December 2009 Archives

We don't need to wait for a global agreement to begin reducing greenhouse gas emissions now. Those who take the lead now will not only show the way for those who follow, they will reap the benefits of being the ones who develop the technology -- and the jobs that come with it. Tom Friedman has been making this point for a long time. It's past time we started listening.

The climate change policy process is best viewed as a marathon, not a sprint.  The Copenhagen Accord - depending upon details yet to be worked out - could well turn out to be a sound foundation for a Portfolio of Domestic Commitments, which could be an effective bridge to a longer-term arrangement among the countries of the world.  We may look back upon Copenhagen as an important moment - both because global leaders took the reins of the procedures and brought the negotiations to a fruitful conclusion, and because the foundation was laid for a broad-based coalition of the willing to address effectively the threat of global climate change.  Only time will tell.

The Copenhagen climate deal that President Obama hammered out Friday night with the leaders of China, India, Brazil and South Africa broke through years of negotiating gridlock to achieve three critical goals.  First, it provides for real cuts in heat-trapping carbon pollution by all of the world's big emitters.  Second, it establishes a transparent framework for evaluating countries' performance against their commitments.  And third, it will also start an unprecedented flow of resources to help poor and vulnerable nations cope with climate impacts, protect their forests, and adopt clean energy technologies.

...

So give up the sour and grudging reviews.  The Copenhagen Accord is a significant breakthrough that signals a new era of effective cooperation between all major emitters, and opens the door to finally enacting U.S. climate and energy legislation next year. (emphasis added)

• How do you know CO₂ is responsible for the change in climate and can you prove it? And how do we know that CO₂ released is from human activities?
• Studies of past climate show temperatures rise first, then CO₂ follows. How do we know that's not happening now?
• Surely current warming is natural, as it has been in the past?
• Can we rely on climate model predictions to tell us about the future?
• Hasn't the Earth cooled recently and Arctic seaice recovered?
• Why is global warming bad -- aren't there advantages?
• What effect is there going to be on the Gulf Stream because of climate change and what would happen if it stopped?
• Can we really stop climate change by cutting CO₂ emissions?
• What if we can't cut CO₂? Is there anything else that can be done?
• What can individuals do and what is the Government doing to prepare?
• Does 'climategate' (hacking of data at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia) undermine climate science in any way?

President Obama also reminded the world that a "legally binding" international climate agreement is not, in the end, legally binding anyway, while repudiating the notion that "Science" can dictate and bind national economic and political decision-making.

...

The framework of the deal appears to essentially be an agreement amongst major emitters to move forward with verifiable domestic actions to reduce carbon emissions and spur clean development, rejecting the abstract emissions targets and timetables that were the hallmark of the Kyoto protocol.

[D]eal with climate with the right people where the action is. Whilst not wishing to trivialize today's pain, we can deal with climate more effectively by catalyzing ambitious national action leveraged with international co-operation. We can get a better global deal, but only once nation's have whetted their appetite for low carbon growth and development through action, not theory. This is not, as i have repeatedly argued, downgrading expectations, but upgrading them by leveraging where the real energy for change lies, and then uploading the results into a far smarter global deal going forward.

Among other goals, I want to help make scientists and scientific institutions into  better, more committed, more creative communicators. In a world of  shrinking specialized journalism, direct outreach will be more vital than ever.

PAUL SOLMAN: So, what's the deal with the polar bear?

DR. ERIC CHIVIAN: Well, polar bears have become the iconic symbol of what we are going to lose with climate change. But their medical value is almost never mentioned. Let me tell you about that. For five to seven months, they go into hibernation. If we were bed-ridden for five months, we would lose a third of our bone mass. They have substances in their blood that prevent them from losing bone, even though they are not moving around. If we understood what those substances were, which we don't, we might be able to treat and maybe even prevent osteoporosis, which kills 70,000 Americans every year, costs the U.S. economy $17 billion.

pan⋅chres⋅ton

  /pænˈkrɛstən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [pan-kres-tuhn] Show IPA

Use panchreston in a Sentence

See web results for panchreston

See images of panchreston

-noun

a proposed explanation intended to address a complex problem by trying to account for all possible contingencies but typically proving to be too broadly conceived and therefore oversimplified to be of any practical use.

---

Origin:
1625-35; < Gk pánchrēston, neut. of pánchrēstos good for everything, equiv. to pan- pan- + chrēs-, verbid s. of chrâsthai to be useful + -tos v. adj. suffix

Summary

In late November 2009, more than 1,000 e-mails between scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the U.K.'s University of East Anglia were stolen and made public by an as-yet-unnamed hacker. Climate skeptics are claiming that they show scientific misconduct that amounts to the complete fabrication of man-made global warming. We find that to be unfounded:

• The messages, which span 13 years, show a few scientists in a bad light, being rude or dismissive. An investigation is underway, but there's still plenty of evidence that the earth is getting warmer and that humans are largely responsible.
• Some critics say the e-mails negate the conclusions of a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but the IPCC report relied on data from a large number of sources, of which CRU was only one.
• E-mails being cited as "smoking guns" have been misrepresented. For instance, one e-mail that refers to "hiding the decline" isn't talking about a decline in actual temperatures as measured at weather stations. These have continued to rise, and 2009 may turn out to be the fifth warmest year ever recorded. The "decline" actually refers to a problem with recent data from tree rings.

There is no doubt that the CRU e-mails are an embarrassment to climate science in general, and to paleoclimate in particular. I have read the "greatest hits", and cringe along with everyone else at their content. But in my professional opinion, these e-mails reveal nothing more than brief, emotion-fueled remarks made in the face of unrelenting and often disingenuous attacks. Far more importantly, the conduct (questionable or not) of a handful of climate scientists in no way undermines the scientific support for anthropogenic global warming. The conclusions reached in the IPCC report do not critically depend on the work of these few scientists.

One of the more unnerving impressions from the behind-the-scenes glance at climate research may be that subjectivity exists in climate science. My response is "Well, duh." Scientists are not technicians, we are not following a cookbook or a yellow-brick-road. Rather, we make a myriad of decisions every day about our results, based on our interpretations, which in turn are based on (in this case) years of experience. Some aspects of climate science are more open to subjective interpretation than others (the standardization of some late 20th century tree ring paleoclimate records being near the top of this list). If a subjective choice changes the conclusion of a study, then the confidence in the conclusion is reduced and the associated uncertainties must be quantified. But the scientific process is self-correcting; if an inappropriate choice was made, then this will eventually be identified by other researchers, our scientific understanding will improve, and our confidence in the conclusions will increase.

Read the whole set of comments at RealClimate.

I cannot condone some things that colleagues of mine wrote or requested in the e-mails recently stolen from a climate research unit at a British university. But the messages do not undermine the scientific case that human-caused climate change is real. (emphasis added)

...

The scientific consensus regarding human-caused climate change is based on decades of work by thousands of scientists around the world. The National Academy of Sciences has concluded that the scientific case is clear. As world leaders work in Copenhagen to try to combat this problem, some critics are seeking to cloud the debate and confuse the public.

As climate scientists, this is what we know with great confidence:

• We know that human activities have changed the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
• We know that these changes in the composition of the atmosphere have had profound effects on Earth's climate.
• We know that the human "fingerprint" on climate will become ever more visible over the next few decades, and will impact many aspects of our lives.
• We know that we are at a crossroads in human history. The decisions our political leaders reach in Copenhagen - or fail to reach - will shape the world inherited by future generations.
  

The Digital Object Identifier (DOI^®) System is for identifying content objects in the digital environment. DOI^® names are assigned to any entity for use on digital networks. They are used to provide current information, including where they (or information about them) can be found on the Internet. Information about a digital object may change over time, including where to find it, but its DOI name will not change. (source)

The Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) would be an alphanumeric string that uniquely identifies an individual scientist in much the same way that a Digital Object Identifier uniquely identifies a paper, book or other scholarly publication (more details and the complete list of participants will soon be available at http://www.orcid.org). The system would distinguish between the world's multitudinous Dr Smiths and Professor Wangs, but would not be affected by name changes, cultural differences in name order, inconsistent first-name abbreviations or the use of different alphabets. It would be attached to researchers' journal publications, and could also be assigned to data sets they helped to generate, comments on their colleagues' blog posts or unpublished draft papers, edits of Wikipedia entries and much else besides. (source)

Among other findings, the study shows that increasing ocean acidification will mean that by 2100 some 70% of cold water corals, a key refuge and feeding ground for commercial fish species, will be exposed to corrosive waters.  In addition, given the current emission rates, it is predicted that the surface water of the highly productive Arctic Ocean will become under-saturated with respect to essential carbonate minerals by the year 2032, and the Southern Ocean by 2050 with disruptions to large components of the marine food source, in particular those calcifying species, such as foraminifera, pteropods, coccolithophores,
mussels, oysters, shrimps, crabs and lobsters, which rely on calcium to grow and mature.  

Andrew C. Revkin, one of the most influential and respected reporters on the environment, will take a buyout from The New York Times as part of the paper's current round of budget cuts. His departure, after nearly fifteen years at the Times, is sure to leave a big hole in the publication's coverage of climate change at a time when this controversial issue--and what to do about it--is at the top of the American and international agenda as never before. Revkin is currently on assignment covering the Copenhagen climate change summit and will step down from his staff reporting post next Monday after returning to New York.

"I need to do more synthesis. I haven't had time for years," said Revkin, adding that he has been thinking of making a shift toward academia for the last two years. Since joining the Times in 1995, his front-line reporting on climate change has often led the way for national and international coverage of the issue. In a career spanning more than 25 years, Revkin has become one of the most versatile, prolific and pioneering multimedia science journalists covering all aspects of the environment, from basic science to rough-and-tumble policy and politics.

On a personal level, he said that 2009 "has been the hardest year I've experienced on this beat," including virtually around-the-clock coverage for both the print edition and his blog. Moreover, Revkin has increasingly found himself--and his paper's coverage--the target of critics on both the right and the left, particularly in the often vitriolic blogosphere. He described himself as "an advocate for scientific reality," not for either side of the debate. "The stakes are clearly higher now," Revkin said, "[it's] jaw-dropping to see how far things can go."

He will keep DotEarth going, but losing him as a full time reporter at the Times is more evidence of the decline in our nation's newspapers.¹ I wish Revkin all the best, and I look forward to the books he promises to write, but I will greatly miss seeing his by-line in the Times.  CJR concludes its story with these words:

Revkin will undoubtedly remain a strong influence in the field, and one can only hope that others journalists will continue to cover climate change as assiduously as he has.

We can only hope.

Science writer Andrew C. Revkin, the individual journalist most identified with reporting on climate change, is leaving The New York Times. His last day will be December 21, and he will affiliate with Pace University. He is expected to continue working on his popular Dotearth blog through The Times, though details are still being arranged.

Revkin's move has been in the works for some time, and he says he decided some two years ago - after writing a "next 20 years" personal memorandum about his career plans - that he would leave journalism. He cites frustration with journalism and also personal fatigue after routinely working virtually 24/7 in recent years.

OSTP to Launch Public Forum to Discuss Options for Improving Public Access to Results of Federally Funded Research

On Thursday, Dec. 10, OSTP will launch a public consultation on Public Access Policy. The Administration is seeking public input on access to publicly-funded research results, such as those that appear in academic and scholarly journal articles. Currently, the National Institutes of Health require that research funded by its grants be made available to the public online at no charge within 12 months of publication. The Administration is seeking views as to whether this policy should be extended to other science agencies and, if so, how it should be implemented.

The Office of Science and Technology Policy in the Executive Office of the President and the White House Open Government Initiative is launching a "Public Access Policy Forum" to invite public participation in thinking through what the Federal government's policy should be with regard to public access to published federally-funded research results. To that end, OSTP will conduct an interactive, online discussion beginning Thursday, December 10. We will focus on three major areas of interest:

• Implementation (Dec. 10 to 20): Which Federal agencies are good candidates to adopt Public Access policies? What variables (field of science, proportion of research funded by public or private entities, etc.) should affect how public access is implemented at various agencies, including the maximum length of time between publication and public release?
• Features and Technology (Dec. 21 to Dec 31): In what format should the data be submitted in order to make it easy to search and retrieve information, and to make it easy for others to link to it? Are there existing digital standards for archiving and interoperability to maximize public benefit? How are these anticipated to change.
• Management (Jan. 1 to Jan. 7): What are the best mechanisms to ensure compliance? What would be the best metrics of success? What are the best examples of usability in the private sector (both domestic and international)? Should those who access papers be given the opportunity to comment or provide feedback?

Each of these topics will form the basis of a blog posting that will appear at www.whitehouse.gov/open and will be open for comment on the OSTP blog.

We want your input!

For full details, see the Federal Register notice.

10 December 2009

We, members of the UK science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities. The evidence and the science are deep and extensive. They come from decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity. That research has been subject to peer review and publication, providing traceability of the evidence and support for the scientific method.

The science of climate change draws on fundamental research from an increasing number of disciplines, many of which are represented here. As professional scientists, from students to senior professors, we uphold the findings of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which concludes that 'Warming of the climate system is unequivocal' and that 'Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations'.

The design for this collection is inspired by 3 of the simplest, and at the same time more symbolic forms: circle, triangle and square, and is the result of an in depth study that Lalex 1938 carried out defying all laws of mathematics and solid geometry, and achieving truly amazing results. In pearlised resin, with aluminum trim, the "Forme" collection is available as fountain pen with iridium-tipped stainless steel nibs, capped rollerball, ball pen and mechanical pencil available in the "viaggio" (travel) and "scrivania" (desk) style.

Reaction to the content of the East Anglia emails is so intense because it shows scientists talking and behaving in ways that cut against the stereotypical image of impartial, Vulcan-like high priests of reason.

would introduce students to quality online news sources about science, teach students about how to constructively use participatory tools such as blogs and other social media applications, educate students on how to critically evaluate evidence and claims as presented in the media, introduce students to the relationships between science and institutions as they are often covered in the news, and socialize students into enjoying and following science by way of digital media after they complete their formal science coursework. In short, this type of media literacy curriculum would not only potentially grow the audience for science media, but also impart the skills, motivation, and know-how that students need to be participatory citizens in the online and real worlds.

The Climate Scoreboard uses the C-ROADS simulation to calculate the long-term climate impacts of proposals under consideration in the negotiations to produce a global climate treaty. Embedded Scoreboards automatically update as the deal improves.

Ranking member James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) led the assault, attacking John Holdren, the president's science adviser. Sensenbrenner, a former chair of the House Science committee, quoted an e-mail from 2003 in which Holdren called scientists Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas "amateurs" at interpreting climate data and said that their findings are "flawed." (source)

[T]here's one thing we all must do: be true to the science. We have to be honest about what the data say, even if the data tell us things about the policy we'd prefer to adopt that we'd rather not hear. (source; take a look at this one too )

Climate scientists, knowingly or not, become proxies for political battles. The consequence is that science, as a form of open and critical enquiry, deteriorates while the more appropriate forums for ideological battles are ignored.

...

The problem then with getting our relationship with science wrong is simple: We expect too much certainty, and hence clarity, about what should be done. Consequently, we fail to engage in honest and robust argument about our competing political visions and ethical values.

...

The central battlegrounds on which we need to fight out the policy implications of climate change concern matters of risk management, of valuation, and political ideology.

Dissemination of results is an essential component of the land-grant tradition of research and of our investment in science. We share your concern that far too often the results of research funded by the U.S. government are not broadly available to researchers, scientists, and members of the public. In addition to ensuring that this research is made available quickly, it is also critical that the published information remain broadly available for future use. We are pleased to see that your bill is designed to support both early, as well as long-term, access to scientific research results.

Australians love gambling. It's a well-accepted fact that we'll wager a bet on just about anything. We even have public holidays just so we can bet on horse races. So why not take this socially damaging propensity and use it for good?

Hugh's proposal goes as follows:

• Put the name of each Australian threatened and endangered species in a lottery barrel.
• Each year right before the Melbourne Cup, Australia's biggest horse race, get the environment minister (currently ex-Midnight Oil frontman Peter Garrett) to spin the barrel and draw out a species name.
• Whatever proportion of that species' population lives on a piece of land, the owner of that land - be it a private individual, an indigenous group, an NGO, a corporation, or even a state government - receives the equivalent proportion of $20 million - less than 0.4% of annual gambling revenue in Australia.
• Have the winning species, along with facts about it and where it lives, published on the front page of Australian papers along with the Melbourne Cup-winning racehorse.

This scheme would provide the incentive for landowners not just to protect but actively enhance populations of threatened species on their properties.

1. "Offspring" tend to resemble their "parents".
2. "Individuals" differ in many traits that affect how many "offspring" they leave.