According to Kurt Volker, US Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs speaking in Berlin a couple of days ago, the US is doing more than its bit to reduce greenhouse gas emmission infact:
"The United States, and this Administration, care deeply about climate change. We agree that human activity contributes to global warming. We support the recent IPCC report, in which U.S. scientists played a leading role.
We are committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We have made tremendous investments in reducing emissions. We are working multilaterally to do so. We are continuing these efforts.
These efforts are producing results that stand up favorably against anyone in the world.
Just because we haven't joined the Kyoto Protocol doesn't make any of these statements less true."
Furthermore, according to Mr Volker:
"Now, I know there is a deeply held view among many in Europe that the U.S. Government doesn't get it. That we don't care about climate change, that we are doing nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and that Europe, while perhaps not perfect, is doing a far better job of tackling the issue than the United States. This proposition--no matter how simple, no matter how widely held, and no matter how much it fits a pop-culture "blame-the-United States" paradigm--is completely wrong, on every point...
Read the full speech entitled 'Post-Kyoto Surprise: America's Quiet Efforts to Cut Greenhouse Gases Are Producing Results' here: http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/rm/80465.htm
Now does he have a point, or not?
Jim - indeed I think we have good ideas why Antarctica is behaving the way it is. The reasons are somewhat disconcerting if you had read my links above. It's not that there is negative nor positive trend on the surface - simply little major trend/movement except for the Peninsula.
Interestingly the biggest warming in the world in the mid-troposphere is happening above Antarctica itself.
The models don't need adjustment - they need better detailed representation of Antarctic processes.
So no the science is not settled - it seems it might be worse than we have estimated. And for some of you the argument will never be over if you keep the issue acutely political not scientific. But don't fret - humanity is unlikely to do anything serious soon - so prepare to adapt (or not!).
Presumably in either Luke given that in Antartica at least the trend is in the wrong direction and we don't seem too sure why.
I imagine the models will be adjusted accordingly so in the future we can all rest assured that observations match the modelling!
So is the science " settled" and is the argument "over"?
Although its the same data base, the extention on the previous web site address is /US-encc.html
that is:
http://www.iaea.org/inis/aws/eedrb/data/US-encc.html
sorry for that error!
It is true that the US is making the most effort/capita (compared to other nations) by spending on the development of alternative energy sources. It is also true that they are the highest in total yearly energy spent/capita among crowded nations(over 100 million), about 99622.55 kWh/capita. http://www.iaea.org/inis/aws/eedrb/data/US-gd.html
Converting this energy figure to more common units (multiplying by 860 Kcal/kWh) we get about 85.7 million Kcal/capita. Accepting that ones daily average food enegrgy need for a healthy living is about 3000 Kcal, the yearly need is about 1 million Kcal/capita. Assuming that one can obtain such food (ready and in-place for consumption at 10% efficiency we need 10 million Kcal/capita for survival. Then the question is how much energy do we realy need for comfort, leasure, economy, manufacture of distructive weapons ...etc. I am not familiar with any publications that answer such questions. May be some PhD works can be started along these lines!
Yes crap indeed in that it's an UNDERESTIMATE !
From http://www.amos.org.au/conf2007/AMOS07_ABSTRACTS.pdf we note all manner of things are happening with Antarctica and the southern hemisphere, some covered by the models, some still to be unravelled. The modelling is now catching up rapidly and probably not in the 4AR.
Also IMO the ice shelves are at much more risk than than the 4AR represents with base level movement reported as accelerating in Greenland and now water under the ice in Antarctica.
Recent Climate Observations Compared to Projections
Stefan Rahmstorf,a Anny Cazenave,b John A. Church,c James E. Hansen,d Ralph F. Keeling,e David E. Parker,f Richard C. J.
Somervillee
Satellite laser altimeter elevation profiles from 2003-2006
collected over the lower parts of Whillans and Mercer ice
streams, West Antarctica, reveal 14 regions of temporally
varying elevation which we interpret as the surface
expression of subglacial water movement. Vertical motion
and spatial extent of 2 of the largest regions are confirmed
by satellite image differencing. A major, previously
unknown subglacial lake near the grounding line of
Whillans Ice Stream is observed to drain 2.0 km3 of water
over ~3 years, while elsewhere a similar volume of water
is being stored subglacially. These observations reveal a
widespread, dynamic subglacial water system which may exert an important control on ice flow and mass balance.
Repeat-track ICESat laser altimetry, with
complementary image differencing, provides a new, effective
technique for monitoring water movement under glacial ice.
Using this approach, we have discovered a widespread, active
water system underneath the Whillans and Mercer ice
streams, two of the largest streams draining the West
Antarctic ice sheet. The detected motions are large, extensive
and temporally variable. They suggest that there is a net gain
in water over the observation interval (2003 to 2006), which
is likely both reflecting and influencing the motion of these
major Antarctic ice streams. These observations provide clues
to understanding the stability of ice streams through their
sensitivity to basal lubrication. The time scale for subglacial
water transport (months to years) is short compared with
other known drivers of glacial flow variability, suggesting a mechanism for more for rapid changes in ice stream behavior
than has previously been assumed.
http://www.sciencexpress.org / 15 February 2007 / Page 3 / 10.1126/science.1136897
******
And in the same volume of Science
Recent Climate Observations Compared to Projections
Stefan Rahmstorf,a Anny Cazenave,b John A. Church,c James E. Hansen,d Ralph F. Keeling,e David E. Parker,f Richard C. J.
Somervillee
Overall, these observational data underscore the concerns
about global climate change. Previous projections, as
summarized by IPCC, have not exaggerated but may in some
respects even have underestimated the change, in particular
for sea level.
http://www.sciencexpress.org / 1 February 2007 / Page 1 / 10.1126/science.1136843
And as physorg article above says "Bromwich said the disagreement between climate model predictions and the snowfall and temperature records doesn’t necessarily mean that the models are wrong. "
So all in all I'm a lot more concerned than I was a month ago - the science advancing rapidly, pacticularly in the southern hemisphere, and revealing many things we haven't factored in. Our estimates seem more conservative than not. But as the recent AMOS meeting shows the science is cacthing up - but is it in the 4AR appropriately - probably not !
So the 4AR can be wrong - but contemplate in which direction ?? !!
These comments are interesting;
“The best we can say right now is that the climate models are somewhat inconsistent with the evidence that we have for the last 50 years from continental Antarctica.
Presumably the worst is that the climate models are crap?
“We’re looking for a small signal that represents the impact of human activity and it is hard to find it at the moment,” he said.
Seems desperate to find that elusive "impact of human activity " signal doesn't he?
Something indeed Luke!
http://www.physorg.com/news90782778.html
The reality isn't following the model down there at least .....