Global leaders reach climate deal (man-made climate change was now "beyond doubt"

A meeting in Washington of global political leaders has reached a new agreement on tackling climate change.

Delegates agreed that developing countries will have to face targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions as well as rich countries.

The informal meeting also agreed that a global market should be formed to cap and trade carbon dioxide emissions.

The non-binding declaration is seen as vital in influencing a replacement for the Kyoto Protocol, correspondents say.

The forum's closing statement said man-made climate change was now "beyond doubt".

"Climate change is a global issue and there is an obligation on us all to take action, in line with our capabilities and historic responsibilities," said the statement from the Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced Environment (Globe).

The two-day meeting brought together legislators from countries including the Group of Eight rich nations plus Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa.

The BBC's environment analyst Roger Harrabin was at the meeting and says that although the declaration carries no formal weight it indicates a real change in mood.

The legislators agreed that developing countries had to face targets on greenhouse gas emissions as well as rich countries.

They said they want a successor to the Kyoto Protocol - which expires in 2012 - in place by 2009.

US senator Joe Lieberman forecast that the US Congress will enact a law on cutting emissions by the end of next year, possibly this year.

And presidential candidate John McCain, who is co-sponsoring climate legislation with Mr Lieberman, was emphatic on the need for new initiatives.

"I am convinced that we have reached the tipping point and that the Congress of the United States will act, with the agreement of the administration," he told the forum.

Meanwhile, the Canadian parliament moved to force the government to meet its Kyoto Protocol target for reducing emissions.

The ruling Conservative party argues that meeting the target, of reducing emissions by 6% from 1990 levels by the period 2008-2012, is impossible.

The parliamentary vote gives the government 60 days to formulate a plan for getting back on track.

With United Nations climate negotiations in November failing to agree a timetable for mandating new cuts in emissions when the current Kyoto targets expire in 2012, the British-led Globe set up the Washington meeting in the hope of stimulating progress in a less formal setting.

The UN's panel on climate change said earlier this month that higher global temperatures caused by man-made pollution will melt polar ice, worsen floods and droughts and cause more devastating storms.

At a glance: IPCC report
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6324029.stm

Global climate change is "very likely" to have been human-induced, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded.

KEY FINDINGS

It is very likely that human activities are causing global warming

Probable temperature rise by the end of the century will be between 1.8C and 4C (3.2-7.2F)

Possible temperature rise by the end of the century ranges between 1.1C and 6.4C (2-11.5F)

Sea levels are likely to rise by 28-43cm

Arctic summer sea ice is likely to disappear in second half of century

It is very likely that parts of the world will see an increase in the number of heatwaves

Climate change is likely to lead to increased intensity of tropical storms

FOURTH ASSESSMENT REPORT

This is the first of four reports that will be published in 2007 by the IPCC as part of its Fourth Assessment Report (4AR)

This report, from the IPCC's Working Group I, looks at the science of climate change

The other reports will look at: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability; mitigation of climate change; and finally, the Synthesis Report

WHAT IS THE IPCC?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (Unep).

The role of the IPCC is to assess the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation

The global body does not carry out any research of its own

Its assessments are mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature

The First Assessment Report was published in 1990; the last one, the Third Assessment Report, was released in 2001

IPCC REPORT DEFINITIONS

Probability of occurrence:

virtually certain - more than 99%
extremely likely - more than 95%
very likely - more than 90%
likely - more than 60%
more likely than not - more than 50%
unlikely - less than 33%
very unlikely - less than 10%
extremely unlikely - less than 5%
(Source: IPCC)

IPCC REPORT DEFINITIONS
Probability of occurrence:
...

Mix UN/IPCC consensus driven politics with science the animal you get is anything but science.

By the way the genesis of the UN/IPCC's current uncertainty guidance paper comes from the concepts expressed in this paper authored by Steven Schneider (one of the historical heavy lifters in the anthropogenic global warming crew) on the subject of how uncertainty should be expressed in IPCC papers:

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/UncertaintiesGuidanceFinal2.pdf

"A final note before turning to the specific recommendations themselves-the paper assumes that for most instances in the TAR, a "Bayesian" or "subjective" characterization of probability will be the most appropriate (see, e.g., Edwards, 1992, for a philosophical basis for Baysian methods; for applications of Bayesian methods, see e.g., Anderson, 1998; Howard et al., 1972). The Bayesian paradigm is a formal and rigorous language to communicate uncertainty. In it, a "prior" belief about a probability distribution (typically based on existing evidence) can be updated by new evidence, which causes a revision of the prior, producing a so-called "posterior" probability. Applying the paradigm in the assessment process involves combining individual authors' (and reviewers') Bayesian assessments of probability distributions and would lead to the following interpretation of probability statements: the probability of an event is the degree of belief that exists among lead authors and reviewers that the event will occur, given the observations, modeling results, and theory currently available. When complex systems are the topic, both prior and updated probability distributions usually contain a high degree of (informed) subjectivity. Thus in the TAR, we expect Bayesian approaches to be what is most often meant when probabilities are attached to outcomes with an inherent component of subjectivity or to an assessment of the state of the science from which confidence characterisations are offered."

And the intent of the use of such terms:

"It is certainly true that "science" itself strives for objective empirical information to test theory and models. But at the same time "science for policy" must be recognized as a different enterprise than "science" itself, since science for policy (e.g., Ravetz, 1986) involves being responsive to policymakers' needs for expert judgment at a particular time, given the information currently available, even if those judgments involve a considerable degree of subjectivity. "

The same Steven Schneider responsible for this quote:

"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."
(Steven Schneider, Quoted in Discover, pp. 45-48, Oct. 1989; and (American Physical Society, APS News August/September 1996).

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

FReepmail me to get on or off