Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Scientists Plan Emergency Summit on Climate Change
Scientists are to hold an emergency summit to warn the world's politicians they are being too timid in their response to global warming.
Climate experts from across the world will gather in Copenhagen next month to agree a stark message to policy makers, which they hope will break the political deadlock on efforts to curb rising temperatures. The meeting follows "disturbing" studies that suggest global warming could strike harder and faster than expected.
It comes ahead of a year of high-level political discussions on climate change, which climax with international negotiations in Copenhagen in December, where officials will try to hammer out a successor to the Kyoto protocol.
Katherine Richardson, a marine biologist at the University of Copenhagen, who is organising next month's event, said: "This is not a regular scientific conference. This is a deliberate attempt to influence policy."
The meeting will publish an update to the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Richardson said the IPCC report was "wishy-washy" on issues such as sea level rise. "The IPCC talks of a 40cm sea rise this century. Well, if the consensus now is a rise of a metre or more then they need to know that."
A number of studies published since the IPCC report was prepared show that carbon emissions are rising faster than expected and that existing greenhouse gas targets may not be enough to prevent catastrophic temperature rise. Climate experts, including Jim Hansen, of Nasa, have warned about so-called "tipping points" that could lead to runaway warming and rapid sea level rise.
Bob Watson, a former head of the IPCC and chief scientist in the environment department, Defra, said: "Certainly in Defra they're aware of the situation. Whether all governments are aware of it is another matter. Even without the new information there was enough to make most policy makers think that urgent action was absolutely essential. The new information only strengthens that and pushes it even harder."
One issue to be addressed next month is whether it is still possible to limit average global temperature rise to 2C, which the EU defines as dangerous. Richardson said a key question for politicians is the balance between efforts to limit warming and steps to adapt to the likely consequences. Watson has warned that nations should prepare for an average rise of 4C. The IPCC said temperatures could soar by up to 6C by 2100 if current rates of carbon pollution continue.
Martin Parry, a British scientist who jointly chaired the IPCC working group on impacts for the 2007 report, and will attend next month's meeting, said: "I think it's a good idea. I would have thought most of this stuff is out there already but it deserves to be brought together and hammered home in a credible way."
A number of "disturbing" trends seem to have accelerated since the IPCC report was published, he said, such as a decrease in the amount of carbon pollution absorbed in the oceans, and an increase in Greenland ice melt. But he denied that the new findings made the IPCC report obsolete. "They are not so radical as to undermine the report. They reinforce it."
- Posted in

25 Comments so far
Show AllAnother waste of money.
Another waste of the public comment space at Common Dreams...
Yeah Sig, these "scientists" are clearly not motivated by genuine alarm over human effect on the Earth's climate. They're motivated by, uh... the desire to waste time and money! That's it! Their emergency climate change summit is just some kind of, um, shared mental disturbance among, er, the majority of working climatologists!
Your arrogance in dismissing these people's life work and knowledge is simply astonishing. Especially in light of the crisis they are pleading with us to address, involving disruption of the living systems that sustain us all.
As was famously said to Senator Joe McCarthy after years of spouting utter nonsense about Communists, let me say to you - "At long last, sir, have you no shame?"
No, you don't, and you will happily post the majority of responses in this thread, spouting whatever confusion you may hope to seed in anyone's mind about this issue.
Another of your turds dropped into the CD punchbowl.
Webwalk:
As I stated earlier, I am not going to present evidence to you. You expect me to read what you post and accept it as the only evidence. Well, Sir: It isn't. I am not nearly as close minded as you are. I will put it to you this way:
There are scientists who discredit AGW just as there are scientists who give credence to AGW. Being that neither can overcome the other with emperical data, why argue? Change the topic to conservation. That cannot be aruged. That is common sense. Change the topic to polution. That also can't be argued.
You see, I am an old time conservative. I conserve in any way that I possibly can. I think it is only common sense to use wind/tidal/solar steam for power.
I think in prob 20 years geo thermal will be economical as well. I am all for it!
I don't agree with you tho as far as the effects of co2 as a driver. I will readily admit it is a driver, but there are many other forces at work on climate. We are cooling now, I know you hate to look at had/crut data as you will certainly see that. But so be it. And climatically, we have been cooling since 6500 BP. That trend has not changed. It has slowed, but it certainly has not changed if you want to talk climate. Which is not what you look at out your window. That is weather, just as 30 years is weather.
There will be nothing accomplished by these people getting together, only more carbon emmited getting them to their meetings, slaps on the back as they are the onlyyyyyyyy ones that have vision......etc. Well, there are lots of folks that don't buy it.
Read the IPCC report will you? The certainty is NOT there.
You keep saying we are cooling Sig, but you're wrong. Any reasonable trend analysis of global surface temperature will show that since the middle ages we were cooling for about 900 years, then in about 1910 temperatures started to rise rapidly. There was a period of stability around the 50s, but since then the upward trend has been stark. 1998 was the warmest year on record, but 2005 was almost as warm. Are you talking about this recent fluctuation as being a cooling trend?
the IPCC, in the AR4 Scientific Basis report, Part 6 (May 2007), makes the following statements:
“Ice core records show that atmospheric CO2 varied in the range of 180 to 300 ppm over the glacial-interglacial cycles of the last 650 kyr”
“Variations in CO2 over the last 420 kyr broadly followed Antarctic temperature, typically by several centuries to a millennium“
“The quantitative and mechanistic explanation of these CO2 variations remains one of the major unsolved questions in climate research.”
“In conclusion, the explanation of glacial-interglacial CO2 variations remains a difficult attribution problem
All you've done here is thrown in some doubt. That does not mean the AGW is not true.
The first two quotes completely refute what you're saying. They basically say the CO2 for the last 650,000 years was between 180 and 300, and that temperature nicely correlated with that. And now we're pushing 400 with no end in sight....ergo!
I know correlation is not necessarily causation, but when you couple recent high CO2 concentrations with recent temperature increases, the rate of which has not been seen in millenia, I would say that is a pretty pressing case, and certainly worth scientists meeting over it, at the very least!
Bidelo:
We spiked in 1998. Since 1998, we have been on a cooling trend. Yes, within that trend there are variations, but the trend is colder. But that is weather. I am talking climate, the trend since 6500 BP.
Do a search on Halocene temp trends. Not one paper that I have read about the overall climate trend says anything other than cooling.
You will find climate temp graphs for this period.
Since 1998, it's not a cooling trend because it's weather, as you say. The overall trend is warming. Do you refute that there has been a significant warming trend in the *climate* for the last hundred years?
bidelo:
You put it correctly. A coorelation of temp and co2. Coorelation does not make fact. That is why even the IPCC recognizes such. I am an older feller. Used to be that co2 lagged temp by 80 years. That was accepted science till a few years ago, and now the AGW people want to change that figure.
Yes, temp has been rising the past century. IN fact, temps have been rising since the late 1700's. Before that they had fallen, risen, fallen etc. Seems that is part of a normal cycle of climate. If we had lived 12,000BP, when we came out of the ice age in a matter of a few hundred years, and were happy with the weather around us, we would be shouting to the roofs that the world was ending because the mastadons were dying. Anyways, I think you see my point. Climate change is not anything new.
When there were few humans, conservation was not an issue. WEll, now it is. An issue that is beyond dispute. Pollution is an issue beyond dispute. Energy security is an issue beyond dispute. Climate science is an infant science as there are causations that we are learning about every day. I don't feel aruging about climate cause and effect is an arguement that can be won in the near future by either AGW believers or people who feel that the cycles are natural in origin. Conservation again, is beyond dispute.
Arguing with the deniers is a complete waste of time. You might well be arguing with the Christians over evolution. Their specialties are "cherry picking" and disinformation, not science.
The anti-evolutionists argue more honestly than the climate change deniers.
joneden:
I am curious. Tell me one thing in my posts that is not correct?
http://science.larc.nasa.gov/ceres/STM/2006-10/0610261650Tak.pdf
No kidding Brian:
The climate change deniers keep thinking that climate is stagnat and that temp variations are not normal. Climate on our world has been changing since the world was formed. One can NOT make everything stand still. What a crock!
Classic "straw man" argument:
Set up a straw man who says "climate is stagnat [sic]" and "temp variations are not normal" and "make everything stand still". Then knock down the straw man that you set up. And hope no one notices what you did. What a crock!
Yes, but if the GW alarmists are right, its going to be in the warming direction for a long time. There could be dust bowl like soil conditions, high temperatures, and severe storms from the southwest through the upper midwest. That includes the Dakotas and Minnesota, I suppose. Take good care of that prairie topsoil, buddy.
Hey Siggi, Some Minnesota stuff:
http://www.environmentminnesota.org/news-releases/global-warming/global-warming-news/new-report-temperatures-up-in-minnesota#5Ke2LSWprU0vuh9tEhvFNw
http://www.environmentminnesota.org/news-releases/global-warming/global-warming-news/new-report-extreme-downpours-up--percent-in-minnesota#OAjHrWvcxHhsRP0sNinNmg
http://www.peakoil.com/article45185.html
Chill and have a yogurt:
http://skyr.com/
"Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children."
Ancient Native American Proverb
What is the energy outlay to produce a twinkie or a big mac? Not at the counter - but from bovine feed plantation to 'post-consumer' sewage treatment?
Economics 101 to be introduced in 5th grade. Earlier with memory ditties. Remember those? What is the carbon footprint of twinkie?
This is not a koan.
webwalk:
The more I learned about AGW, the more I realized the certainty is not there. I wish you well in your pursuits. Above all, think conservation. We are in 100% agreement on that.
bbr:
Thanks for the links to Minn. I live next door, and the temps here are enough to bring down Minnesota's. Our Dec was 5.9 below 130 year averages, and our Jan was 6.9 below 130 year averages. Once again, that is weather, altho our growing degree days have been in a free fall since 1998. Enough in fact that I have to grow a shorter season corn to adapt to that.
The oceans are our true climate stabalizer, and they are cooling. Part of the cycle.
That yogurt is cute!...thank you for that link.
Have a great day all.
Lack of certainty does not lead to reduction of risks, as you have assumed.
Uncertainty increases the risks associated with possible outcomes, and should lead you to be *more* concerned about containing global warming, not less.
Hi all,
I intend to go to this event. See http://climatecongress.ku.dk
I hope Sigurdur_2 can help by providing insights into how much money I am wasting and what else I should do - perhaps throw myself into genetic research for short cycle maize for use on the farm.
If his own patch warms up, contrary to his utterly die-hard beliefs and bundles of evidence, then we can just take the germplasm up North for planting into succesive swathes of Canada and Siberia over the next few decades.
The conference, once they accept my recommendations, will include topics like -
1. What do we do if we are all wrong?
1.1 How to achieve UN world government without climate alarmism.
1.2 Further strategies to ramp up taxes once alarmism is exposed.
1.3 Does a strategic alliance make sense with the Heartland Institute to keep the corporate dollars flowing?
1.4 Tactics for dealing with skeptics once they proove themselves right.
2.1 Just in case: Keeping the Sun permamently cool - sunspot modification 101.
2.2 Just in case: Deploying the world's maritime fleet to tow Pacific-ward Antarctic and Arctic icefloes, so the PDO doesn't switch back.
2.3 Just in case: Advanced acid ocean management - theory and practice.
2.4 Just in case: Techniques for manually razing South Australia's forests so the bush fires can't keep happening - the large-scale woodchipping option.
Seriously I am going - and would be happy to report back in some way.
Hope for the best, but plan for the worst.
If we don't plan that way,
hindsight from 50 years hence,
won't provide us any comfort.
Isn't there anything else to debate, except more constant tiresome wastage of the public comment space at Common Dreams, responding to The Confused and all his related ilks?
"There are scientists who discredit AGW just as there are scientists who give credence to AGW. Being that neither can overcome the other with emperical data, why argue?"
Sorry, but should Sig_2 read -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
he'll find NO SCIENTISTS 'discredit AGW'. Credence is established and nothing and no-one is going to "overcome" the mainstream of world science opinion.
"Although there have been some individual scientists who have made statements opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, with the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate changes".
Get on the same page.... or off the comment space...
There is no "empirical data" that's going to overcome this is there?
If there is, quote peer reviewed science, if not stop repeating this guff in 60% of your comments - Sigurdur_2 yet again, story after story, on and on.
Thanks.
tmk:
Go look at the migratory article on Common Dreams, look at the links I provided please.
Thank you