Science / Climate

Letters: Still wary of Bjørn Lomborg's pronouncements on climate change

www.guardian.co.uk - Bjørn Lomborg's change of mind on climate change is welcome, and some of his suggestions good, but your glowing review of his new book failed to examine deeply his shift in position (Top climate sceptic calls for $100bn fund to fight warming, 31 August).Dr Lomborg last year began to call for an investment of $100bn per year on research and development for low-carbon technologies, instead of the $25bn he was advocating 18 months ago. He now proposes that this should be raised through a carbon tax of $7 per tonne of carbon dioxide, rather than the $2 per tonne for which he previously argued.However, his strategy is alarmingly risky - invest heavily in R&D and hope that this alone will keep atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases low enough to avoid the risk of serious and damaging impacts from climate change. This might work, but it might not.A more robust approach to managing the risks of climate change would be not only to invest in R&D, but also to use a carbon tax (or cap-and-trade) to discourage greenhouse gas emissions in the short run. The latter, not raising revenue, would be the primary purpose of introducing a carbon price. But to encourage enough emissions cuts in the next few years to keep greenhouse gases at low enough atmospheric concentrations, a carbon price considerably higher than Dr Lomborg's $7 per tonne is required.We welcome the fact that Dr Lomborg has implicitly acknowledged that his previous arguments about climate change were flawed, but it would be wise to remain wary of his pronouncements, no matter how much publicity they attract.Dr Alex Bowen, Dr Simon Dietz, Dimitri Zenghelis and Bob WardGrantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, LSE  What might be of equal surprise to Bjørn Lomborg's "U-turn" is that there are practical solutions available to raise the money that is needed without dipping into cash-strapped treasuries. A Robin Hood Tax on banks, levies on shipping and aviation emissions, money raised from the auctioning of emissions allowances from emissions trading schemes and redirecting fossil fuel subsidies are all realistic options.Environment ministers from around the world meeting in Switzerland today must consider these options if the world is to move closer to a financial solution in tackling climate change and protecting poor people who are already vulnerable. Meanwhile, the shipping industry, which has faced no restrictions to its emissions so far, must begin to play its part by agreeing to a shipping levy when the International Maritime Organisation meets in London on 27 September.Phil Bloomer Campaigns and policy director, Oxfam  I note with interest that Bjørn Lomborg has changed his mind on global warming. I also note that he has a book to sell.Rod ShoneWalkern, HertfordshireClimate changeClimate change scepticismCarbon emissionsClimate changeguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds More... (Climate)

Climate scientists should not write their own software, says researcher

www.guardian.co.uk - Computer scientist urges software developers to help climate scientists produce better modelling tools. From BusinessGreen, part of the Guardian Environment NetworkA study by a computer scientist at the University of Toronto suggests that the computer models used to predict climate change may be undermined due to a lack of programming expertise.Steve Easterbrook at the University's Department of Computer Science, has had his paper, Climate Change: A Grand Software Challenge, accepted by the 2010 FSE/SDP Workshop on the Future of Software Engineering Research. In the paper, he suggests that because many climate prediction software modelling tools are built by climate scientists rather than software engineers some of the resulting software has room for improvement.Climate scientists commonly use so-called Global Circulation Models (GCMs) that simulate the atmosphere, oceans, cryosphere and biosphere at a global scale, Easterbrook said. Underpinning them are data analysis tools designed to crunch the underlying numbers."Most of this software is built by the climate scientists themselves, who have little or no training in software engineering," said Easterbrook in his paper. "As a result the quality of this software varies tremendously: The GCMs tend to be exceptionally well engineered, while some data processing tools are barely even tested."Easterbrook called for climate scientists to use applications written by experts in software design that would enable cross-disciplinary work to address climate change questions. These analysis tools would be proven capable of processing "earth models", he said.Secondly, Easterbrook argued that information sharing systems, such as games, reputation analysis software, and crowdsourcing tools could help to disseminate information on climate change efficiently and responsibly.Finally, he said that energy efficient green IT systems are needed to reduce power consumption in all areas where climate modelling software is used."A massive mobilisation of talent will be needed. Other disciplines are already developing disciplinary responses to this challenge," Easterbrook concluded. "It is time for the software community to step up to the plate."Climate changeClimate changeguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds More... (Climate)

Software developers urged to help out with climate models

www.guardian.co.uk - Computer scientist urges software developers to help climate scientists produce better modelling tools. From BusinessGreen, part of the Guardian Environment NetworkA study by a computer scientist at the University of Toronto suggests that the computer models used to predict climate change may be undermined due to a lack of programming expertise.Steve Easterbrook at the University's Department of Computer Science, has had his paper, Climate Change: A Grand Software Challenge, accepted by the 2010 FSE/SDP Workshop on the Future of Software Engineering Research. In the paper, he suggests that because many climate prediction software modelling tools are built by climate scientists rather than software engineers some of the resulting software has room for improvement.Climate scientists commonly use so-called Global Circulation Models (GCMs) that simulate the atmosphere, oceans, cryosphere and biosphere at a global scale, Easterbrook said. Underpinning them are data analysis tools designed to crunch the underlying numbers."Most of this software is built by the climate scientists themselves, who have little or no training in software engineering," said Easterbrook in his paper. "As a result the quality of this software varies tremendously: The GCMs tend to be exceptionally well engineered, while some data processing tools are barely even tested."Easterbrook called for climate scientists to use applications written by experts in software design that would enable cross-disciplinary work to address climate change questions. These analysis tools would be proven capable of processing "earth models", he said.Secondly, Easterbrook argued that information sharing systems, such as games, reputation analysis software, and crowdsourcing tools could help to disseminate information on climate change efficiently and responsibly.Finally, he said that energy efficient green IT systems are needed to reduce power consumption in all areas where climate modelling software is used."A massive mobilisation of talent will be needed. Other disciplines are already developing disciplinary responses to this challenge," Easterbrook concluded. "It is time for the software community to step up to the plate." This article was amended on 2 September after Steve Easterbrook said the original headline - "Climate scientists should not write their own software, says researcher" - was inaccurate.Climate changeClimate changeProgrammingComputingguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds More... (Climate)