Climate change accelerating fast.

[Michaelangelica]

Global ice-sheets are melting at an increased rate; Arctic sea-ice is disappearing much faster than recently projected, and future sea-level rise is now expected to be much higher than previously forecast, according to a new global scientific synthesis prepared by some of the world's top climate scientists.

 

In 2008 carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels were ~40% higher than those in 1990.

 

In a special report called ‘The Copenhagen Diagnosis', the 26 researchers, most of whom are authors of published IPCC reports, conclude that several important aspects of climate change are occurring at the high end or even beyond the expectations of only a few years ago.

 

Without significant mitigation, the report says global mean warming could reach as high as 7 degrees Celsius by 2100.

 

The report also notes that global warming continues to track early IPCC projections based on greenhouse gas increases. Without significant mitigation, the report says global mean warming could reach as high as 7 degrees Celsius by 2100.

 

The Copenhagen Diagnosis, which was a year in the making, documents the key findings in climate change science since the publication of the landmark Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report in 2007.

 

Ice bergs Global ice-sheets are melting at an increased rate; Arctic sea-ice is disappearing much faster than recently projected.

 

The new evidence to have emerged includes:

[li]Satellite and direct measurements now demonstrate that both the Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheets are losing mass and contributing to sea level rise at an increasing rate.

[li]Arctic sea-ice has melted far beyond the expectations of climate models. For example, the area of summer sea-ice melt during 2007-2009 was about 40% greater than the average projection from the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.

[li]Sea level has risen more than 5 centimeters over the past 15 years, about 80% higher than IPCC projections from 2001. Accounting for ice-sheets and glaciers, global sea-level rise may exceed 1 meter by 2100, with a rise of up to 2 meters considered an upper limit by this time. This is much higher than previously projected by the IPCC. Furthermore, beyond 2100, sea level rise of several meters must be expected over the next few centuries.

[li]In 2008 carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels were ~40% higher than those in 1990. Even if emissions do not grow beyond today's levels, within just 20 years the world will have used up the allowable emissions to have a reasonable chance of limiting warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius.

 

The report concludes that global emissions must peak then decline rapidly within the next five to ten years for the world to have a reasonable chance of avoiding the very worst impacts of climate change.

 

To stabilize climate, global emissions of carbon dioxide and other long-lived greenhouse gases need to reach near-zero well within this century, the report states.

 

The full report is available at: The Copenhagen Diagnosis

 

Statements by Authors

 

"We have already almost exceeded the safe level of emissions that would ensure a reasonably secure climate future. Within just a decade global emissions need to be declining rapidly. A binding treaty is needed urgently to ensure unilateral action among the high emitters."

Professor Matthew England, ARC Federation Fellow and joint Director of the Climate Change Research Centre of the University of New South Wales, Australia.

 

"Sea level is rising much faster and Arctic sea ice cover shrinking more rapidly than we previously expected. Unfortunately, the data now show us that we have underesti*mated the climate crisis in the past."

Professor Stefan Rahmstorf, Professor of Physics of the Oceans and a Department Head at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany.

 

"The massive climate change risk of continuing our surging carbon emissions is clear. It's imperative for us to move to a low carbon economy or we risk a climate crunch that would be far more damaging to humanity this century than any financial crisis."

Dr. Ben McNeil, Climate Change Research Centre of the University of New South Wales, Australia.

 

"The latest data all support the longstanding predictions that the Earth will keep warming if we keep emitting greenhouse gases like we do now - and nobody really knows how well Australia or the rest of the world could cope with a dramatically warmer climate."

Professor Steven Sherwood, Professor of Atmospheric Physics, Climate Change Research Centre, the University of New South Wales, Australia.

 

For more information contact:

Stephen Gray +61 403 802 027 (mobile) or [email protected]

Matthew England +61 425 264 485 (mobile) or [email protected]

Ben McNeil +61 401 336 857 (mobile) or [email protected]

Climate change accelerating beyond expectations, urgent emissions reductions required, say leading scientists - News - UNSW - Science

[TheBigDog]

To stabilize climate, global emissions of carbon dioxide and other long-lived greenhouse gases need to reach near-zero well within this century, the report states.

Is it our goal to keep stable a climate that changes naturally?

[Essay]

Is it our goal to keep stable a climate that changes naturally?

No, although I'd argue that it should be a goal in the long term.

 

Currently our goal is to keep stable a patient that is unnaturally changing.

[Michaelangelica]

Whether you believe climate Change is anthropogenic or a natural process/cycle; it would seem prudent to try to ameliorate the many adverse consequences expected, (on us), if we can.

[freeztar]

Whether you believe climate Change is anthropogenic or a natural process/cycle; it would seem prudent to try to ameliorate the many adverse consequences expected, (on us), if we can.

 

Well said!

[TheBigDog]

Whether you believe climate Change is anthropogenic or a natural process/cycle; it would seem prudent to try to ameliorate the many adverse consequences expected, (on us), if we can.

Our technology will certainly allow us to survive and even thrive in a changed environment. If we are trying to avoid adverse consequences then why not focus on adapting to the changes rather than preventing them? Especially when you consider the darkest predictions that the effects are already irreversible for several hundred years.

 

We must also consider that nature can throw at us climate changes far beyond our capacity to reverse, so the ability to use technology to adapt becomes even more important.

[TheBigDog]

No, although I'd argue that it should be a goal in the long term.

 

Currently our goal is to keep stable a patient that is unnaturally changing.

In your analogy, who is the patient that is unnaturally changing, what are they ailing from, and what is the consequence of the ailment?

 

Bill

[REASON]

Our technology will certainly allow us to survive and even thrive in a changed environment. If we are trying to avoid adverse consequences then why not focus on adapting to the changes rather than preventing them? Especially when you consider the darkest predictions that the effects are already irreversible for several hundred years.

 

We must also consider that nature can throw at us climate changes far beyond our capacity to reverse, so the ability to use technology to adapt becomes even more important.

 

I think this is a good point, although I would qualify that technology will only allow some of us to survive, if us is referring to humanity. Many third world countries are likely to suffer tremedous loss of life, particularly those in arid climates.

 

But why not do both? Where is the motivation not only to attemp to mitigate our potential impact on climate change and warming, but in preparations to adapt to a rapidly changing climate? Imagine the number of jobs that could be created in simultaneous efforts to work in both of those directions. It would be nothing but beneficial to both human society and to the preservation of natural ecosystems and wildlife around the globe.

 

Oh wait, I know why. Because currently our focus seems to be more on using banking, finance, militarism, and govenment in the exploitation of global resources - both human and natural - for the profit of the few.

 

And the denialist seek to keep it that way.

[BrianG]

Mann is one of the authors of The Copenhagen Diagnosis. Do you think he's lost any credibility for his emails leaked in the Climategate files?

[BrianG]

... Because currently our focus seems to be more on using banking, finance, militarism, and govenment in the exploitation of global resources - both human and natural - for the profit of the few.

 

And the denialist seek to keep it that way.

 

I kind of see it as if the climate mitigation promoters are the ones seeking to limit wealth and freedom. If there are good solutions to global warming, the market would be the best place to find them. Instead, this mitigation thing seems to be central, government directed investment, new taxation and limits on freedom.

[Essay]

In your analogy, who is the patient that is unnaturally changing, what are they ailing from, and what is the consequence of the ailment?

 

Bill

Climate is the patient. Dyspepsia (CO2) and flatulence (CH4) are the ailments. Pushing the current climate mode (current homeostatic range) to limits where shifting to a different normal homeostatic mode (glaciation) would be the worst prognosis; though a hot, stagnant mode might be worse. Really it is the "6th mass extinction event" that is the looming "worst" consequence; but for our species in general, we could just say the end of civilization as we know it.

 

In the long run, I don't doubt that humans will somehow survive; probably even beginning a new post-mammalian branch of life's grand tree. It is all relative - as the greatest disaster for the dinosaurs was the most wonderful thing for mammals - eventually.

 

p.s. I'd like to answer your point on economics and adaptation, but it's way too complex for one post; ...maybe later.

[BrianG]

If "Arctic sea-ice is disappearing much faster than recently projected," then doesn't that prove our climate projections don't work very well? Maybe we can't forecast climate change, the warming may not be happening as fast as we suspect, warming might even be good for people.

 

Reducing CO2 emissions may not be the best way to mitigate climate change. When you boil down the man made global warming science, you seem to be left with three words: "Stop, go back!" That doesn't sound like the pinnacle of scientific discovery, to me.

[freeztar]

If "Arctic sea-ice is disappearing much faster than recently projected," then doesn't that prove our climate projections don't work very well?

 

Not really. The important part is that the Artic ice *is* disappearing. Climatology is a "maturing" science. Variables will continue to be tweaked, but the constants stay with the same flux.

 

Maybe we can't forecast climate change, the warming may not be happening as fast as we suspect, warming might even be good for people.

Temperature doesn't lie. The Earth is heating up.

It could end up being beneficial. It all depends on if the "lower eschelons" of life are up for the task of adaptation.

 

Reducing CO2 emissions may not be the best way to mitigate climate change.

 

Why not?

What about the health benefits?

 

When you boil down the man made global warming science, you seem to be left with three words: "Stop, go back!" That doesn't sound like the pinnacle of scientific discovery, to me.

 

Climate Science was never meant for the masses. It is only through political necessity that the two are even related. Nonetheless, it is an inconvenient and inevitable necessity on our Spaceship Earth. What if someone told Newton that his apple falling was "fruitless"?

[BrianG]

What are the health benefits of reduced CO2 consumption? I like CO2, it tickles my nose, I can't think of any form of pollution that tickles. CO2 makes bread fluffy. Are you saying there are health benefits to a 280ppm by volume CO2 level? You can find levels like that on some mountain tops.

 

CO2 at atmospheric levels isn't pollution, it's essential for life. Sequestering carbon dioxide, enormous pressurized reservoirs under power plants sounds dangerous, the air seems like the perfect place to put carbon dioxide. After all, that carbon was in the air before, aren't we just putting it back where it belongs?

[Essay]

Sequestering carbon dioxide, enormous pressurized reservoirs under power plants sounds dangerous....

 

Agreed! Fortunately there is a more effective, cheaper, and economically-stimulating strategy for sequestering carbon (while also increasing agricultural productivity and biodiversity in general) called biosequestration.

 

But the rest of your comments in this thread sound like the typical disingenuous, simple-minded Bjorn L. talking points; what happened?

 

~ :naughty:

[BrianG]

Just so long as we aren't burning food, I think ethanol mandates are evil. A famine in a fuel tank.

[freeztar]

What are the health benefits of reduced CO2 consumption?

 

Carbon-rich sources of air pollution contribute to respiratory illnesses and cancer. The coal is usually tainted with radioactive elements and other nasties.

 

Here in Atlanta, we have a smog alert nearly every day. Some days, it has been so bad that they've recommended masks if you are going to be outside more than 30 minutes. It's not because of CO2 explicitly in this case, but it doesn't help.

 

I like CO2, it tickles my nose, I can't think of any form of pollution that tickles.

 

A tickling sensation should not be the criteria for acceptance, in the case of chemicals.

 

A reminder is in order. Carbon dioxide is a waste compound for aspiring humans. It is toxic at high enough levels. CO2 also has the strange property of reradiating IR back towards Earth. Hmm.....:naughty:

 

CO2 makes bread fluffy. Are you saying there are health benefits to a 280ppm by volume CO2 level? You can find levels like that on some mountain tops.

You can also find reduced levels of O2 and pressure at such elevations.

 

The fact is, certain atmospheric compositions are beneficial to us. When they change, for whatever reason, they pose a challenge. Traditionally, this challenge is answered by Natural Selection. As we are relatively smart bipedals, I'd hope we could at least take a stab at maintaining our species. Though...In honesty, I may be giving us too much credit.

 

CO2 at atmospheric levels isn't pollution, it's essential for life.

 

Indeed. So is Nitrogen, but we're not racing to change that.

 

Actually, this is the basis for the best denialist argument I've ever heard. CO2 is good for plants. An increased level will likely benefit them.

 

That's great! (if you are a plant, and not an aspiring human).

The problem is deeper than that though. What good are plants if we hack down the forests?

 

Sequestering carbon dioxide, enormous pressurized reservoirs under power plants sounds dangerous, the air seems like the perfect place to put carbon dioxide. After all, that carbon was in the air before, aren't we just putting it back where it belongs?

 

I don't like the reservoir ideas. I'd much rather see humanity wake up to the fact that the soil is alive and massive amounts of carbon can be stored there.