[Vision2020] Skeptics Confirmation Bias?: National Academy of Sciences, May 19, 2010: Three New Reports: STRONG EVIDENCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE

[Ted Moffett]

Of course, anthropogenic climate change skeptics know better than the
National Academy of Sciences, those poor deluded fools!

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=05192010

May 19, 2010

STRONG EVIDENCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE UNDERSCORES NEED
FOR ACTIONS TO REDUCE EMISSIONS AND BEGIN ADAPTING TO IMPACTS

WASHINGTON — As part of its most comprehensive study of climate change to
date, the National Research Council today issued three reports emphasizing
why the U.S. should act now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and develop a
national strategy to adapt to the inevitable impacts of climate change.  The
reports by the Research Council, the operating arm of the National Academy
of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering, are part of a
congressionally requested suite of five studies known as America's Climate
Choices.

"These reports show that the state of climate change science is strong,"
said Ralph J. Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences.  "But
the nation also needs the scientific community to expand upon its
understanding of why climate change is happening, and focus also on when and
where the most severe impacts will occur and what we can do to respond."

*'Poses Significant Risks'*

The compelling case that climate change is occurring and is caused in large
part by human activities is based on a strong, credible body of evidence,
says* **Advancing the Science of Climate
Change*<http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12782>,
one of the new reports.  While noting that there is always more to learn and
that the scientific process is never "closed," the report emphasizes that
multiple lines of evidence support scientific understanding of climate
change.  The core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been
examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious debate and
careful evaluation of alternative explanations.

"Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and
poses significant risks for — and in many cases is already affecting — a
broad range of human and natural systems," the report concludes.  It calls
for a new era of climate change science where an emphasis is placed on
"fundamental, use-inspired" research, which not only improves understanding
of the causes and consequences of climate change but also is useful to
decision makers at the local, regional, national, and international levels
acting to limit and adapt to climate change.  Seven cross-cutting research
themes are identified to support this more comprehensive and integrative
scientific enterprise.

The report recommends that a single federal entity or program be given the
authority and resources to coordinate a national, multidisciplinary research
effort aimed at improving both understanding and responses to climate
change.  The U.S. Global Change Research Program, established in 1990, could
fulfill this role, but it would need to form partnerships with
action-oriented programs and address weaknesses that in the past have led to
research gaps, particularly in the critical area of research that supports
decisions about responding to climate change.  Leaders of federal climate
research should also redouble efforts to deploy a comprehensive climate
observing system.

*Beyond 'Business as Usual'
*
Substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions will require prompt and
sustained efforts to promote major technological and behavioral changes,
says *Limiting the Magnitude of Future Climate
Change*<http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12785>,
another of the new reports.  Although limiting emissions must be a global
effort to be effective, strong U.S. actions to reduce emissions will help
encourage other countries to do the same.  In addition, the U.S. could
establish itself as a leader in developing and deploying the technologies
necessary to limit and adapt to climate change.

An inclusive national policy framework is needed to ensure that all levels
of government, the private sector, and millions of households and
individuals are contributing to shared national goals.  Toward that end, the
U.S. should establish a greenhouse gas emissions "budget" that sets a limit
on total domestic emissions over a set period of time and provides a clear,
directly measurable goal.  However, the report warns, the longer the nation
waits to begin reducing emissions, the harder and more expensive it will
likely be to reach any given emissions target.

The report does not recommend a specific target for a domestic emissions
budget, but suggests a range of emissions from 170 to 200 gigatons of carbon
dioxide (CO2) equivalent for the period 2012 through 2050 as a reasonable
goal, a goal that is roughly in line with the range of emission reduction
targets proposed recently by the Obama administration and members of
Congress.  Even at the higher end of this range, meeting the target will
require a major departure from "business-as-usual" emission trends.  The
report notes that with the exception of the recent economic downtown,
domestic emissions have been rising for most of the past three decades.  The
U.S. emitted approximately 7 gigatons of CO2 equivalent in 2008 (the most
current year for which such data were available).  If emissions continue at
that rate, the proposed budget range would be used up well before 2050, the
report says.

A carbon-pricing system is the most cost-effective way to reduce emissions.
Either cap-and-trade, a system of taxing emissions, or a combination of the
two could provide the needed incentives.  While the report does not
specifically recommend a cap-and-trade system, it notes that cap-and-trade
is generally more compatible with the concept of an emissions budget.

Carbon pricing alone, however, is not enough to sufficiently reduce domestic
emissions, the report warns.  Strategically chosen, complementary policies
are necessary to assure rapid progress in key areas such as: increasing
energy efficiency; accelerating the development of renewable energy sources;
advancing full-scale development of new-generation nuclear power and carbon
capture and storage systems; and retrofitting, retiring, or replacing
existing emissions-intensive energy infrastructure.  Research and
development of new technologies that could help reduce emissions more cost
effectively than current options also should be strongly supported.

*Managing the Risks*

Reducing vulnerabilities to impacts of climate change that the nation
cannot, or does not, avoid is a highly desirable strategy to manage and
minimize the risks, says the third report, *Adapting to the Impacts of
Climate Change* <http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12783>.  Some
impacts – such as rising sea levels, disappearing sea ice, and the frequency
and intensity of some extreme weather events like heavy precipitation and
heat waves – are already being observed across the country.   The report
notes that policymakers need to anticipate a range of possible climate
conditions and that uncertainty about the exact timing and magnitude of
impacts is not a reason to wait to act.  In fact, it says boosting U.S.
adaptive capacity now can be viewed as "an insurance policy against an
uncertain future," while inaction could increase risks, especially if the
rate of climate change is particularly large.

Although much of the response to climate change will occur at local and
regional levels, a national adaptation strategy is needed to facilitate
cooperation and collaboration across all lines of government and between
government and other key parties, including the private sector, community
organizations, and nongovernmental organizations.  As part of this strategy,
the federal government should provide technical and scientific resources
that are lacking at the local or regional scale, incentives for local and
state authorities to begin adaptation planning, guidance across
jurisdictions, and support of scientific research to expand knowledge of
impacts and adaptation.

Adapting to climate change will be an ongoing, iterative process, the report
says, and will involve decision makers at every scale of government and all
parts of society.  A first step is to identify vulnerabilities to climate
change impacts and begin to examine adaptation options that will improve
resilience.  To build the scientific knowledge base and provide a basis for
increasingly effective action in the future, adaptation efforts should be
monitored and analyzed to judge successes, problems, and unintended
consequences.  The report also calls for research to develop new adaptation
options and a better understanding of vulnerabilities and impacts on smaller
spatial scales.

Adaptation to climate change should not be seen as an alternative to
attempts to limit it, the report emphasizes.  Rather, the two approaches
should be seen as partners, given that society's ability to cope with the
impacts of climate change decreases as the severity of climate change
increases.  At moderate rates and levels of climate change, adaptation can
be effective, but at severe rates, adapting to disturbances caused by
climate change may not be possible, the report says.

*Flexible and Adjustable*

The new reports stress that national climate change research, efforts to
limit emissions, and adaptation strategies should be designed to be flexible
and responsive to new information and conditions in the coming decades.
Because knowledge about future climate change and possible impacts will
evolve, policies and programs should continually monitor and adjust to
progress and consequences of actions.

America's Climate Choices also includes two additional reports that will be
released later this year: Informing *an Effective Response to Climate Change
* will examine how to best provide decision makers information on climate
change, and an overarching report will build on each of the previous reports
and other work to offer a scientific framework for shaping the policy
choices underlying the nation's efforts to confront climate change.

The project was requested by Congress and is funded by the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration.  For more information, visit
http://americasclimatechoices.org.  The National Academy of Sciences,
National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National
Research Council are independent, nonprofit institutions that provide
science, technology, and health policy advice under an 1863 congressional
charter.  Committee and panel members, who serve pro bono, are chosen by for
each study based on their expertise and experience and must satisfy the
Research Council's conflict-of-interest standards.  The resulting consensus
reports undergo external peer review before completion.  For more
information, visit http://national-academies.org/studycommitteprocess.pdf.

------------------------------------------

Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20100621/133d6e81/attachment.html