Recently in Climate change Category
The news on climate change is more than a little depressing. The IPCC Synthesis Report projects that by 2100 the global average temperature will be at least 2.5°F higher than in 1980-1999, and the most likely outcome is for 3.5°-7.0°F in warming -- assuming that we don't do anything to reduce emissions.The good news is that the future doesn't have to be that bad. D. P. Van Vuuren and colleagues, writing in the 7 October issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, report that various scenarios to mitigate emissions of greenhouse gases could result in substantially smaller temperature increases. The bad news is that even under the most aggressive mitigation scenario, we can expect about 3°F of warming.
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is vital, but it won't be enough. We also have to find ways to adapt to the changes that increasing global temperatures will bring.
Continue reading We can make it better.
Anthropogenic CO2 emissions have been growing about four
times faster since 2000 than during the previous decade, and despite
efforts to curb emissions in a number of countries which are
signatories of the Kyoto Protocol. Emissions from the combustion of
fossil fuel and land use change reached the mark of 10 billion tones of
carbon in 2007. Natural CO2 sinks are growing, but more slowly than atmospheric CO2,
which has been growing at 2 ppm per year since 2000. This is 33% faster
than during the previous 20 years. All of these changes characterize a
carbon cycle that is generating stronger climate forcing and sooner
than expected. (source)
Those are the conclusions of the Global Carbon Project in their recently released report, Carbon Trends 2007. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 now stands at 383 parts per million, and total emissions are higher than ever. We're not just changing the world's climate, we're changing it faster than ever before. It's past time to stop arguing about whether we're affecting the climate and time to start arguing about how we should respond.
Those are the conclusions of the Global Carbon Project in their recently released report, Carbon Trends 2007. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 now stands at 383 parts per million, and total emissions are higher than ever. We're not just changing the world's climate, we're changing it faster than ever before. It's past time to stop arguing about whether we're affecting the climate and time to start arguing about how we should respond.
I noted in early August that the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) closed its Center for Capacity Building, a center focused on social effects of climate change. Apparently, the Rockefeller Foundation noticed. Andy Revkin reports on Dot Earth that the foundation and the University of Colorado will announce later today that the Center for Capacity Building is moving to the university with a new name, the Consortium for Capacity Building. The Rockefeller Foundation is apparently providing a 2-year, $1 million grant to support the new consortium, and more support is likely.
Judith Rodin, the president of the Rockefeller Foundation, told me [Andy Revkin] on Wednesday that the efforts of the center and its director, Michael Glantz, mesh perfectly with several top priorities of the foundation, including speeding an end to poverty and helping struggling communities adapt to climate change. "Because of its focus on climate and the developing world, and translating science to practical uses, we thought this was a perfect fit," she said.I'm delighted to see that the new consortium will be able to continue the work of the previous center. Working out the physical, chemical, and biological science of climate change and adaptation is essential, but understanding the social implications is no less essential.
Hurricane Ike is currently a category 2 storm with sustained winds of 100mph.1 With its current track and speed it is likely to hit the central Texas coast Saturday morning.When it arrives it could be a category 4, with sustained winds greater than 131mph. If you live in a low-lying coastal area of Texas, I hope you're planning to leave. This is not one you should try to ride out.And while those of us in the United States are focused on how Ike may affect us, we must remember that this year's tropical storm season has already brought four devastating storms to Haiti, the poorest country in the western hemisphere. The combined effect of Fay, Gustav, Hannah, and Ike has been devastating.
After four fierce storms in less than a month, the little that many people had has turned to nothing at all. Their humble homes are under water, forcing them onto the roofs. Schools are canceled. Hunger is now intense. Difficult lives have become untenable ones and, if that was not enough, hurricane season has only just reached the traditional halfway mark.
Continue reading Ike is headed for Texas.
I didn't watch much of the Republican National Convention last week, but I did happen to be watching when Michael S. Steele, the former lieutentant governor of Maryland, brought the crowd to its feet with his call to "Drill baby, Drill." It didn't make any sense to me then. And it makes less to me now. These are the first two paragraphs from an Environmental Capital post today:
While armchair meteorologists are plotting Hurricane Ike's path into the Gulf of Mexico, trying to divine what could happen to vulnerable Gulf oil installations and oil prices, the real problem isn't short-term price spikes or even refinery outages that drive up the price of gasoline.
The real problem is that thanks to hurricanes, the Gulf of Mexico will never live up to its promise as a mother lode of U.S. domestic oil production, leaving the country even more vulnerable to imports. Then the question becomes--imports from where?
If you don't know Environmental Capital, you're liable to think that it's is some kind of loony leftist, environmentalist whacko blog. Well, guess again. It's one of the Wall Street Journal's blogs.
Gavin at RealClimate.org points to a two-part series by Curtis Brainard in the Columbia Journalism Review, "Public opinion and climate" (part 1, part 2). I encourage you to read the whole thing, but Brainard makes several especially important points.
- [T]he press doesn't do a good job with basic, textbook-style education, whether it be the principles of climate change or any other subject, from economics to heart disease. So expecting the New York Times, the BBC, NPR, or any other news organization to greatly improve the public's understanding of climate is expecting the wrong thing.
- Delineating and accurately describing the various points of science ... and explaining where "consensus" (a controversial term) lies and where it doesn't is one of the most important and challenging tasks for climate reporters. So expecting the New York Times, the BBC, NPR, and other news organizations to get the balance right is something we can expect them to do. And getting the balance right doesn't mean including a climate denialist in every report. It means "eliminating false balance when addressing human activity's role in global warming."
Continue reading Reporting on the climate crisis.
From the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Click on the image for a full-size version.With several weeks left in the melt season, sea ice extent dipped below the 2005 minimum to stand as the second-lowest in the satellite record. The 2005 minimum, at 5.32 million square kilometers (2.05 million square miles), held the record-low minimum until last year.Juliet Eilperin has additional information in a Washington Post story this morning.
I mentioned last month that Michael Mann and Lee Kump from RealClimate.org have a new book out, Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming. I ordered shortly after learning about it, and I finished reading it this weekend. It is a very, very, very good book. Mann and Kump explain the current state of climate science very well. They identify those features of the global climate that we understand well (e.g., the greenhouse effect), those we don't understand so well (e.g., the surface warming expected if CO2 levels increase to 560ppm), and those where the uncertainties are even larger (e.g., how fast will the major ice sheets melt). More importantly, they do a good job of explaining why action to curb climate change makes sense even though there are parts of the climate system we don't understand well.Clearly, we must work to diminish the uncertainty where possible, particularly when it impacts on our ability to make appropriate policy decisions or choose an optimal strategy for mitigating climate change. Recent history has taught us that uncertainties are not adequate justification for avoiding action. We know enough today to understand how vital it is that we act now. (emphasis mine)
Continue reading Dire predictions.
A new ad from our friends at wecansolveit.org. It will run nationally on cable news channels with concentrated efforts in Denver during the Democratic convention and Minneapolis during the Republican convention.
Maybe converting to renewable sources of energy won't be as difficult as some people think.
100% of our energy from sources with zero net carbon emissions in ten years may sound impossible, but Colorado is showing the way. Let's get on with it.
When Colorado voters were deciding whether to require that 10 percent of the state's electricity come from renewable fuels, the state's largest utility fought the proposal, warning that any shift from coal and natural gas would be costly, uncertain and unwise.
Then a funny thing happened. The ballot initiative passed, and Xcel Energy met the requirement eight years ahead of schedule. And at the government's urging, its executives quickly agreed to double the target, to 20 percent.1
100% of our energy from sources with zero net carbon emissions in ten years may sound impossible, but Colorado is showing the way. Let's get on with it.
Continue reading Green energy in Colorado.
