Daily Archives: December 18, 2009

Real Climate Analysis of “ClimateGate”

Posted on by
1

A couple of days ago, Andrew Long did a post on this blog on the AP’s analysis of the implications of the contents of the emails hacked from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia. I think this is an extremely important issue, not because I think any of the hacked messages undercut the overwhelming consensus on anthropogenically-generated climate change, but because perception can be reality, and “ClimateGate” may further undermine confidence in climate change science in this country, including among our students. So, I think it’s incumbent upon us to discuss this issue in our classes.

Further to Long’s posting is an an excellent response by Kevin Wood of the Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean at the University of Washington and Eric Steig, of the Department of Earth and Space Sciences at the University of Washington on the RealClimate site.

Among the most significant points made by Wood & Steig are the following:

  • If one compares extracted grid-box temperatures from a CRU dataset to raw data from the World Surface Station Climatology, warming trends are statistically identical, indicating that CRU is not overstanting the case in terms of warming trends;
  • CRU’s globally-averaged temperature trend for 1850-2005 is actually a bit LOWER than data obtained by the researchers from random weather stations

I will try to summarize some of the other responses to “ClimateGate” over the next couple of weeks before second semester classes begin!

Dispatch from Copenhagen

Posted on by
Reply

Major papers are reporting that a final deal has been reached in Copenhagen: the “Copenhagen Accord”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/19/science/earth/19climate.html?hp

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/18/AR2009121800637.html?hpid=topnews

The Post has a link to a copy of the deal, but I’m not sure if this is the final final, or just close-to-final.  My reaction on a quick read-through is that this is a fig leaf that papers over most of the major conflicts.  Most of what is in this deal was already agreed to before Copenhagen.  There is a commitment to an aggregate reduction in global GHG emissions of 50% below 1990 levels by 2050, but still no firm numbers for 2020.  There is some important new language on monitoring and verification in Par. 5, and the agreement sets a new benchmark for financing: $100 billion + will now become the standard debated in future negotiations.

News outlets are reporting that an earlier draft from this morning set a deadline to complete a binding treaty by the next Conference of the Parties in Mexico City (scheduled for Dec. 2010).  This Accord has no firm deadline to conclude a treaty, but merely calls for “review of this Accord and its implementation” by 2016.  That’s a long way away.  If there is pressure to conclude a treaty, it won’t come from this document, but rather from domestic politics.

All in all, a very depressing document for a conference that carried such high expectations.

Noah

_______________________________________________

Noah Sachs

Associate Professor

Director, Merhige Center for Environmental Studies University of Richmond School of Law Richmond VA, 23173

804-289-8555

nsachs@richmond.edu

http://law.richmond.edu/faculty/nsachs.php