must carefully prepare for and adapt to climate hazards as and when they happen. Spending billions of dollars on expensive and ineffectual carbon dioxide controls in a futile attempt to stop natural climate change impoverishes societies and reduces our capacity to address these and other real world problems.”

“The heavily referenced reports of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change demonstrate that, scientifically speaking, the global warming scare is over,” concluded Harris. “It is time to defund the IPCC and dedicate our resources to helping solve today’s genuine humanitarian problems.”
 
Time to seize a prosperous future fuelled by natural gas
GWYN MORGAN
Special to The Globe and Mail
Published Sunday, Nov. 02 2014, 4:53 PM EST
Last updated Sunday, Nov. 02 2014, 4:53 PM EST

Which fossil fuel is the largest generator of greenhouse-gas emissions and toxic smog? If you answered coal, you’re right. Coal produces half of all global carbon-dioxide emissions and almost all toxic smog.

China burns almost as much coal as the rest of the world combined. Between 2005 and 2013, new coal-fired power plants in China added one and one half times the entire consumption of the second-place coal consumer, the United States. Economists predict that by 2040, China’s power-generation needs will be 50 per cent larger than today. That would drive energy-related global greenhouse-gas emissions from coal to more than 60 per cent, negating most, if not all, of the reduction efforts of other countries. But there’s a much more urgent problem facing residents of Chinese and other coal-dependent cities across the developing world. Burning coal emits smog-producing nitrogen and sulphur oxides that, together with lung-clogging particulates, are knocking decades off of peoples’ lives.



Teck profit plunges on lower coal prices, drop in copper output
BG Group delays decision on Prince Rupert LNG project

The details of BC's new LNG tax plan will have massive impact on the shape of the province's economy. Andrew Bell has the details on how the natural gas business looks in Canada and abroad.

Malaysian energy giant Petronas is threatening to walk away from a $10 billion liquefied natural gas plant in B.C. as it steps up its campaign for tax incentives, according to a report. Andrew Bell has more,

Fortunately, there’s an historic opportunity to change this dire picture. Compared with coal, natural gas produces half the carbon dioxide, less than a third of the nitrogen oxide and just one per cent of the sulphur dioxide, with virtually no particulates. That China is looking to import LNG from B.C.’s shale gas is good news for both Canada and for the Earth’s atmosphere. But LNG will only slow China’s massive coal-fired power growth. Here’s the really good news. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), China possesses the world’s largest technically recoverable shale gas reserves that, at 1,115 trillion cubic feet, are almost twice as large as Canada’s. These vast resources remain undeveloped due to the early stage of Chinese recovery technology. That’s why the University of Calgary’s announcement of a new Canadian/Chinese Research Centre aimed at unlocking that potential is so newsworthy. At the signing ceremony in Beijing on October 23, U of C President Elizabeth Cannon stated that the project “will help China move from a coal economy over to gas.”

Where else in the world could shale-gas development help clean up the atmosphere? The answer: almost everywhere. An EIA study of 32 countries estimates shale gas reserves of 7,795 trillion cubic feet that, combined with non-shale gas resources, would supply global natural gas consumption at current levels for almost 200 years.

Even this staggering statistic underestimates the rich natural gas endowment of our planet. Natural gas hydrates, i.e. methane combined with water trapped in frozen crystals, represent an unexploited energy source that the U.S. Department of Energy estimates to contain future potential more than five times global shale-gas reserves. And that future may come very soon. Japan, with no gas, oil or coal resources, must import all of its hydrocarbon energy. But it does have enough offshore gas hydrates to meet its power demands for 100 years. Japanese researchers are hard at work with a goal of commercial production by 2019. India’s Natural Gas Hydrate Program has found one of the world’s richest gas-hydrate resources in the Krishna-Godavari Basin, a discovery that could help stem the strong growth of coal-fired power in that country.

Ever since the coal-fueled Industrial Revolution darkened the skies of Charles Dickens’s London, “king coal” has dominated power generation and industrial processes. Technological advances unlocking vast supplies of natural gas present an historic opportunity to eliminate the toxic smog that, two centuries later, continues to shorten the lives of people around the globe. One would think that this enormous human health benefit, plus the fact that gas-fired power halves greenhouse-gas emissions, would see environmental activists cheering. But, alas, some are not. Instead, NGO’s such as the Suzuki Foundation and the Pembina Institute are lauding a paper published in the journal Nature alleging that the growth of natural-gas use is counterproductive to reducing climate change. Why? Because it will slow the switch to their ideological holy grail of a world powered by windmills and solar panels. This, even though highly subsidized “green power” has nearly doubled electricity rates in parts of Europe, while generating such a minuscule amount of energy that some must import gas-displaced American coal just to keep the lights on.

After more than two centuries dominated by coal, vast supplies of cheap natural-gas provide an historic opportunity for a cleaner, more prosperous world. It’s time for other countries to follow North America’s lead in seizing that opportunity.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Harris_(mechanical_engineer)
Tom Harris (mechanical engineer)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Tom Harris is a Canadian mechanical engineer, executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) [1] and former executive director of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project.[2] Harris has 30 years’ experience working as a mechanical engineer, project manager, and in science and technology communications. [3] From May to September 2006, he was Ottawa operations director of the High Park Group, a public relations and lobbying firm active in the debate over global warming.[4]
 
http://www.desmogblog.com/tom-harris
Tom Harris is the Executive Director of the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC), a group of climate change skeptics that has received funding from the Heartland Institute. Before starting work with ICSC, Harris was the Executive Director of the now-defunct Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP).

Prior to working with the NRSP, Harris was a Director of Operations of the Ottawa office of a Canadian PR and lobbying firm called the High Park Group (HPG). Harris has also worked with APCO worldwide, a group known for creating The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC) which worked to advance tobacco industry interests.
 
http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/09/17/international-climate-science-coalition-s-lacks-credibility
The ICSC, headed by Tom Harris, a former Canadian energy company public relations consultant, is trying to grab media attention with a new report written by the who's who of the climate denier conspiracy bunch. The report, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, is part of a series published by a Chicago-based front group for the oil and tobacco industries called the Heartland Institute.
 
China burns almost as much coal as the rest of the world combined. Between 2005 and 2013, new coal-fired power plants in China added one and one half times the entire consumption of the second-place coal consumer, the United States. Economists predict that by 2040, China’s power-generation needs will be 50 per cent larger than today. That would drive energy-related global greenhouse-gas emissions from coal to more than 60 per cent, negating most, if not all, of the reduction efforts of other countries. But there’s a much more urgent problem facing residents of Chinese and other coal-dependent cities across the developing world. Burning coal emits smog-producing nitrogen and sulphur oxides that, together with lung-clogging particulates, are knocking decades off of peoples’ lives.
 
IPCC recycles global doom and wants a small part of everything you own

Gullible journalists are swooning today with more and glorious prophesies of disaster.

This from the team that relies on simulations that not only fail on global scales1, but they can’t predict regional2, local3, short term, continental, or polar effects4 either. They are also wrong about humidity5, rainfall6a,6b,6c, drought7 and clouds8, as well as the all-important upper tropospheric patterns too.9, 10

Speaking to the BBC earlier, Dr Pachaudri said today’s announcement was, categorically, the “strongest, most robust and most comprehensive” document that the IPCC has produced. — BBC

They are robustly, comprehensively, and consistently wrong. But it’s OK, they only want 0.06% of GDP (for now).

The IPCC says that the cost of taking action to keep the rise in temperature under 2 degrees C over the next 76 years will cost about 0.06% of GDP every year. Over the same period, world GDP is expected to grow at least 300%. – BBC

The religious leader has returned from the mount, for he hath heard the word of the God:

“BAN KI-MOON: Science has spoken.” – ABC

Who knew the name of God was “science”?

What do we call the people who get nearly every prediction wrong? What else – “the world’s top scientists” (Jake Sturmer, ABC) The only rule when reporting IPCC predictions is to never ask a hard question.

It’s all about power in Paris in 2015. How much of the world’s GDP will they grab? — As much as we let them.

Can’t wait to get your hands on the “new” IPCC Synthesis Report? Download a copy here. It has all the same politically picked factoids and projections of storms, plagues, pestilence and doom you’ve come to expect.

What you won’t find is an verified explanation for The Pause (or what might really be The Plateau), or the reason the world warmed up for the Medieval Warm Period or cooled down for the Little Ice Age. (CO2 levels were constant for the 2,000 years before 1750, yet the climate changed!). You won’t find out why Antarctic Sea Ice hit record highs, or where the missing heat has gone. Nor will you see an upfront admission that the models expected (depended on) humidity levels rising at 10km above the equator but that 28 million radiosondes found humidity decreased instead. This detail — like all the inconvenient ones that matter — will be disguised somewhere deep in a subclause. It may contain the best observations about the most important feedback there is, but don’t expect the IPCC to say so in the “summary for policy makers”.

Don’t expect the IPCC to mention that their models don’t include solar magnetic effects, lunar atmospheric tides, or that humans poured out 30% of their total emissions during a time when the Earth did not warm as expected.



REFERENCES
1 Hans von Storch, Armineh Barkhordarian, Klaus Hasselmann and Eduardo Zorita (2013) Can climate models explain the recent stagnation in global warming? Academia

2 Anagnostopoulos, G. G., D. Koutsoyiannis, A. Christofides, A. Efstratiadis, and N. Mamassis, (2010). A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data’, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 55: 7, 1094 — 1110 [PDF]

3 Koutsoyiannis, D., Efstratiadis, A., Mamassis, N. & Christofides, A.(2008) On the credibility of climate predictions. Hydrol. Sci. J. 53(4), 671–684. changes [PDF]

4 Previdi, M. and Polvani, L. M. (2014), Climate system response to stratospheric ozone depletion and recovery. Q.J.R. Meteorol. Soc.. doi: 10.1002/qj.2330

5 Paltridge, G., Arking, A., Pook, M., 2009. Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Volume 98, Numbers 3-4, pp. 351-35). [PDF]

6a Christopher M. Taylor, Richard A. M. de Jeu, Françoise Guichard, Phil P. Harris & Wouter A. Dorigo ‘Afternoon rain more likely over drier soils’ will be published in Nature on 12 September 2012. www.nature.com DOI 10.1038/nature11377

6b Makarieva, A. M., Gorshkov, V. G., Sheil, D., Nobre, A. D., and Li, B.-L.: Where do winds come from? A new theory on how water vapor condensation influences atmospheric pressure and dynamics, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 1039-1056, doi:10.5194/acp-13-1039-2013, 2013. [Abstract] [Final Revised Paper PDF]

6c R.K. Tiwari1,* and Rekapalli Rajesh2 (2014) Imprint of long-term solar signal in groundwater recharge fluctuation rates from North West China. Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1002/2014GL060204

7 Sheffield, Wood & Roderick (2012) Little change in global drought over the past 60 years, Letter Nature, vol 491, 437

8 Miller, M., Ghate, V., Zahn, R., (2012) The Radiation Budget of the West African Sahel 1 and its Controls: A Perspective from 2 Observations and Global Climate Models. in press Journal of Climate [abstract] [PDF]

9 Christy J.R., Herman, B., Pielke, Sr., R, 3, Klotzbach, P., McNide, R.T., Hnilo J.J., Spencer R.W., Chase, T. and Douglass, D: (2010) What Do Observational Datasets Say about Modeled Tropospheric Temperature Trends since 1979? Remote Sensing 2010, 2, 2148-2169; doi:10.3390/rs2092148 [PDF]

10 Fu, Q, Manabe, S., and Johanson, C. (2011) On the warming in the tropical upper troposphere: Models vs observations, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 38, L15704, doi:10.1029/2011GL048101, 2011 [PDF] [Discussion]
 
OBD ... wow looks like your post is a science paper.. but it's not. Here is what a science paper looks like.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7374/full/nature10581.html

Reconstructed changes in Arctic sea ice over the past 1,450 years



<dl class="citation" style="margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: arial, helvetica, 'MS Pゴシック', 'MS ゴシック', Osaka, 'MS PGothic', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 23.9167499542236px;"><dd class="journal-title" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 3px 0px 0px; font-style: italic; text-transform: capitalize; display: inline;">Nature</dd> <dd class="volume" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 3px 0px 0px; font-weight: bold; display: inline;">479,</dd> <dd class="page" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 3px 0px 0px; display: inline;">509–512</dd> <dd style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 3px 0px 0px; display: inline;"><time datetime="2011-11-23">(24 November 2011)</time></dd>

</dl><dl class="citation dates" style="margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: arial, helvetica, 'MS Pゴシック', 'MS ゴシック', Osaka, 'MS PGothic', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 23.9167499542236px;"><dd style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 3px 0px 0px; display: inline;"><time datetime="2011-11-23">Arctic sea ice extent is now more than two million square kilometres less than it was in the late twentieth century, with important consequences for the climate, the ocean and traditional lifestyles in the Arctic[SUP]1, 2[/SUP]. Although observations show a more or less continuous decline for the past four or five decades[SUP]3, 4[/SUP], there are few long-term records with which to assess natural sea ice variability. Until now, the question of whether or not current trends are potentially anomalous[SUP]5[/SUP] has therefore remained unanswerable. Here we use a network of high-resolution terrestrial proxies from the circum-Arctic region to reconstruct past extents of summer sea ice, and show that—although extensive uncertainties remain, especially before the sixteenth century—both the duration and magnitude of the current decline in sea ice seem to be unprecedented for the past 1,450 years. Enhanced advection of warm Atlantic water to the Arctic[SUP]6[/SUP] seems to be the main factor driving the decline of sea ice extent on multidecadal timescales, and may result from nonlinear feedbacks between sea ice and the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation. These results reinforce the assertion that sea ice is an active component of Arctic climate variability and that the recent decrease in summer Arctic sea ice is consistent with anthropogenically forced warming.
nature10581-f1.2.jpg

nature10581-f2.2.jpg

nature10581-f3.2.jpg


Yes those are hard to see so here is one that's easy to see.

Kinnard_2011_sea_ice_med.jpg

Late-summer Arctic sea ice extent in million square kilometers over the last 1450 years (red line), reconstructed from a combination of Arctic ice core, tree ring, and lake sediment data by Kinnard et al. (2011). A 40-year low-pass filter was applied to the data. The shaded area shows the uncertainty (95% confidence interval), and the blue dashed line shows modern observations. Arctic sea ice extent is currently lower than at any time in the last 1450 years. Unfortunately, sea ice is now melting even faster than predicted.

ArcticEscalator500.gif


OBD.... You have yet to find a denial blog that puts this evidence into question. Why is that? Perhaps your team wishes it to just "go away." I do see your team "making stuff up" and trying to portray it as science but it's just another fail. IPCC put's out another report and the denial blogosphere explodes in denial. Then again what would you expect from the Koch Brothers team of paid bloggers masking as "thinkers'.

OBD have you canceled your fire insurance on your house yet? After all there is only a .05% chance that things are going to turn out bad if you do. Seems to me that this AGW has a better chance than those odds that our families are going to pay for our misdeeds. But then again you know best....Right.... What could go wrong?

Did you notice the numbers on the left between the two charts? The area in millions of square kilometers. 10 million square kilometers from the past to now 5 million square kilometers to the present and falling. That can't be good..... What's your teams plan "B" if your wrong? You have another planet to go to or how do you fix this one if it turns out bad? Why is no one on your team have a backup plan?</time></dd></dl>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Another way to look at it.....

[nuKVk1gMJDg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuKVk1gMJDg
 
http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/factsheets/FS_select_authors.pdf

IPCC Factsheet: How does the IPCC select its authors?
The role of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is to assess on a comprehensive,
objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information
relevant to the understanding of climate change, its impacts and future risks, and options for
adaptation and mitigation.
Hundreds of leading experts in the different areas covered by IPCC reports volunteer their time
and expertise as Coordinating Lead Authors and Lead Authors to produce these assessments.
Many hundreds more are involved in drafting specific contributions as Contributing Authors and
commenting on chapters as Expert Reviewers1.
Following a call to governments and IPCC observer organisations for nominations and the
submission of detailed CVs, authors are selected on the basis of their expertise. The composition
of author teams aims to reflect a range of scientific, technical and socio-economic views and
backgrounds. A comprehensive assessment requires author teams to include a mix of authors from
different regions and from developed and developing countries to ensure that reports are not
biased towards the perspective of any one country or group of countries and that questions of
importance to particular regions are not overlooked.
The IPCC also seeks a balance of men and women, as well as between those experienced with
working on IPCC reports and those new to the process, including younger scientists. Author teams
may also include experts from industry and from non-profit organizations who bring a valuable
perspective to the assessment.
Chapter teams comprise Coordinating Lead Authors, Lead Authors and Review Editors2. The Bureau
of the relevant IPCC Working Group or Task Force selects scientists for these roles from nominations
of experts from their respective countries by IPCC member governments and observer organizations
or from other experts known through their publications and work.
Experts who are nominated by governments and observer organizations but not selected are
encouraged to contribute to the report as Expert Reviewers. (See IPCC Factsheet – How does the
IPCC review process work?)
www.ipcc.ch
1 The process for selecting authors is described in sections 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 of Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work, the
Procedures for the Preparation, Review, Acceptance, Adoption, Approval and Publication of IPCC Reports:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles-appendix-a-final.pdf
2 The roles of the different categories of authors are described in Annex 1 to Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work, the
Procedures for the Preparation, Review, Acceptance, Adoption, Approval and Publication of IPCC Reports:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles-appendix-a-final.pdf

For the Fifth Assessment Report a total of 831 experts were originally selected as Coordinating Lead Authors,
Lead Authors and Review Editors from 3,598 nominations across the three Working Groups (including some
experts nominated for more than one Working Group). Author numbers may change slightly over the course
of an assessment, for instance with the addition of an author with additional expertise or with a resignation
due to health or time conflicts.
Coordinating Lead Authors and Lead Authors have collective responsibility for the contents of a chapter.
They may enlist other experts as Contributing Authors to assist with their work. Contributing Authors, who
number many hundreds, provide specific knowledge or expertise in a given area, and help ensure that the
full range of views held in the scientific community is reflected in the report.
Balanced assessment of the full range of scientific views, protected from the influence of special interests,
is supported through the method of author team selection, multiple rounds of review of each report, and
IPCC’s Conflict of Interest Policy3.
For more information, please contact:
IPCC Secretariat
c/o World Meteorological Organization
7 bis, avenue de la Paix
P.O. Box 2300
CH-1211 Geneva 2
Switzerland
Tel.: +41 (0) 22 730 82 08 / 54 / 84
Fax: +41 (0) 22 730 80 25 / 13
E-mail: IPCC-Sec@wmo.int
www.ipcc.ch
3 The IPCC Conflict of Interest Policy is here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-conflict-of-interest.pdf
 
http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/factsheets/FS_ipcc_assess.pdf
IPCC Factsheet: What literature does the IPCC assess?
The Assessment Reports and Special Reports produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) cover a wide range of disciplines in fulfilling the IPCC’s mandate of assessing
scientific, technological and socio-economic information in order to provide policymakers with a
clear view of the current state of scientific knowledge relevant to climate change.
The IPCC does not conduct its own research, run models or make measurements of climate or
weather phenomena. Its role is to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic literature
relevant to understanding climate change, its impacts and future risks, and options for adaptation
and mitigation. Author teams critically assess all such information from any source that is to be
included in the report1.
Author teams use calibrated uncertainty language to express a level of confidence in findings
based on the strength of the scientific and technical evidence and the level of agreement in the
scientific, technical and socio-economic literature2.
At the beginning of the assessment process, each IPCC Working Group sets cut-off dates by which
time literature has to be accepted for publication by scientific journals, if it is to be included in
the current assessment. Cut-off dates ensure the assessment is as up to date as is practical while
ensuring that author teams have sufficient time to fully evaluate all literature included in the
assessment. For AR5 the cut-off dates were set so that literature has to be accepted for publication
approximately two-three months before completion of the final draft.
Like other scientific publications, IPCC reports refer to cited material in the text with the full citations
listed at the end of the relevant chapter so that readers can check the original sources. Copies of
material that is cited in IPCC report drafts but not widely available are made available to reviewers
upon request during the review period.
In the assessment process, emphasis is placed on the evaluation of all cited literature and of its
sources. Contributions to IPCC reports take full advantage of peer-reviewed3 and internationally
available literature. Sources other than scientific journals also provide crucial information for a
www.ipcc.ch
1 The procedures for dealing with scientific literature are described in Annex 2 (page 17) to Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC
Work, the Procedures for the Preparation, Review, Acceptance, Adoption, Approval and Publication of IPCC Reports:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles-appendix-a-final.pdf
2 See Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/uncertainty-guidance-note.pdf
3 Peer review is the process by which scientists with relevant expertise critically evaluate the methods and conclusions of primary research
papers or the balance and thoroughness of reviews and reports.
comprehensive assessment. Examples include reports from governments, industry and research institutions,
international and other organizations, and conference proceedings. Information about certain experiences
and practices in mitigation and adaptation activities in particular may be found in sources other than
traditional scientific and technical journals. Such materials may utilize a wide range of quality-assurance
mechanisms, including but not limited to formal peer review. Author teams using literature of this kind have
a special responsibility to ensure its quality and validity.
The number of sources cited in the Fifth Assessment Report will total many thousands. This is an indication
of the extensive literature base on which IPCC reports and their conclusions are built.
 
OBD: Just to put it in perspective ....

You have 1 guy who posts on his blog - an engineer - who gets paid to be a lobbyist for tobacco and big oil...

and you think his totally non peer-reviewed rants somehow are to be accepted as a viable rebuttal to over 800 experts in their field and many thousands of peer-reviewed reports??????????????????

and we are supposed to take your rebuttal of a cut and a paste of this nutbars rants as a viable response to the release of the UNs IPCCs report ...seriously?????
 
The IPCC synthesis report: A summary for everyone


  • 02 Nov 2014, 10:00
  • Roz Pidcock
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2014/11/the-ipcc-synthesis-report-a-summary-for-everyone/

Today marks the release of an important document in the climate science world.
At 10 am this morning, the group of experts tasked by the United Nations with assessing the state of the climate released a major report on how and why it is changing, as well as what we can do about it.
Covering everything from declining sea ice to harnessing energy from the wind, the 100-page document has been hailed as an essential "handbook" on climate change.
It connects the dots between three reports released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) over the past year, each looking at a different aspect of climate change.
Totting up the risks
Greenhouse gas emissions from humans are the highest in history, the first in the series of reports told us last year. Greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are released when we burn fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas.
As a result the oceans, land and atmosphere are warming, snow and ice cover is melting, our weather is getting more extreme and sea levels are rising.
The second report looked at how climate change is contributing to problems like flooding, disruption to farming, food and water shortages, and species migration and extinction.
But humans can act to limit climate change. The third IPCC report looked at how we can avoid the worst impacts of climate change by curbing emissions from the way we get energy.
We can also make society more resilient by building flood defences and safeguarding food and water supplies, for example. That means when climate change impacts do hit, we're better prepared.
Connecting the dots
Today's Synthesis Report tells a concise story, drawing on all three reports. It says that if governments work to cut emissions and adapt to new conditions, we can still keep the risks of climate change low.
Beyond two degrees of warming, the risks posed by climate change are too high and it's unlikely we could deal with the consequences, nations have collectively agreed.
With the right policies we can prevent dangerous climate change, allow ecosystems to adapt, and ensure countries can develop sustainably, all at the same time, the IPCC concludes.
On the other hand, the slower we take action, the harder it will be and the more expensive it will get. Not acting now puts a very heavy burden on future generations, the report says.
The report makes it clear that climate change is a collective problem. Because climate change affects everyone, nations must cooperate to limit it. It will only be possible to limit the extent of climate change if nations work together.
The IPCC is an advisory body - it doesn't tell the world's leaders what to do. But today's report is the clearest guide yet from scientists about why we need to keep climate risks in check.
The IPCC, in one infographic
ipccfactsandfigures10.png

 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://thetyee.ca/News/2014/11/04/T...ce=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=041114
Tax Breaks for BC Frackers Reach over $1 Billion

Auditor general report details provincial incentives to largely foreign-owned gas giants.

By Andrew Nikiforuk, Today, TheTyee.ca


Share article via email Print this article


Premier Christy Clark



Given falling gas prices and the province's slowed liquefied natural gas ambitions, the BC government has quietly subsidized the oil and gas industry over the past five years. Photo by David P. Ball.

BC Halves Projected LNG Revenue

Finance minister says lower tax rate necessary because 'the market's changed.'

More troubles for BC's big LNG plans

How Much Does Western Canada Subsidize Fracking?

Compared to US gov'ts, which take home a greater percentage of revenue, quite a bit.

Read more: Energy, Labour + Industry, BC Politics

The government of British Columbia has extended more than $1 billion in the form of tax credits to largely foreign-owned oil and gas companies fracking vast expanses of northern B.C. over the last five years.

According to the B.C. auditor general's 2014 summary financial statements report, the province delivered $587 million in incentives to the fracking industry alone last year and $412 million in 2013. The payments were all deducted from royalties.

Shale gas producers such as the Malaysian-owned Progress Energy or Houston-based Apache now pay the province a modest fee or royalty for the right to mine B.C.'s northern gas fields, which are owned by the citizens and First Nations of British Columbia.

Given falling gas prices and the province's slowed liquefied natural gas ambitions, the government has quietly subsidized the indebted industry with lower royalties and a variety of credits for deep well shale gas fracking, road construction and summer well drilling. (Most gas wells are drilled in the winter when the ground is hard.)

Under the program offered by Premier Christy Clark's government, industry "can simply reduce the royalty amount that they owe government by the incentive amount that they are entitled to," explains auditor general Carol Bellringer in the report.

The province has extended so many drilling and construction credits to the cash-strapped industry that 30 per cent of all gross natural gas royalty income is now subtracted from the provincial ledger and given back to industry.

More unclaimed incentives

At one time, natural gas royalties generated nearly $1 billion in revenue for the province. But since 2008, the government has lowered royalties and increased incentives to compensate for falling natural gas prices.

As a result of these policies, the industry generated $385 million in government revenue last year. That's less revenue than created by forestry industry.

Public and industry records show that the government extends more credits to the shale gas fracking industry than it currently earns in revenue.

The auditor general also noted that the government has granted another $1.25 billion in subsidies to the industry to drill deep and costly shale gas wells this year.

As a consequence, shale gas developers "have incurred expenditures that will qualify for $1.25 billion in incentive credits, but have not yet produced enough oil or natural gas to claim these amounts," explains the report.

"When these producers claim their incentive credits, that money will be deducted from the royalties that they owe, thereby reducing the amount of money government will generate."

The incentives combined with lowered royalty rates explain why natural gas extraction in B.C. has risen from 25-billion cubic metres a year in 2002 to 45-billion cubic metres in 2013 despite depressed prices for natural gas.

BC natural gas production royalties


Source: Policy Alternatives.

Risky royalty regime?

B.C.'s royalty regime is different than most other jurisdictions in North America, and it's much riskier than most, according to a report by Cambridge Energy Resources Associates and published by the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management in 2011.

Most governments take a greater share of resource revenue early in the producing life of gas well to shield owners of the resource from the risk of market price volatility and rapid depletion rates.

The report ranks fiscal regimes in North America on the basis of revenue risk on a scale of zero to five.

Governments that earned a high percentage of revenue early in the life of producing wells, such as Texas and Alaska, earned scores of higher than four.

Jurisdictions that expect to earn money at the end of a well's lifecycle earned zero. B.C. earned a score of 0.59.
 

Attachments

  • bcnatgas-production-royalties610px.jpg
    bcnatgas-production-royalties610px.jpg
    62 KB · Views: 48
Last edited by a moderator:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/11/04/3587527/ipcc-irreversible-impacts/

IPCC Scientists Emphasize Immorality Of Inaction By Focusing On ‘Irreversible Impacts’


by Joe Romm Posted on November 4, 2014 at 9:09 am

facebook icon 2,024Share This twitter icon 150Tweet This


facebook icontwitter icon

"IPCC Scientists Emphasize Immorality Of Inaction By Focusing On ‘Irreversible Impacts’"


Share:
facebook icon twitter icon
shutterstock_194649446
CREDIT: Shutterstock

What is the biggest change in the new climate report by the world’s top scientists and governments compared to the one they released back in 2007? It can be summed up in one word: “Irreversible.”





In the 2007 assessment of climate science by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that word appeared only 4 times in the final, full “synthesis” report. Irreversibility only received 2 mentions and minimal discussion in the Summary for Policymakers (SPM).

Seven years later, the word appears 31 times in the full synthesis report of the IPCC’s fifth assessment. The SPM mentions “irreversible” 14 times and has extended discussions of exactly what it means and why it matters.

Certainly the fact that we are on track to harm billions of people who contributed little or nothing to their harsh fate makes climate inaction a grave “wrong.” But what makes our current inaction uniquely immoral in the history of **** sapiens is that the large-scale harm is irreparable on any timescale that matters — and, of course, that we could avoid the worst of the irreparable harms at an astonishingly low net cost.

What do the world’s leading scientists mean by “irreversible impacts”?


Warming will continue beyond 2100 under all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. Surface temperatures will remain approximately constant at elevated levels for many centuries after a complete cessation of net anthropogenic CO2 emissions. A large fraction of anthropogenic climate change resulting from CO2 emissions is irreversible on a multi-century to millennial time scale, except in the case of a large net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere over a sustained period….

It is virtually certain that global mean sea-level rise will continue for many centuries beyond 2100, with the amount of rise dependent on future emissions.

Translation: Impacts will be even worse than described in this report after 2100 in every case but the one where we sharply cut CO2 emissions starting now (to stabilize at 2°C total warming). And as high as total warming ultimately gets, that’s roughly as high as temperatures will stay for hundreds of years after we bring total net human-caused carbon pollution emissions to zero.

The “case of a large net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere over a sustained period” means a time far beyond when humanity has merely eliminated total net human-caused emissions — from deforestation and burning fossil fuels (and from whatever amplifying carbon-cycle feedbacks we have caused, such as CO2 and methane release from defrosting permafrost).

To even start reversing the irreversible, we have to go far below zero net emissions to actually sucking vast quantities of diffuse CO2 out of the air and putting it someplace that is also permanent, which we currently do not know how to do at scale at any plausible price. One can envision such a day when we might — if we sharply reduce net carbon pollution to zero by 2100, as we must to stabilize near 2°C. But it’s hard to imagine when it would ever happen if emissions are anywhere near current levels (let alone higher) by 2100, and we have unleashed myriad amplifying carbon cycle feedbacks that make the job of getting to even zero net emissions doubly difficult.

If we don’t get on a very different emissions path ASAP, then some of the most serious climate changes caused by global warming could last 1000 years or more. The SPM explains, “Stabilisation of global average surface temperature does not imply stabilisation for all aspects of the climate system.” That is to say, if we don’t quickly embrace the 2C emissions path, then even at a point many hundreds of years from now when temperatures start to drop, some changes in the climate — sea level rise being the most obvious example — will likely keep going and going.

The IPCC reports are primarily reviews of the scientific literature, so the new focus on the irreversible nature of climate change is no surprise. In 2009 we reported on research led by NOAA scientists titled “Irreversible climate change because of carbon dioxide emissions,” which concluded “the climate change that is taking place because of increases in carbon dioxide concentration is largely irreversible for 1,000 years after emissions stop.”

Significantly, that NOAA-led study warned that it wasn’t just sea level rise that would be irreversible:


Among illustrative irreversible impacts that should be expected if atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increase from current levels near 385 parts per million by volume (ppmv) to a peak of 450-600 ppmv over the coming century are irreversible dry-season rainfall reductions in several regions comparable to those of the ”dust bowl” era and inexorable sea level rise.

Recent studies strongly support that finding for both sea level rise and Dust-Bowlification of some of the world’s most productive agricultural lands.

Significantly, this 2014 Synthesis report is the first time I have seen the world’s leading scientists and governments explain why the irreversibility of impacts makes inaction so uniquely immoral. Here is the key finding (emphasis in original):


Without additional mitigation efforts beyond those in place today, and even with adaptation, warming by the end of the 21st century will lead to high to very high risk of severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts globally (high confidence). Mitigation involves some level of co-benefits and of risks due to adverse side-effects, but these risks do not involve the same possibility of severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts as risks from climate change, increasing the benefits from near-term mitigation efforts.

That is a tremendously important argument. Sure, the climate panel says, mitigation efforts have risks in addition to their co-benefits — “possible adverse side effects of large-scale deployment of low-carbon technology options and economic costs,” as the full report explains. But the risks involved in reducing greenhouse gas emissions are both quantitatively and qualitatively different than the risks stemming from inaction because they aren’t likely to be anywhere near as “severe, widespread, and irreversible.”

The full report expands on this critical point, noting that “Climate change risks may persist for millennia and can involve very high risk of severe impacts and the presence of significant irreversibilities combined with limited adaptive capacity.” In sharp contrast, “the stringency of climate policies can be adjusted much more quickly in response to observed consequences and costs and create lower risks of irreversible consequences.”

In short, if some component of the mitigation strategy turns out to start having unexpected, significant negative consequences, humanity can quickly adjust to minimize costs and risks. But inaction — failing to embrace aggressive mitigation — will lead to expected climate impacts that are not merely very long-lasting and irreversible, but potentially beyond adaptation.

Finally, yes, I realize that if humanity is not motivated by the genuine prospect of ruining a livable climate for our children and grandchildren, then how much we screw future generations after 2100 isn’t going to move people. But you can’t blame scientists for thinking **** sapiens is actually a rational and moral species, capable of caring about people who haven’t even been born yet.

The founding fathers certainly cared about such future generations and understood how obviously immoral it was to subject them to irreversible adverse impacts. As The Constitutional Law Foundation has explained, “The most succinct, systematic treatment of intergenerational principles left to us by the founders is that which was provided by Thomas Jefferson in his famous September 6, 1789 letter to James Madison.”

I summarized Jefferson’s position here. The key question for Jefferson was very simple: Must later generations “consider the preceding generation as having had a right to eat up the whole soil of their country, in the course of a life?” Soil was an obvious focal point for examining the issue of intergenerational equity for a Virginia planter like Jefferson.

The answer to Jefferson was another self-evident truth:


Every one will say no; that the soil is the gift of God to the living, as much as it had been to the deceased generation….

It is immoral for one generation to destroy another generation’s vital soil — or its livable climate. Hence it is unimaginably immoral to Dustbowlify their soil and ruin their livable climate irreversibly for many centuries if not millennia. So let’s not do that, okay?
 
Newsbytes- The New Coal Boom

Cheap & Abundant Coal Biggest Challenge For UN Climate Agenda



Since 1973, coal consumption has grown faster than any other form of energy. Growth in coal consumption has been critical in providing electricity access in developing countries. Based on the results of three different estimates, this paper finds that between 1990 and 2010, about 830 million people—the vast majority in developing countries—gained access to electricity due to coal-fired generation. Coal-fired-generation capacity continues to grow in wealthy countries, too. For electricity production, no other energy source can currently match the black fuel when it comes to cost, scale, and reliability. In all, more than 500 gigawatts of new coal-fired capacity will likely be built worldwide by 2040. –Robert Bryce, Manhattan Institute, October 2014



U.N. calls to curb greenhouse gas emissions by ending most electricity generation using coal will face some tough challenges, with coal mining going through a growth spurt in countries such as Australia. Although coal is blamed for contributing to climate change and causing large amounts of harmful pollution, it remains by far the most important fuel for power generation at a global share of around 40 percent. The size of the challenge is reflected in forecasts for energy demand growth across Asia, where coal is the fuel of choice and expected to meet almost 60 percent of demand growth over the next 20 years, according to Roche. –James Regan, Reuters, 3 November 2014

The IPCC synthesis report doesn’t say anything new. We’ve heard this for the last 20 odd years. This is the 5th report by the IPCC and it doesn’t change the underlying problem of the international community to come to a binding climate agreement. So this is nothing new and it’s unlikely to change the UN deadlock. – Benny Peiser, BBC News 24, 2 November 2014

The “synthesis report” of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, published yesterday, warns of an increased “likelihood” of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts if emissions continue. But when you cut through the spin, the IPCC is actually saying that there is a range of possibilities, from no net harm at all through two middling scenarios to one where gathering harm from mid-century onwards culminates in potentially dire consequences by 2100. We are being asked to make sacrifices today to prevent the possibility of what may turn out to be pretty small harm to very wealthy people in the future. –Matt Ridley, The Times, 3 November 2014

Here’s what I believe. There is nothing more pressing in our time than confronting and solving the climate crisis. We have no time to spare. We must act now. Luckily, we have all the tools we need to solve this challenge. All we need is political will—but political will is a renewable resource! That’s why the election on November 4th is so monumentally important. President Obama is now leading on this issue—but we need to elect more Democrats dedicated to putting the future of our planet before the interests of Big Oil and Coal and other large carbon polluters who demand the right to use our atmosphere as an open sewer without any accountability. –Al Gore, The Weekly Standard, 1 November 2014

The chairman of the U.S. House Science, Space, and Technology Committee Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said in a statement that he appreciates efforts “to better understand the complex science of our ever-changing planet,” but adds that the new IPCC report “says nothing new.” “Similar to previous reports, the latest findings appear more political than scientific,” he said. “People are tired of the re-packaged rhetoric. It’s time to stop fear mongering and focus on an honest dialogue about real options.” Smith said it appears that the U.N. is “once more attempting to provide cover for costly new regulations and energy rationing.”–Kyle Balluck, The Hill, 2 November 2014
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top