Our special investigation reveals that critical rise in world temperatures is now unavoidable
By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor
Published: 11 February 2006
A crucial global warming "tipping point" for the Earth, highlighted only last week by the British Government, has already been passed, with devastating consequences.
Research commissioned by The Independent reveals that the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has now crossed a threshold, set down by scientists from around the world at a conference in Britain last year, beyond which really dangerous climate change is likely to be unstoppable.
The implication is that some of global warming's worst predicted effects, from destruction of ecosystems to increased hunger and water shortages for billions of people, cannot now be avoided, whatever we do. It gives considerable force to the contention by the green guru Professor James Lovelock, put forward last month in The Independent, that climate change is now past the point of no return.
The danger point we are now firmly on course for is a rise in global mean temperatures to 2 degrees [Celsius, or almost 4 degrees F for the entire planet] above the level before the Industrial Revolution in the late 18th century.
At the moment, global mean temperatures have risen to about 0.6 degrees above the pre-industrial era - and worrying signs of climate change, such as the rapid melting of the Arctic ice in summer, are already increasingly evident. But a rise to 2 degrees would be far more serious.
By that point it is likely that the Greenland ice sheet will already have begun irreversible melting, threatening the world with a sea-level rise of several metres [some 20 feet!]
Agricultural yields will have started to fall, not only in Africa but also in Europe, the US and Russia, putting up to 200 million more people at risk from hunger, and up to 2.8 billion additional people at risk of water shortages for both drinking and irrigation. The Government's conference on Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, held at the UK Met Office in Exeter a year ago, highlighted a clear threshold in the accumulation of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, which should not be surpassed if the 2 degree point was to be avoided with "relatively high certainty".
This was for the concentration of CO2 and other gases such as methane and nitrous oxide, taken together in their global warming effect, to stay below 400ppm (parts per million) in CO2 terms - or in the jargon, the "equivalent concentration" of CO2 should remain below that level.
The warning was highlighted in the official report of the Exeter conference, published last week. However, an investigation by The Independent has established that the CO2 equivalent concentration, largely unnoticed by the scientific and political communities, has now risen beyond this threshold.
This number is not a familiar one even among climate researchers, and is not readily available. For example, when we put the question to a very senior climate scientist, he said: "I would think it's definitely over 400 - probably about 420." So we asked one of the world's leading experts on the effects of greenhouse gases on climate, Professor Keith Shine, head of the meteorology department at the University of Reading, to calculate it precisely. Using the latest available figures (for 2004), his calculations show the equivalent concentration of C02, taking in the effects of methane and nitrous oxide at 2004 levels, is now 425ppm. This is made up of CO2 itself, at 379ppm; the global warming effect of the methane in the atmosphere, equivalent to another 40ppm of CO2; and the effect of nitrous oxide, equivalent to another 6ppm of CO2.
The tipping point warned about last week by the Government is already behind us.
"The passing of this threshold is of the most enormous significance," said Tom Burke, a former government adviser on the green issues, now visiting professor at Imperial College London. "It means we have actually entered a new era - the era of dangerous climate change. We have passed the point where we can be confident of staying below the 2 degree rise set as the threshold for danger. What this tells us is that we have already reached the point where our children can no longer count on a safe climate."
The scientist who chaired the Exeter conference, Dennis Tirpak, head of the climate change unit of the OECD in Paris, was even more direct. He said: "This means we will hit 2 degrees [as a global mean temperature rise]."
Professor Burke added: "We have very little time to act now. Governments must stop talking and start spending. We already have the technology to allow us to meet our growing need for energy while keeping a stable climate. We must deploy it now. Doing so will cost less than the Iraq war so we know we can afford it."
The 400ppm threshold is based on a paper given at Exeter by Malte Meinhausen of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Dr Meinhausen reviewed a dozen studies of the probability of exceeding the 2 degrees threshold at different CO2 equivalent levels. Taken together they show that only by remaining [under] 400 is there a very high chance of not doing so.
Some scientists have been reluctant to talk about the overall global warming effect of all the greenhouses gases taken together, because there is another consideration - the fact that the "aerosol", or band of dust in the atmosphere from industrial pollution, actually reduces the warming.
As Professor Shine stresses, there is enormous uncertainty about the degree to which this is happening, so making calculation of the overall warming effect problematic. However, as James Lovelock points out - and Professor Shine and other scientists accept - in the event of an industrial downturn, the aerosol could fall out of the atmosphere in a matter of weeks, and then the effect of all the greenhouse gases taken together would suddenly be fully felt.
[And no, "inevitable" does not mean we have an excuse to do nothing; it's now a matter of whether things get seriously bad, on the one hand, or far worse, on the other hand. Time for damage control to avoid "far worse" for us and our children -ED]
Overview and local actions you can take: http://www.PostCarbon.org =============
= = = = STILL FEELING LIKE THE MAINSTREAM U.S. CORPORATE MEDIA IS GIVING A FULL HONEST PICTURE OF WHAT'S GOING ON? = = = = Daily online radio show, news reporting: www.DemocracyNow.org More news: UseNet's misc.activism.progressive (moderated) = = = = Sorry, we cannot read/reply to most usenet posts but welcome email For more information: http://EconomicDemocracy.org/wtc/ (peace) And http://EconomicDemocracy.org/ (general)
** ANTI-SPAM EMAIL NOTE: For email "info" and "map" DON'T work. Email instead ** to m-a-i-l-m-a-i-l (without the dashes) at economicdemocracy.org
*@dan.com
2006-02-11 02:17:36 EST
Are there any researchers bold enough to attempt to offer a timeline of some of these catastrophic effects (i.e. when will the Greenland ice sheet be fully melted, or even half for that matter), when will we start seeing poor crop yields in, say, the American midwest, when will water shortages actually affect billions of people? I don't doubt all of these things will happen, at least if we don't change course, but when?
<*o@economicdemocracy.org> wrote in message news:1139631870.572893.186270@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > Global warming: passing the 'tipping point' > > Our special investigation reveals that critical rise in world > temperatures is now unavoidable > > By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor > > Published: 11 February 2006 > > A crucial global warming "tipping point" for the Earth, highlighted > only last week by the British Government, has already been passed, with > devastating consequences. > > Research commissioned by The Independent reveals that the accumulation > of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has now crossed a threshold, set > down by scientists from around the world at a conference in Britain > last year, beyond which really dangerous climate change is likely to be > unstoppable. > > The implication is that some of global warming's worst predicted > effects, from destruction of ecosystems to increased hunger and water > shortages for billions of people, cannot now be avoided, whatever we > do. It gives considerable force to the contention by the green guru > Professor James Lovelock, put forward last month in The Independent, > that climate change is now past the point of no return. > > The danger point we are now firmly on course for is a rise in global > mean temperatures to 2 degrees [Celsius, or almost 4 degrees F for the > entire planet] above the level before the Industrial Revolution in the > late 18th century. > > At the moment, global mean temperatures have risen to about 0.6 degrees > above the pre-industrial era - and worrying signs of climate change, > such as the rapid melting of the Arctic ice in summer, are already > increasingly evident. But a rise to 2 degrees would be far more > serious. > > By that point it is likely that the Greenland ice sheet will already > have begun irreversible melting, threatening the world with a sea-level > rise of several metres [some 20 feet!] > > Agricultural yields will have started to fall, not only in Africa but > also in Europe, the US and Russia, putting up to 200 million more > people at risk from hunger, and up to 2.8 billion additional people at > risk of water shortages for both drinking and irrigation. The > Government's conference on Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, held at > the UK Met Office in Exeter a year ago, highlighted a clear threshold > in the accumulation of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) in > the atmosphere, which should not be surpassed if the 2 degree point was > to be avoided with "relatively high certainty". > > This was for the concentration of CO2 and other gases such as methane > and nitrous oxide, taken together in their global warming effect, to > stay below 400ppm (parts per million) in CO2 terms - or in the jargon, > the "equivalent concentration" of CO2 should remain below that level. > > The warning was highlighted in the official report of the Exeter > conference, published last week. However, an investigation by The > Independent has established that the CO2 equivalent concentration, > largely unnoticed by the scientific and political communities, has now > risen beyond this threshold. > > This number is not a familiar one even among climate researchers, and > is not readily available. For example, when we put the question to a > very senior climate scientist, he said: "I would think it's definitely > over 400 - probably about 420." So we asked one of the world's leading > experts on the effects of greenhouse gases on climate, Professor Keith > Shine, head of the meteorology department at the University of Reading, > to calculate it precisely. Using the latest available figures (for > 2004), his calculations show the equivalent concentration of C02, > taking in the effects of methane and nitrous oxide at 2004 levels, is > now 425ppm. This is made up of CO2 itself, at 379ppm; the global > warming effect of the methane in the atmosphere, equivalent to another > 40ppm of CO2; and the effect of nitrous oxide, equivalent to another > 6ppm of CO2. > > The tipping point warned about last week by the Government is already > behind us. > > "The passing of this threshold is of the most enormous significance," > said Tom Burke, a former government adviser on the green issues, now > visiting professor at Imperial College London. "It means we have > actually entered a new era - the era of dangerous climate change. We > have passed the point where we can be confident of staying below the 2 > degree rise set as the threshold for danger. What this tells us is that > we have already reached the point where our children can no longer > count on a safe climate." > > The scientist who chaired the Exeter conference, Dennis Tirpak, head of > the climate change unit of the OECD in Paris, was even more direct. He > said: "This means we will hit 2 degrees [as a global mean temperature > rise]." > > Professor Burke added: "We have very little time to act now. > Governments must stop talking and start spending. We already have the > technology to allow us to meet our growing need for energy while > keeping a stable climate. We must deploy it now. Doing so will cost > less than the Iraq war so we know we can afford it." > > The 400ppm threshold is based on a paper given at Exeter by Malte > Meinhausen of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Dr Meinhausen > reviewed a dozen studies of the probability of exceeding the 2 degrees > threshold at different CO2 equivalent levels. Taken together they show > that only by remaining [under] 400 is there a very high chance of not > doing so. > > Some scientists have been reluctant to talk about the overall global > warming effect of all the greenhouses gases taken together, because > there is another consideration - the fact that the "aerosol", or band > of dust in the atmosphere from industrial pollution, actually reduces > the warming. > > As Professor Shine stresses, there is enormous uncertainty about the > degree to which this is happening, so making calculation of the overall > warming effect problematic. However, as James Lovelock points out - and > Professor Shine and other scientists accept - in the event of an > industrial downturn, the aerosol could fall out of the atmosphere in a > matter of weeks, and then the effect of all the greenhouse gases taken > together would suddenly be fully felt. > > [And no, "inevitable" does not mean we have an excuse to do nothing; > it's now a matter of whether things get seriously bad, on the one > hand, or far worse, on the other hand. Time for damage control > to avoid "far worse" for us and our children -ED] > > http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article344690.ece > > ============= > > DON'T MOURN, ACT! WEBSITES FOR ACTION: > > http://www.earthshare.org/get_involved/involved.html > http://www.gristmagazine.com/dogood/climate.asp (not working, 05 apr) > http://www.greenhousenet.org/ > http://www.solarcatalyst.com/ > http://www.campaignearth.org/buy_green_nativeenergy.asp > > Overview and local actions you can take: http://www.PostCarbon.org > ============= > > = = = = > STILL FEELING LIKE THE MAINSTREAM U.S. CORPORATE MEDIA > IS GIVING A FULL HONEST PICTURE OF WHAT'S GOING ON? > = = = = > Daily online radio show, news reporting: www.DemocracyNow.org > More news: UseNet's misc.activism.progressive (moderated) > = = = = > Sorry, we cannot read/reply to most usenet posts but welcome email > For more information: http://EconomicDemocracy.org/wtc/ (peace) > And http://EconomicDemocracy.org/ (general) > > ** ANTI-SPAM EMAIL NOTE: For email "info" and "map" DON'T work. Email > instead > ** to m-a-i-l-m-a-i-l (without the dashes) at economicdemocracy.org >
Philip Hart
2006-02-11 05:41:11 EST
d*n@dan.com wrote: > Are there any researchers bold enough to attempt to offer a timeline of some > of these catastrophic effects
[...]
Not bold,exactly. When one sees what can happen to people who offend the establishment these days, you'd need to be almost suicidal.
It's a big problem for the future. Right now we can all enjoy the last days of the planet as we know it.
I*@economicdemocracy.org
2006-02-11 13:37:41 EST
d*n@dan.com wrote: > Are there any researchers bold enough to attempt to offer a timeline of some > of these catastrophic effects (i.e. when will the Greenland ice sheet be > fully melted, or even half for that matter), when will we start seeing poor > crop yields in, say, the American midwest, when will water shortages > actually affect billions of people? I don't doubt all of these things will > happen, at least if we don't change course, but when?
As many scientists have said we don't know *precisely* where the cliffs are, just that we're rushing towards them. For complete melting of Greenland icesheet the ballpark is centuries, possibly 1,000 years, but that's for the entire melting including a full 21 foot sea rise. That's more than 6 meters, look what "only" 4 meters would do to florida and don't miss louisiana, at http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/climate_dynamics/fig5.gif
But the point not to miss about the recent studies and analyses is the inevitability: even if the full melting would take centuries, it would be irreversible once we crossed the tipping point (or per this article, it already is inevitable) and though it will take a long time, the fate is 'sealed'.
Another point to keep in mind is the huge other effects that will come long before that full melting including ocean acitification that is already, measurably, under way and a danger to microorganisms and the entire chain of life, including lower crop yields upon which 6.5 billion (and counting) people depend on, and other factors that are changing faster than animals and plants can adapt to since in the past it took eons to chance while we are changint the planet radically in mere decades (blinks of an eye in geological terms) The exceptions were a handful of historical times when things DID change really fast: that's when you get the massive extinctions of 70 miillion years ago (dinosaurs) the one during the Permian etc.
A third point to keep in mind is that although things could be a bit less dangerous than we think, they could be more dangerous than we think, and this uncertainty itself is not reason for 'not to worry since it's not proven with 100% certainty" but quite the opposite: if you don't know exactly where the cliff is, that's MORE reason ont to keep walking towards it.
Lastly it could be much worse because of feedback loops (positive feedbacks) and the non-linear nature (see Washington Post article below) which means something even worse could happen far sooner if we continue this Russian Roulette with the Planet.
=============
A WARNING ON CLIMATE CHANGE
POLLUTION'S EFFECTS COULD BE SUDDEN, NAS REPORT SAYS
By Eric Pianin Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, December 12, 2001; Page A11
[This only made page 11 (!!) of the Washington Post!]
While recent climate change studies have focused on the risks of a gradual rise in the Earth's temperature, a new National Academy of Sciences report has concluded that greenhouse gases and other pollutants could trigger large, abrupt and potentially disastrous climate changes.
Citing a wealth of paleontological evidence, historical observations and computer modeling analyses reaching back hundreds of centuries, researchers found evidence that, in some places, periods of gradual changes were punctuated by sudden temperature spikes of about 10 degrees Celsius in only a decade.
Roughly half of the warming that has occurred in the northern part of the Atlantic Ocean since the last ice age was achieved in only a decade, the report said. That warming was accompanied by significant climate changes across the globe, including flooding and drought, it said. Since then, less dramatic climate changes have occurred, affecting precipitation, hurricanes and the El Niqo events that have disrupted temperatures in the tropical Pacific.
"Abrupt climate changes were especially common when the climate system was being forced to change most rapidly," the study states. "Thus, greenhouse warming and other human alterations of the earth system may increase the possibility of large, abrupt, and unwelcome regional or global climatic events."
===============
Maybe these eye-openers will get people ready for the message that our perpetual growth forever corporate calitalist consumer economy isn't going to cut it. That's part of the article below. But neither are state run economies like the former Soviet ones, we need to create new economic models that are not growth-based but steady-state and locally controlled........very interesting any way that The Age the well known Australian paper ran this 'radical wake up' article just a few days ago, "Consuming the Future"
==========
Consuming the future February 6, 2006
Our consumerist culture is unsustainable and the world must find alternative ways, says Robert Newman.
There is no meaningful response to climate change without massive social change. A cap on this and a quota on the other won't do it. Tinker at the edges as we may, we cannot sustain earth's life-support systems within the present economic system.
Capitalism is not sustainable by its very nature. It is predicated on infinitely expanding markets, faster consumption and bigger production in a finite planet. And yet this ideological model remains the central organising principle of our lives, and as long as it continues to be so it will automatically undo (with its invisible hand) every single green initiative anybody cares to come up with.
Much discussion of energy, with never a word about power, leads to the fallacy of a low-impact, green capitalism somehow put at the service of environmentalism. In reality, power concentrates around wealth. Private ownership of trade and industry means that the decisive political force in the world is private power. The corporation will outflank every puny law and regulation that seeks to constrain its profitability. It therefore stands in the way of the functioning democracy needed to tackle climate change. Only by breaking up corporate power and bringing it under social control will we be able to overcome the global environmental crisis.
Recently we have been called on to admire capital's ability to take robust action while governments dither. All hail Wal-Mart for imposing a 20 per cent reduction in its own carbon emissions. But the point is that supermarkets are over. We cannot have such long supply lines between us and our food. Not any more. The very model of the supermarket is unsustainable, what with the packaging, transport distances and destruction of national farming sectors. Small, independent suppliers, processors and retailers or community-owned shops selling locally produced food provide a social glue and reduce carbon emissions.
All hail oil giants BP and Shell for having got beyond petroleum to become non-profit eco-networks supplying green energy. But fail to cheer the Fortune 500 corporations that will save us all and ecologists are denounced as anti-business.
Many career environmentalists fear that an anti-capitalist position is what is alienating the mainstream from their irresistible arguments. But is it not more likely that people are stunned into inaction by the bizarre discrepancy between how extreme the crisis described and how insipid the solutions proposed? Go on a march to your parliament. Write a letter to your MP. And what system does your MP hold with? Name one that isn't pro-capitalist. Oh, all right then, smart-arse. But name five.
We are caught between the Scylla and Charybdis of climate change and peak oil. Once we pass the planetary oil production spike (when oil begins rapidly to deplete and demand outstrips supply), there will be less and less net energy available. Petroleum geologists reckon we will pass the spike between 2006 and 2010. It will take, argues oil expert Richard Heinberg, a Second World War effort if many of us are to come through this epoch. Not least because modern agribusiness puts hundreds of calories of fossil-fuel energy into the fields for each calorie of food energy produced.
Catch-22, of course, is that the worst fate that could befall us is the discovery of huge new reserves of oil, or even the burning into the sky of all the oil that's already known about, because the climate chaos that would be unleashed would make the mere collapse of industrial society a sideshow bagatelle. Therefore, since we have got to make the switch from oil anyway, why not do it now?
Solutions need to come from people themselves. But once set up, local autonomous groups need to be supported by technology transfers from state to community level. Otherwise it's too expensive to get solar panels on your roof, let alone set up a local energy grid. Far from utopian, this has a precedent: back in the 1920s the London boroughs of Wandsworth and Battersea had their own electricity-generating grid. As long as energy corporations exist, however, they will fight tooth and nail to stop this.
There are many organisational projects we can learn from. The Just Transition Alliance, for example, was set up by black and Latino groups in the US working with unions to negotiate alliances between "frontline workers and fenceline communities", that is to say between union members who work in polluting industries and stand to lose their jobs if the plant is shut down, and those who live next to the same plant and stand to lose their health if it's not.
We have to start planning seriously not just a system of personal carbon rationing but at what limit to set our national carbon ration. Given a fixed national carbon allowance, what do we spend it on? What kinds of infrastructure do we wish to build, retool or demolish? What kinds of organisational structures will work as climate change makes pretty much all communities more or less "fenceline" and almost all jobs more or less "frontline"? (Most of our carbon emissions come when we're at work.)
To get from here to there we must talk about climate chaos in terms of what needs to be done for the survival of the species rather than where the debate is at now or what people are likely to countenance tomorrow morning.
If we are all still in denial about the radical changes coming - and all of us still are - there are sound geological reasons for our denial. We have lived in an era of cheap, abundant energy. There never has and never will again be consumption like we have known. The petroleum interval, this one-off historical blip, this freakish bonanza, has led us to believe that the impossible is possible, that people in northern industrial cities can have suntans in winter and eat apples in summer.
[COMMENT: What the author fails to add is another "god help us if we DO find more energy" paragraph. If by some incredible miracle we do find cheap and easy and greenhouse gas free energy, take a look at what our perpectual-growth-forever-and-ever economic system has done to soil, water quality, biodiversity, uranium and certain other minerals, coillapsing fisheries (worth another google) and more...research it and it's clear we cannot continue growing forever for the most basic of mathematical/physical reasons. So not only are we very unlikely to find anything as cheap and easy as oil to replace it, must less cheap plus easy plus climate-and-lung-safe, but even if we DID, we'd hit some other crisis (and we're not far from crisis in some of the aforementioned areas), so long as we insist on a perpetual-growth-forever economic model.
The author also could reduce some red baiting by pointing out his arguments make him and many others of us, equally against Soviet or other simillar economic models which are basically variants of (state coordinated) capitalism and are also growth-forever-and-ever based, and thus also cannot be allowed. Not to mention they like (corporate) capitalism had a huge decific in the area of democracy, but like corporate capitalism, even if we foolishly wish to give up economic democracy for temporary 'growth' goodies, we much now build a replacement economic model, and fast, even if we only wish for something much less, namely survival -ED]
But as much as the petroleum bubble has got us out of the habit of accepting the existence of zero-sum physical realities, it's wise to remember that they never went away. You can either have capitalism or a habitable planet. One or the other, not both.
Robert Newman is a British novelist, musician and comedian.
http://peakoil.net (ASPO geologists group, Association for the Study of Peak Oil and gas)
See http://PostCarbon.org (Excellent site. join an outpost for positive solutions in your area)
http://GlobalPublicMedia.com (audio and video interviews)
http://www.museletter.com/partys-over.html (Book: THE PARTY'S OVER: Oil, War, and the Fate of Industrial Societies) =============
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
http://www.postcarbon.org/
http://www.copad.org/
http://www.peakoil.net/
============= d*n@dan.com wrote: > Are there any researchers bold enough to attempt to offer a timeline of some > of these catastrophic effects (i.e. when will the Greenland ice sheet be > fully melted, or even half for that matter), when will we start seeing poor > crop yields in, say, the American midwest, when will water shortages > actually affect billions of people? I don't doubt all of these things will > happen, at least if we don't change course, but when? > > <info@economicdemocracy.org> wrote in message > news:1139631870.572893.186270@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > > Global warming: passing the 'tipping point' > > > > Our special investigation reveals that critical rise in world > > temperatures is now unavoidable > > > > By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor > > > > Published: 11 February 2006 > > > > A crucial global warming "tipping point" for the Earth, highlighted > > only last week by the British Government, has already been passed, with > > devastating consequences. > > > > Research commissioned by The Independent reveals that the accumulation > > of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has now crossed a threshold, set > > down by scientists from around the world at a conference in Britain > > last year, beyond which really dangerous climate change is likely to be > > unstoppable. > > > > The implication is that some of global warming's worst predicted > > effects, from destruction of ecosystems to increased hunger and water > > shortages for billions of people, cannot now be avoided, whatever we > > do. It gives considerable force to the contention by the green guru > > Professor James Lovelock, put forward last month in The Independent, > > that climate change is now past the point of no return. > > > > The danger point we are now firmly on course for is a rise in global > > mean temperatures to 2 degrees [Celsius, or almost 4 degrees F for the > > entire planet] above the level before the Industrial Revolution in the > > late 18th century. > > > > At the moment, global mean temperatures have risen to about 0.6 degrees > > above the pre-industrial era - and worrying signs of climate change, > > such as the rapid melting of the Arctic ice in summer, are already > > increasingly evident. But a rise to 2 degrees would be far more > > serious. > > > > By that point it is likely that the Greenland ice sheet will already > > have begun irreversible melting, threatening the world with a sea-level > > rise of several metres [some 20 feet!] > > > > Agricultural yields will have started to fall, not only in Africa but > > also in Europe, the US and Russia, putting up to 200 million more > > people at risk from hunger, and up to 2.8 billion additional people at > > risk of water shortages for both drinking and irrigation. The > > Government's conference on Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, held at > > the UK Met Office in Exeter a year ago, highlighted a clear threshold > > in the accumulation of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) in > > the atmosphere, which should not be surpassed if the 2 degree point was > > to be avoided with "relatively high certainty". > > > > This was for the concentration of CO2 and other gases such as methane > > and nitrous oxide, taken together in their global warming effect, to > > stay below 400ppm (parts per million) in CO2 terms - or in the jargon, > > the "equivalent concentration" of CO2 should remain below that level. > > > > The warning was highlighted in the official report of the Exeter > > conference, published last week. However, an investigation by The > > Independent has established that the CO2 equivalent concentration, > > largely unnoticed by the scientific and political communities, has now > > risen beyond this threshold. > > > > This number is not a familiar one even among climate researchers, and > > is not readily available. For example, when we put the question to a > > very senior climate scientist, he said: "I would think it's definitely > > over 400 - probably about 420." So we asked one of the world's leading > > experts on the effects of greenhouse gases on climate, Professor Keith > > Shine, head of the meteorology department at the University of Reading, > > to calculate it precisely. Using the latest available figures (for > > 2004), his calculations show the equivalent concentration of C02, > > taking in the effects of methane and nitrous oxide at 2004 levels, is > > now 425ppm. This is made up of CO2 itself, at 379ppm; the global > > warming effect of the methane in the atmosphere, equivalent to another > > 40ppm of CO2; and the effect of nitrous oxide, equivalent to another > > 6ppm of CO2. > > > > The tipping point warned about last week by the Government is already > > behind us. > > > > "The passing of this threshold is of the most enormous significance," > > said Tom Burke, a former government adviser on the green issues, now > > visiting professor at Imperial College London. "It means we have > > actually entered a new era - the era of dangerous climate change. We > > have passed the point where we can be confident of staying below the 2 > > degree rise set as the threshold for danger. What this tells us is that > > we have already reached the point where our children can no longer > > count on a safe climate." > > > > The scientist who chaired the Exeter conference, Dennis Tirpak, head of > > the climate change unit of the OECD in Paris, was even more direct. He > > said: "This means we will hit 2 degrees [as a global mean temperature > > rise]." > > > > Professor Burke added: "We have very little time to act now. > > Governments must stop talking and start spending. We already have the > > technology to allow us to meet our growing need for energy while > > keeping a stable climate. We must deploy it now. Doing so will cost > > less than the Iraq war so we know we can afford it." > > > > The 400ppm threshold is based on a paper given at Exeter by Malte > > Meinhausen of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Dr Meinhausen > > reviewed a dozen studies of the probability of exceeding the 2 degrees > > threshold at different CO2 equivalent levels. Taken together they show > > that only by remaining [under] 400 is there a very high chance of not > > doing so. > > > > Some scientists have been reluctant to talk about the overall global > > warming effect of all the greenhouses gases taken together, because > > there is another consideration - the fact that the "aerosol", or band > > of dust in the atmosphere from industrial pollution, actually reduces > > the warming. > > > > As Professor Shine stresses, there is enormous uncertainty about the > > degree to which this is happening, so making calculation of the overall > > warming effect problematic. However, as James Lovelock points out - and > > Professor Shine and other scientists accept - in the event of an > > industrial downturn, the aerosol could fall out of the atmosphere in a > > matter of weeks, and then the effect of all the greenhouse gases taken > > together would suddenly be fully felt. > > > > [And no, "inevitable" does not mean we have an excuse to do nothing; > > it's now a matter of whether things get seriously bad, on the one > > hand, or far worse, on the other hand. Time for damage control > > to avoid "far worse" for us and our children -ED] > > > > http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article344690.ece > > > > ============= > > > > DON'T MOURN, ACT! WEBSITES FOR ACTION: > > > > http://www.earthshare.org/get_involved/involved.html > > http://www.gristmagazine.com/dogood/climate.asp (not working, 05 apr) > > http://www.greenhousenet.org/ > > http://www.solarcatalyst.com/ > > http://www.campaignearth.org/buy_green_nativeenergy.asp > > > > Overview and local actions you can take: http://www.PostCarbon.org > > ============= > > > > = = = = > > STILL FEELING LIKE THE MAINSTREAM U.S. CORPORATE MEDIA > > IS GIVING A FULL HONEST PICTURE OF WHAT'S GOING ON? > > = = = = > > Daily online radio show, news reporting: www.DemocracyNow.org > > More news: UseNet's misc.activism.progressive (moderated) > > = = = = > > Sorry, we cannot read/reply to most usenet posts but welcome email > > For more information: http://EconomicDemocracy.org/wtc/ (peace) > > And http://EconomicDemocracy.org/ (general) > > > > ** ANTI-SPAM EMAIL NOTE: For email "info" and "map" DON'T work. Email > > instead > > ** to m-a-i-l-m-a-i-l (without the dashes) at economicdemocracy.org > >
R*@gmail.com
2006-02-11 14:39:10 EST
No doubt due to the "free pass" Kyoto has given huge polluters like China and India.
NobodyYouKnow
2006-02-11 16:47:32 EST
<*7@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1139686750.637690.97020@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > No doubt due to the "free pass" Kyoto has given huge polluters like > China and India.
The largest polluter by a wide margin is still the U.S. And nothing is going to change that fact. A small minority of the world ( 1/16th ) that produces at least a quarter of the worlds emisisons, thus beating everyone by about four times over.
Stan De SD
2006-02-12 12:52:48 EST
<*n@dan.com> wrote in message news:P5ydnRqvnf0TEnDeRVn-uQ@comcast.com...
> Are there any researchers bold enough to attempt to offer a timeline of some > of these catastrophic effects
No, because the vast majority of these claims are based on chicken-little enviro-hysteria. Ed's the major propagator of most of this crap in alt.activism.
Stan De SD
2006-02-12 12:54:44 EST
"NobodyYouKnow" <TheVoiceOfReason@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:CXsHf.48933$1e5.987314@news20.bellglobal.com... > > <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1139686750.637690.97020@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > No doubt due to the "free pass" Kyoto has given huge polluters like > > China and India. > > > The largest polluter by a wide margin is still the U.S. And nothing is going > to change that fact. A small minority of the world ( 1/16th ) that produces > at least a quarter of the worlds emisisons, thus beating everyone by about > four times over.
China and India have far larger populations than the US, and don't have anywhere near the same level of environmental controls in place. Once again, tell us why Kyoto punishes the US ( a country that has made huge strides to control emissions) but gives China and India a pass... :O|
NobodyYouKnow
2006-02-12 13:25:57 EST
"Stan de SD" <standesd_DIGA_NO_A_SPAM@covad.net> wrote in message news:8dd92$43ef75f1$45035f0b$5131@msgid.meganewsservers.com... > > "NobodyYouKnow" <TheVoiceOfReason@nowhere.com> wrote in message > news:CXsHf.48933$1e5.987314@news20.bellglobal.com... > > > > <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1139686750.637690.97020@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > No doubt due to the "free pass" Kyoto has given huge polluters like > > > China and India. > > > > > > The largest polluter by a wide margin is still the U.S. And nothing is > going > > to change that fact. A small minority of the world ( 1/16th ) that > produces > > at least a quarter of the worlds emisisons, thus beating everyone by about > > four times over. > > China and India have far larger populations than the US,
Yes. Why not include the 'rest of the world' and claim that they make 3/4s of the pollution? It would be just as true and just as irrelevant to the discussion.
< and don't have > anywhere near the same level of environmental controls in place.
No. Nor do they have anywhere near the level of industry or pollution *making*. Bascially they are in the early part of the industrialisation cycle in which the pollution is too limited to be a problem that drives a more active regulation. Given them time and they will equal the U.S. but let us hope that hte U.S has grown up by then and reduced it's emissions to something that is sustainable.
> Once again, > tell us why Kyoto punishes the US ( a country that has made huge strides to > control emissions) but gives China and India a pass... :O|
No pass. They are equally in the Kyoto protocol but their CO2 emission are one fifth that of the industrialisted nations so they will be brought into reduction after the major polluters get at least a START of reducing their problems. I mean, reducing emisison from the U.S. to China or Indias level would take a MAJOR increase in effort as the ration is about 1 to 5 ( output of CO2 emissions in the developing nations vs the industrialised nations.).;
Coby Beck
2006-02-12 14:17:54 EST
"Stan de SD" <standesd_DIGA_NO_A_SPAM@covad.net> wrote in message news:8dd92$43ef75f1$45035f0b$5131@msgid.meganewsservers.com... > > China and India have far larger populations than the US, and don't have > anywhere near the same level of environmental controls in place. Once > again, > tell us why Kyoto punishes the US ( a country that has made huge strides > to > control emissions) but gives China and India a pass... :O|
China and India don't get a pass. The reason China gets different obligations from the US is because the US produces a full 25% of all CO2 emissions, and that does not count emissions from manufacturing goods that are ultimately consumed in the US. As it is, US per capita emissions are many times that of per capita Cina or India and as a total are still higher. Add to this the fact that the entire globe is now facing the consequences of *decades* of pollution produced at similar ratios.
So what do you think is fair?
That said, yes China is going to become the worst emitter. They have huge pollution problems now, things that would shock people living in post 60'70's N.Am industrial controls, though they are largely local problems. But what will happen, now that the US as current biggest polluter and historical biggest polluter refused to do anything, what will happen when China is the biggest polluter? Will they then decide to forgive and forget and accept making the economic sacrifices the US never agreed to? Why should they? It will take decades of leading the world before their total historical output matches the US, maybe that is how they will look at it.