"Climate change is accelerating beyond expectations"; Americans' belief declines

[KingOrfeo]

"Climate change is accelerating beyond expectations"; Americans' belief declines

Two significant anthropogenic-climate-change-related stories (other than "Climategate" ) hit the news this week:

1. Climatologist Richard Sommerville announces, "Climate change is accelerating beyond expectations." Press release:

Scripps Institution of Oceanography / University of California, San Diego

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 released today by some of the world's top climate scientists including Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego climate scientist Richard Somerville.

In a special report called "The Copenhagen Diagnosis," 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.

"Carbon dioxide emissions cannot be allowed to continue to rise if humanity intends to limit the risk of unacceptable climate change. The task is urgent and the turning point must come soon. If we are to avoid more than two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) warming, which many countries have already accepted as a goal, then emissions need to peak before 2020 and then decline rapidly," Somerville said.

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 seven degrees Celsius (12.6 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100.

The researchers will release the report two weeks before United Nations-led climate change talks begin in Copenhagen, Demark. The conference is anticipated to produce a successor or companion emissions agreement to the 1998 Kyoto Protocol, the first commitment period of which expires in 2012.

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.

The new evidence to have emerged includes:

• 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.

• 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 percent greater than the average projection from the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.

• Sea level has risen more than five centimeters over the past 15 years, about 80 percent higher than IPCC projections from 2001. Accounting for ice-sheets and glaciers, global sea-level rise may exceed one meter by 2100, with a rise of up to two 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.

• In 2008 carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels were about 40 percent 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 two 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.

Executive Summary of the Copenhagen Diagnosis (pdf)

The Copenhagen Diagnosis (pdf)


2. Fewer Americans believe in global warming, poll shows:

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 25, 2009

The percentage of Americans who believe global warming is happening has dipped from 80 to 72 percent in the past year, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, even as a majority still support a national cap on greenhouse gas emissions.

The poll's findings -- which also show that 55 percent of respondents think the United States should curb its carbon output even if major developing nations such as China and India do less -- suggest increasing political polarization around the issue, just as the Obama administration and congressional Democrats are intensifying efforts to pass climate legislation and broker an international global warming pact.

The increase in climate skepticism is driven largely by a shift within the GOP. Since its peak 3 1/2 years ago, belief that climate change is happening is down sharply among Republicans -- 76 to 54 percent -- and independents -- 86 to 71 percent. It dipped more modestly among Democrats, from 92 to 86 percent. A majority of respondents still support legislation to cap emissions and trade pollution allowances, by 53 to 42 percent.

Amanda Feinberg, a retired administrative assistant living in South Williamsport, Pa., said she became disenchanted with the idea of human-caused global warming when former vice president Al Gore launched a public awareness campaign with his documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth."

"He just seemed a little radical in his views," said Feinberg, a Republican. "I don't deny it's happening, I just think it's just an evolution of nature."

Lisa Woolcott, another Republican poll respondent, said she doesn't think that burning fossil fuels is "causing all the global warming," adding: "We can't control what happens in the atmosphere." But Woolcott, a physician's assistant who lives in Kansas City, Kan., said she supports the idea of a bill that would cap the nation's greenhouse gas emissions and doesn't think the United States should predicate its actions on what other nations do. "We need to do what's best for us," she said. "I don't think we should back down."

I propose no particular question for debate here, because too many suggest themselves as it is.

[hunts in vain for innocent-smiling-rolleyes-"Who, me?" smiley]

 

[Wok]

Whatever happened to the term "global warming"?

 

[KingOrfeo]

Whatever happened to the term "global warming"?

Too simplistic. For instance, if the climate change disrupts the Gulf Stream, which it might, Europe will get colder. (New York is on about the same latitude as Rome; the latter is warmer because of the Gulf Stream, without which northwestern Europe would have the same climate as Russia.) But the net global effect will still be warming.

 

[MechaBlade]

Too simplistic. For instance, if the climate change disrupts the Gulf Stream, which it might, Europe will get colder. (New York is on about the same latitude as Rome; the latter is warmer because of the Gulf Stream, without which northwestern Europe would have the same climate as Russia.) But the net global effect will still be warming.

Then we should keep it "global warming." It's mostly semantics, but things like this confuse people who think it's a PR move towards denying the change in climate is an overall warming of the globe.

 

[busybody..]

http://www.moonbattery.com/obama-clown-movie.gif

 

[coastal-boy]

a bigger problem is the decrease in pH of the ocean. This has now been postively linked to CO2 emissions and not natural causes.

 

[Peregrinator]

Then we should keep it "global warming." It's mostly semantics, but things like this confuse people who think it's a PR move towards denying the change in climate is an overall warming of the globe.

Guess what?

The Language of Politics
The very language of science in public discussions lends itself to politicization. For instance, in February 2006, scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory complained because they had been instructed to use the phrase “climate change” rather than the phrase “global warming” in their public communications. The reason for this complaint is that the language of climate science has become politicized. A Republican strategy memo recommended use of the phrase “climate change” over “global warming,” though environmental groups have long had the opposite preference. At a panel discussion at the 2008 annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Harvard’s John Holdren recommended that political action on climate change might be better motivated by using the term “global climate disruption.” Any language used to characterize the human role in the global environment will necessarily be loaded with emotional and symbolic meaning. There can be no getting around this reality—there is no bloodless, neutral language.

http://hir.harvard.edu/index.php?page=article&id=1769

You can find the actual memo if you care to google for it.

 

[Peregrinator]

a bigger problem is the decrease in pH of the ocean. This has now been postively linked to CO2 emissions and not natural causes.

Can you link something on that? I'd like to read it.

 

[MechaBlade]

a bigger problem is the decrease in pH of the ocean. This has now been postively linked to CO2 emissions and not natural causes.

Has it?

I haven't seen a lot of discussion on it, and--just some conjecture--I suspect that conservatives will deny anthropogenic causes, even if the scientific community is in agreement.

 

[Peregrinator]

Has it?

I haven't seen a lot of discussion on it, and--just some conjecture--I suspect that conservatives will deny anthropogenic causes, even if the scientific community is in agreement.

Of course they will. They'll write a memo suggesting it be called "ocean pH balancing" and Inhofe will find a few dozen xenobotanists, astrophysicists, and lunar landing engineers to rally around a senile retired flack for the tobacco industry and say it's a hoax.

 

[coastal-boy]

Has it?

I haven't seen a lot of discussion on it, and--just some conjecture--I suspect that conservatives will deny anthropogenic causes, even if the scientific community is in agreement.

hasn't been officially published but is in review...stay tuned. It involved fancy isotopes and BS like that. I was holding out on this because natural causes would be a hell of alot better than the alternative and we have also observed an increase in undersea volcanic activity off the Pacific Northwest.

 

[KingOrfeo]

hasn't been officially published but is in review...stay tuned. It involved fancy isotopes and BS like that. I was holding out on this because natural causes would be a hell of alot better than the alternative and we have also observed an increase in undersea volcanic activity off the Pacific Northwest.

Oh, great! As if AGW weren't enough trouble, now we have to deal with . . . MEGALON!

 

[Peregrinator]

Guess what?




http://hir.harvard.edu/index.php?page=article&id=1769

You can find the actual memo if you care to google for it.

Here's a searchable version of the Luntz memo:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/2/133127/1815

 

[MechaBlade]

Guess what?




http://hir.harvard.edu/index.php?page=article&id=1769

You can find the actual memo if you care to google for it.

Thanks. Makes total sense.

Of course they will. They'll write a memo suggesting it be called "ocean pH balancing" and Inhofe will find a few dozen xenobotanists, astrophysicists, and lunar landing engineers to rally around a retired flack for the tobacco industry and say it's a hoax.

I don't get why conservatives are anti-environmentalism. Is it because rescuing the environment often requires government interference and they are anti-big government? Or just because environmentalism is often championed by liberals and they are anti-liberal? A little from both columns?

 

[Sean]

Thanks. Makes total sense.



I don't get why conservatives are anti-environmentalism. Is it because rescuing the environment often requires government interference and they are anti-big government? Or just because environmentalism is often championed by liberals and they are anti-liberal? A little from both columns?

It's because they're either bought and paid for by global multinationals, or they're stupid enough to believe those that are.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I don't get why conservatives are anti-environmentalism. Is it because rescuing the environment often requires government interference and they are anti-big government? Or just because environmentalism is often championed by liberals and they are anti-liberal? A little from both columns?

I think it's mainly because effective anti-AGW measures would require big business/industry to change some currently profitable practices. That's how it is in the conservative movement: Main Street provides the dancers, but Wall Street calls the tune.

 

[JohnnySavage]

I intuitively believe that the Earth's temperature is rising, but I'm not scientifically minded enough to know the cause. I can only know what each side of the issue argues as "fact." In the end though, I don't think it matters much if any increase in temperatures is due to man's activities. I like clean air and clean water as much as the next guy, and think we should move away from a carbon-based energy system. Carbon is dirty and finite - so if we need to change eventually, why not now?

My problem with the global-warmingists, is: Assume the temperature is rising and sea levels will increase... Well, so what? Man-kind is very adaptable, why won't we be able to adapt to a few degree increase in temperature and a foot increase in sea-level? Those two aspects of the Earth's environment are dynamic and go up and down all the time, yet life soldiers on.

The arguments you see, both here and in 3D, focus more on the cause then the effect.

 

[Peregrinator]

Thanks. Makes total sense.



I don't get why conservatives are anti-environmentalism. Is it because rescuing the environment often requires government interference and they are anti-big government? Or just because environmentalism is often championed by liberals and they are anti-liberal? A little from both columns?

That and it costs money. They start tearing their hair out and wailing about how everyone will go bankrupt. You know, just like everyone did when we put catalytic converters on cars, banned DDT, eliminated cfc's, made power plants safer, required higher mileage cars, reduced the speed limit to conserve fuel....


Every time a regulation gets passed to reduce environmental harm, we have another Great Depression. That's why we're all impoverished right now, why the US has gone from Number One to last in the world, struggling to make the GNP of Somalia. Just ask them.

 

[Peregrinator]

I intuitively believe that the Earth's temperature is rising, but I'm not scientifically minded enough to know the cause. I can only know what each side of the issue argues as "fact." In the end though, I don't think it matters much if any increase in temperatures is due to man's activities. I like clean air and clean water as much as the next guy, and think we should move away from a carbon-based energy system. Carbon is dirty and finite - so if we need to change eventually, why not now?

My problem with the global-warmingists, is: Assume the temperature is rising and sea levels will increase... Well, so what? Man-kind is very adaptable, why won't we be able to adapt to a few degree increase in temperature and a foot increase in sea-level? Those two aspects of the Earth's environment are dynamic and go up and down all the time, yet life soldiers on.

The arguments you see, both here and in 3D, focus more on the cause then the effect.

Thank you for your first paragraph.

There's a lot of discussion of the effects. Much of it is dismissed as fear-mongering, but the death of coral reefs, for example, would be a serious problem. The movement toward the poles of temperate ecosystems is often discussed, as is the depletion of the freshwater "bank accounts" known as "glaciers" that get farmers through dry seasons. The spread of tropical diseases is no joke (there was malaria in Portland, OR at one time).

 

[MechaBlade]

I think it's mainly because effective anti-AGW measures would require big business/industry to change some currently profitable practices. That's how it is in the conservative movement: Main Street provides the dancers, but Wall Street calls the tune.

I suppose I can see people being afraid of too many restrictions on businesses, but haven't these people read The Jungle?

 

[thør]

Of course they will. They'll write a memo suggesting it be called "ocean pH balancing" and Inhofe will find a few dozen xenobotanists, astrophysicists, and lunar landing engineers to rally around a senile retired flack for the tobacco industry and say it's a hoax.

Time it invest in Baking Soda....

 

[KingOrfeo]

My problem with the global-warmingists, is: Assume the temperature is rising and sea levels will increase... Well, so what? Man-kind is very adaptable, why won't we be able to adapt to a few degree increase in temperature and a foot increase in sea-level? Those two aspects of the Earth's environment are dynamic and go up and down all the time, yet life soldiers on.

Ice ages and warm periods alternate . . . but on geological time-scales. The speed of the present warming is unprecedented in Earth's history, except perhaps during extinction-level events.

Also, we humans have cities now. Many of them on coasts and riverbanks. We can't just pack them up and move them. There are many other reasons to be concerned. Even if we're not threatened with extinction as a species, making the adjustment to a warmer globe is going to be very unpleasant and disruptive, and probably, for many millions, fatal.

 

[MechaBlade]

I intuitively believe that the Earth's temperature is rising, but I'm not scientifically minded enough to know the cause. I can only know what each side of the issue argues as "fact." In the end though, I don't think it matters much if any increase in temperatures is due to man's activities. I like clean air and clean water as much as the next guy, and think we should move away from a carbon-based energy system. Carbon is dirty and finite - so if we need to change eventually, why not now?

My problem with the global-warmingists, is: Assume the temperature is rising and sea levels will increase... Well, so what? Man-kind is very adaptable, why won't we be able to adapt to a few degree increase in temperature and a foot increase in sea-level? Those two aspects of the Earth's environment are dynamic and go up and down all the time, yet life soldiers on.

The arguments you see, both here and in 3D, focus more on the cause then the effect.

We're not all going to be dead in 100 years if we stop recycling and drive only hummers, but we'll distort the ecosystem and the scary thing is that we don't know what kind of changes it will bring. Probably extinction of at least a few types of animals.

Mostly it's scary because our population grows at an exponential rate, so the global warming could theoretically happen at an increasing rate, making it harder to counteract in the future.

reduced the speed limit to conserve fuel...

That's mostly for safety.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I suppose I can see people being afraid of too many restrictions on businesses, but haven't these people read The Jungle?

If they have, they probably denounce Upton Sinclair as a goddam Commie. (And he did, in fact, run twice for Congress on the Socialist ticket.)

 

[MechaBlade]

Time it invest in Baking Soda....

I was going to say it...