“This is a century in which we will recognise that living within your means can no longer just be about money, but also must be about first living within your carbon means and second living within the natural world’s ability to support humankind over issues like fishing and deforestation.”
I took pleasure in the these words from UK Environment Secretary Hilary Benn, reported in the Guardian today, while realising that I open myself to the accusation of being too ready to credit that a politician can mean what he or she says.
Benn is calling for a way to be found to price the impact of our decisions on biodiversity in the same way that the international community is finding a way of pricing carbon. He warns that the world may be going through its sixth great extinction event. He’s hoping that a report being prepared for the European commission by the Deutsche Bank economist Pavan Sukhdev into the economics of ecosystems and biodiversity may “do for our understanding of the natural world what Nick Stern did for the understanding of the economic impact of climate change.”
“Stern made people sit up and take notice. Stern said ‘this is the cost of dealing with climate change and this is the cost of not dealing with it.’ Stern brought this issue to the attention of business people and economists. We have to realise we live in a world where we can no longer take without consequence”.
Earlier in the month Benn contributed an opinion piece in the BBC’s Green Room series explaining his biodiversity concern at greater length. He was careful to conjoin it with climate change: “Climate change and biodiversity are inextricably linked. We ignore natural capital at our peril.”
Benn is only saying what many scientists have been pointing out for some years. But it matters that politicians should be saying it. The general populace needs to hear it from them. It’s called political leadership and it has often mattered at critical times in the past. I commented in an earlier post on the willingness of the Milliband brothers and Gordon Brown to speak unequivocally about climate change to the UK electorate. John Prescott was similarly outspoken and active in the lead-up to Copenhagen.
Admittedly the Copenhagen experience was dispiriting in relation to the rhetoric we were increasingly hearing from political leaders beforehand. Benn will address that fact in a speech he is due to deliver tomorrow, when he will say that a way has to be found to reverse “the collective loss of personal, economic and environmental optimism”.
Our own political leadership is not given to statements like that of Benn’s which opened this post. I realise they make a virtue of not wanting to promise more than they can deliver, but the New Zealand electorate needs to hear unequivocally from the government (and from the main opposition party for that matter) that climate change and biodiversity loss are supremely important issues, with the corollary that our catching up with Australian incomes is a rather lesser matter.
Related posts:
- Clearing the decks
- Friday on my mind (once more)
- You don’t know what you’ve got ’til it’s gone
- Copenhagen 5: inaction is inexcusable
- The other side of the world
{ 71 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
My word, what a lot you get wrong, Phil. The Amazon “issue” was one of attribution. The underlying studies showing Amazon drying in a warming world are robust enough – but they weren’t credited properly by the authors of that section. Small slip, but it does not mean the studies underpinning the statement don’t exist. In other words, your assertion that the Amazon will get wetter in a warming world is wrong (and your “trees grow better with more CO2″ is not necessarily true either).
The MWP is not “generally accepted” as warmer than today. It wasn’t a global phenomenon, for a start. The Holocene climatic optimum may have seen close to modern warmth, but that happened close to the end of the last ice age when there was a lot more ice about.
More interesting to consider is the last interglacial, the Eemian, around 125,000 years ago. CO2 peaked at about 300 ppm, global temps were a degree or two warmer than now, and sea level was 7m higher. Most of that water came from Greenland and the West Antarctic ice sheets, and there’s some evidence of periods of rapid sea level rise during the warmest periods.
We’re currently at 387 ppm CO2 and rising, and the planet is warming 20 times faster than during the fastest natural climate transitions of the last few million years.
Does common sense tell you anything?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Gareth – links to peer reviewed studies on the Amazon being impacted by GLOBAL WARMING as opposed to local Deforestation please. IPCC certainly does not quote any.
MWP not global? Then what about evidence from New Zealand ignored by Mann. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann.....ence09.pdf
“Temperatures derived from an 18O/16O profile through a stalagmite found in a New Zealand cave (40.67°S, 172.43°E) suggested the Medieval Warm Period to have occurred between AD 1050 and 1400 and to have been 0.75°C warmer than the Current Warm Period.”[22] The MWP has also been evidenced in New Zealand by an 1100-year tree-ring record.[23] – refs in page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
Again, please link to somewhere that discredits South Pacific warming rather than simply ignores it and then dismisses the possibility. the absence of proof is not proof.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Funny how you link to the Wikipedia page, but apparently want to ignore its opening sentence:
The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) or Medieval Climate Optimum was a time of warm climate in the North Atlantic region, lasting from about AD 800–1300, that may also have been related to other warm and cool anomalies around the world during that time.
NZ records prove nothing about global temps, but an interesting part of Mann’s most recent study (covered at John Cook’s excellent Skeptical Science is that if the period was characterised by a preponderance of La Nina phase ENSO events, then a warm NZ is exactly what you’d expect.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
That post is simply a repeat of the Mann paper I referred you to which ignores the two New Zealand studies. There are no papers referenced in there revealing the coldness of the South Pacific. Most of Mann’s links are self referential and must therefore be discounted.
A major wiki editor (Connolly? I think his name was) on climate related issues was recently revealed to have a substantial warming bias so I dont pay much attention to what wiki itself says on the subject but it can be a useful link.
So using our famed common sense you can accept a MWP in Greenland and warming in New Zealand and the Sargasso sea but still hold out for no evidence of it being global. Righto.
Still waiting for Amazon links and a better South Pacific link.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Skeptical Science shows the maps: no global MWP, and current temps well above that period. You don’t get to discount Mann: in the real world, we have to live with all the data — you can’t just ignore the stuff you don’t like.
William “Stoat” Connolly has put a huge amount of effort into making the Wikipedia climate pages a worthwhile resource. Being a climate scientist himself helps, of course.
Amazon: this release about a recent paper covers the basics well. As for NZ, I’ve already said a warm NZ during the MWP is consistent with our understanding of ENSO events.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Gareth – ask yourself. You accept New Zealand has MWP (If I read you right). But you don’t see that as being in contradiction to the Mann paper which shows nothing of the sort.
I accept your point about being forced to accept Mann. (Until he is completely discredited through the red noise = hockey stick proofs finally overcome the self referential papers that made IPCC 2007. Google Bishop hill and the jesus paper). It would be nice if Mann did not ignore things he does not like. (The MWP for example)
That Amazon link seems a reasonable link between drought and Amazonian carbon desequestration but I don’t see it as being a proof that warming will cause less precipitation in Amazonia. Sorry to be pedantic but the weather cycle there vapourises sea water that rains on the Amazon, revapourises, then rains close to the Andes.
In the meantime enjoy and explain this link. http://wattsupwiththat.com/200.....core-data/
anyway – off to bed, interesting banter thank you both
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Phil: Keep in mind that although the MWP may well have been comparable in magnitude or warmer than today’s warming there were previous warm periods such as the Bronze Age warming that may have been even warmer again.
Gareth, send you give such credence to the opinion of climate scientists perhaps you should read the below link to the opinion of Chick Keller (who is a supporter of AGW theory). I believe it covers the issue with comparing historical records today’s warming well. Especially the note at the very end.
http://www.assassinationscienc.....566497.txt
Let me know what you think of his analysis please
Rate this comment:
0 
0
This paper should be interesting reading for NIWA.
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/t.....Palmer.pdf
Figure 1 shows that tree rings do not suggest any modern warming in Westland. Figure 3 shows when the last 40 years are replaced with the Hokitika temperature series warming appears. Note the Hokitika series was adjusted the most by NIWA. I guess real world data doesn’t matter these days…..
Rate this comment:
0 
0
“The Darwin 1941 change was put down to a station move rather than a Stevenson screen by Eschenbach” – Phil Sage.
Perhaps, but I don’t place must faith in the integrity of Warwick Hughes. Is that really the Darwin Post Office in 1890?. I researched online and can’t find anything to confirm or deny the claim.
My earlier comment was based on this old blog: (yes I know John Daly is dead):
“Prior to the 1941 move, there were 3 main temperature measurement locations, at Government House, the old Post Office, and the Botanical Gardens. The meteorologist I spoke to was not sure which of these was designated as the site for the official Darwin record at that time. He was going to research the question and get back to me. However, both Government House and the old Post Office were/are in the very centre of town, and located on a cliff immediately above the port.”
“However, the previous station at Darwin PO did not have a Stevenson screen. Instead, the instrument was mounted on a horizontal enclosure without a back or sides. The postmaster had to move it during the day so that the direct tropical sun didn’t strike it! Obviously, if he forgot or was too busy, the temperature readings were a hell of a lot hotter than it really was! I am sure that this factor accounts for almost the whole of the observed sudden cooling in 1939-41.”
“The record after 1941 is accurate, but the record before then has a significant warming bias. The Bureau’s senior meterologist Ian Butterworth has written an internally published paper on all the factors affecting the historical Darwin temperature record, and they are going to fax it to me. I could send a copy to you if you are interested.”
“Eschenbach is a liar for disagreeing with GISS adjustments post 1941 that the Australian BOM knew nothing about.” – Phil Sage
No that makes him an ignoramus, for assuming he can arbitrarily make adjustments as he sees fit.
“Eschenbach is a private citizen and blogger with limited resource and time and a necessity to take shortcuts.” – Phil Sage
With penchant for claiming climate scientists are perpetrating a fraud.
“Whereas Al Gore and the head of the IPCC Pachauri can say; – The oceans will rise by 20 feet ( 6 metres vs Bryans 1-2m vs 30cm of internationally documented trend ).”
Al Gore?. Is that supposed to be some sort of rebuttal?.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
“This paper should be interesting reading for NIWA.” – C3
Indeed:
“Of equal interest in the reconstruction is the sharp and sustained cold period in the A.D. 993–1091 interval. This cold event is easily the most extreme to have occurred over the past 1,100 years. Interestingly, Gellataly et al. [1988] reported evidence for a significant glacier advance in the Mount Cook area around the period 1100–950 BP. The
date of this event based on rock weathering-rind thickness is not precisely known (the error may be as great as ±300 years; see Gellataly [1984]), but its estimated timing is plausibly consistent with the reconstruction presented here.”
Medieval Warm Periods are also Medieval Cool Periods too.
” Note the Hokitika series was adjusted the most by NIWA. I guess real world data doesn’t matter these days…..” – C3
Yup, those retreating glaciers down the coast from there, must be coincidental.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
dappled – I am interested in your comments on this piece as to why the graphs are not included in the IPCC. The source is the National Climate Data Centre
http://wattsupwiththat.com/200.....core-data/
Rate this comment:
0 
0
“but I don’t see it as being a proof that warming will cause less precipitation in Amazonia” – Phil Sage
It is generally accepted that current warming trend will lead to the oceans ability to store heat to diminish and therefore give up more of it’s heat to the atmosphere i.e. more El Nino’s and less La Nina’s. This is bad news for the Amazon as there is a connection with El Nino, it’s effect on tropical Atlantic waters and drought in the area.
http://mudancasclimaticas.cpte.....al2008.pdf
“A rare drought in the Amazon culminated in 2005, leading to near record-low streamflows, small Amazon river plume, and greatly enhanced fire frequency. This episode was caused by
the combination of 2002–03 El Ni ˜ no and a dry spell in 2005 attributable to a warm subtropical North Atlantic Ocean.”
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Dappled, I was refering to reported modern warming in Hokatika. Your diversion to regional cooling 1000 years ago is weak, if I found an area that cooled during the current warming would than mean 20th century warming was false?
Back to the point….
By looking at glaciers current trend you are preferring a bad proxy over an OK proxy because it gives you the result you want.
So why did the tree ring proxy recon not show 20th century warming? Is it scientifically robust to compare current instrumental records to historical proxy data?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Sigh – idiots still maundering on about the NZ temperature series I see. Time to beam up again.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
The MWP was not “comparable in magnitude or warmer” than today. Take a look at the series of maps on Skeptical Science, linked above.
Keller was writing in 2001. Seems to me he was asking for a mechanism that could explain all the variability in the various records. Mann’s latest paper could be seen as an attempt to do that. But it’s worth noting one thing: we’ll never have perfect knowledge of past temperatures, we can only improve our understanding. Surfers as a proxy? Frequency of wet suit use might indicate changes in sea temps…
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Phil: that is a graph of central Greenland temperatures derived from ice core data. It can’t cover temps over the last 70-odd years (because that’s how long it takes the firn layer to consolidate), and so has nothing to say about modern temps in the longer term context. Was it warmer than now in the early Holocene? Certainly possible. But that tells us nothing about the global temperature at the time. It’s certainly of interest in considering the history of Greenland’s ice cap…
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Gareth. If your faith allows you to ignore such evidence or consider it irrelevant to the question of whether temperatures have been higher in the past then I give up. I thought you called yourself a scientist.
Constant wittering about “global” temperatures from the true believers ignores that the globe is made up of individual places that have a correlation to each other in climate terms. Greenland is an incredible record of the northern hemisphere. and the north is half of the globe. But that does not suit your belief structure so rationalise it out of relevance.
I guess you must believe in the magical warm aliens who landed only in Greenland and warmed their environment. Whatever. End of my welcome here.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Mann 2004 gives his reason for not including Cook et al 2002 – data as poor local box correlation. I hardly think though that the paper contradicts Mann.
For much more detail on NH and SH correlations see
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/.....42bc18f92b
It would also have say cool here in line with other data.
(though I know from a coauthor in next office that more data and analysis coming. Doesnt effect MWP discussion though but more on larger issue of NH/SH connections)
Cook et al 2006 with comparisons with Tasmania might be worth a look. You might also want to consider that Cook and Mann have collaborated on a number of papers so hardly unaware of what each other is doing.
Good to see some discussion based on published research however. Explain to me why this discussion of MWP is relevant to current climate please though. What do YOU think is wrong with the model data in Mann 2009 that represents a challenge to AGW?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Another revealing post… So you only believe in a global picture when it suits? Greenland’s ice cores are an incredible record of part of the northern hemisphere and a lot of useful information can be inferred from them, but they are not a proxy for the entire NH! Look again at the maps in the Skeptical Science article, and in particular at the map showing current temps compared to MWP and LIA. Warming was patchy in the MWP. It’s not now.
And, for the record, I do not claim to be a scientist. I am a writer specialising in climate science (amongst other things). I have a science background (degree level), and have worked with scientists on research projects, managing one of them.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Phil Sage – why would believe that warmer temperatures in earlier times invalidates AGW? Climate forcing are sun, aerosols, albedo and GHG all varying in the past. Its just the GHG is the forcing at the moment. AGW is founded on physics not paleoclimate. Paleo studies suffer from poor sampling, limitations on dating, and variable proxies leading to uncertain forcings determining uncertain temperatures. This is not to say paleoclimate isnt extremely valuable for constraining parameters and validation. Skeptics rabbit on about paleoclimate simply because they can – uncertainty is a happy hunting ground.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
C3PO. If you want further info on Cook et al and SH temperature reconstruction then can I recommend section 6.6.2 in IPCC AR4 WG1?
Cook is contributing author. The whole discussion on proxies, past reconstructions and relevance to current climate in the chapter is a hell of a lot more enlightening then the drivel on the blogs.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
← Previous Comments