0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
STOCKHOLM (AP) -- Scientists are more confident than ever that pumping carbon dioxide into the air by burning fossil fuels is warming the planet. The question is, by how much?It's something that officials and scientists meeting in Stockholm will try to pin down as precisely possible Friday in a seminal report on global warming.Future global warming levels depend on two major factors. One is how much more carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases are pumped into the air and how quickly.The other is the rate at which those gases cause warming, sort of like a revving car engine. With that rate, called "climate sensitivity," scientists are trying to figure out how much warming would happen with different levels of carbon pollution. The higher the climate sensitivity or rate, the higher the warming per ton of greenhouse gas emitted.The values adopted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are important because they could affect how hard governments try to rein in CO2 emissions - which are still going up largely due to the rapid expansion of China and other emerging economies.A lower value may reduce the world's sense of urgency in making a costly energy transformation from oil, coal and gas to renewable sources like solar or wind power - or in halting the destruction of the Earth's forests, which capture CO2."It's a key part of the climate problem," said Chris Field, a Carnegie Institution scientist who is a leader in the IPCC but wasn't involved in the report due Friday.The greenhouse effect, which explains how CO2 and other greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere, was discovered in the 19th century but scientists are still struggling to quantify it.The IPCC is expected to say Friday that it's 95 percent certain that more than half the surface warming of the Earth that has been observed since 1951 is due to the CO2 emissions resulting from human activities.Climate sensitivity is a measure of how much temperatures would go up if the concentration of CO2 doubled in the atmosphere.In its third assessment, the IPCC estimated this as a likely range of 1.5-4.5 degrees Celsius (2.7-8.1 Fahrenheit). The fourth report, in 2007, raised the lower end of that range to 2 C (3.6 F), and gave a best estimate of 3 C (5.4 F).Now, new research has shown that the upward move may have been too hasty, and there's a discussion in Stockholm over whether to bring the lower end back down to 1.5 C (2.7 F).It may seem like a minor detail, but it makes a difference to governments, which want to know how much CO2 emissions need to be cut to prevent temperatures from increasing more than 2 C (3.6 F) compared to before humans started burning fossil fuels. That's the limit they have agreed to in U.N. climate talks. Temperatures have already gone up about 0.8 C (1.4 F).Reducing the lower range of climate sensitivity "would mean that we have a better chance of staying below 2 degrees than we thought before," said Kaisa Kosonen, a Greenpeace climate activist. "But I wouldn't bet on it because they are not lowering the higher end of the range."In leaked comments on a June draft of the IPCC report, the British government called climate sensitivity "a key issue of concern" that helps give policy-makers a sense of how big a threat climate change is.The United States, Australia and Norway have called for the authors to provide a single value as their best estimate in addition to a range, to give policy-makers better guidance.Meanwhile, EU climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard is downplaying the discussion."You don't need to have the last decimal to see that the overall number isn't looking good," she said in a comment emailed by her spokesman.Some scientists resist giving a single value because it could give the false impression that there's more certainty than there really is about how sensitive the climate is to CO2. That doesn't mean they doubt that CO2 serves as an engine of warming - the question is whether it's a four-cylinder or a V8."We know a great deal of the mechanism by which CO2 causes warming," said Field, the Carnegie scientist. "There is still uncertainty about how much a range of feedbacks either amplify or suppress that warming."
Crater Lake received a record-smashing 8 inches of snow in 24 hours Tuesday into Wednesday, the National Weather Service reported.More than one month ahead of schedule, the frosty blanket made its earliest appearance since 1986, when snow fell a week earlier on Sept. 18. Before that, the earliest appearance of a winter wonderland at Crater Lake was Sept. 24, 1948.... "The higher elevations definitely got more than we expected," Keene said.
In other news:QuoteCrater Lake received a record-smashing 8 inches of snow in 24 hours Tuesday into Wednesday, the National Weather Service reported.More than one month ahead of schedule, the frosty blanket made its earliest appearance since 1986, when snow fell a week earlier on Sept. 18. Before that, the earliest appearance of a winter wonderland at Crater Lake was Sept. 24, 1948.... "The higher elevations definitely got more than we expected," Keene said.
This is what happens when cranial rectal inversion intersects with politics and slumming for dollars.
In Elysium, one of the more notable box office failures in a disastrous summer for Hollywood, Matt Damon plays a down-on-his-luck ex-con in a dystopian future in which overpopulation, natural resource depletion, and environmental degradation have led to a worldwide economic collapse. In response, the world elite have decamped to a life of luxury on an orbital space station.If this all sounds a bit familiar, it might be because the same basic setting is behind the plot of the 2008 Pixar film Wall-E, which is also set in a future in which environmental degradation has led the earth’s population to abandon earth for a luxury-liner style spaceship. In that film, a lovable animated robot teaches us that overconsumption is damaging to our basic humanity.Also crash landing at the cineplex this summer was Will Smith and M. Night Shyamalan’s After Earth, in which an environmental catastrophe leads humanity to abandon earth for a new planet in another solar system.
Al Gore’s “consensus” is about to be holed below the water-line – and those still aboard the SS Global Warming are adjusting their positions. Some, such as scientist Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, have abandoned ship. She describes the IPCC’s stance as “incomprehensible”. Others, such as the EU’s Climate Commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, steam on oblivious. Interviewed last week by the Telegraph’s Bruno Waterfield, she said: “Let’s say that science, some decades from now, said: 'We were wrong, it was not about climate’, would it not in any case have been good to do many of the things you have to do in order to combat climate change?” If she means needlessly driving up energy prices, carpeting the countryside with wind turbines and terrifying children about a problem that turns out to have been imaginary, then most of us would probably answer “No”.