The U.S., which emits the most greenhouse gases, has so far not accepted any form of reduction in such emissions, either as part of international efforts or domestically. But it also acceded to this summary, saying it "summarizes the current state of climate change research and will serve as a valuable source of information for policymakers," according to a statement from Sharon Hays, leader of the U.S. delegation and deputy director for science at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Efforts to combat climate change include proposals to mimic the natural cooling effect of volcanic eruptions or to place an enormous parasol in space to block sunlight. "We could probably offset the effects now by having a big volcano every 10 years or so," Forster says. "You would have to do it now, you'd have to do it for the rest of time or until you find some other alternative. It can only ever be temporary."
But there are other, less intrusive options. "The largest opportunity is energy efficiency," says Halldor Thorgiersson, deputy executive secretary for scientific and technological advice at the UNFCCC. "There are also new technologies such as carbon capture and storage." Already, potential impacts of climate change should be taken into account for long-term planning, such as hydroelectric projects or sewer systems that will last a century or more, says lead author David Wratt, principal scientist for New Zealand's National Climate Center. "Let's not do the minimum, let's put in some tolerances or at least make it so that putting [in] more pipes in 50 years isn't too difficult."
It is now clear that the world will undergo even more rapid changes this century if the levels of greenhouse gas emissions are not slowed. "If we were to have continued emissions at or above the current levels, the changes in the 21st century would very likely be larger than they were in the 20th century," Solomon says, just as the rate of sea level change in the 19th century is dwarfed by the rate of sea level change in the 20th century. "We now know we have warming and it is due to humans, there should be no real debate," Overpeck adds. "We know there have been a variety of associated changes: stronger hurricanes, reduction of snowpack. These are the kind of changes we have had that are detectable with just a fraction of a degree of warming."
"We're going to see these same patterns continue in the future and get more and more severe," he continues. "We have a really clear picture of what is going to happen if we don't do anything or if we make some reduction in emissions."
See what we're tweeting about
27 Comments
Add CommentThe Sun has a magnetosphere. It generates induction heating away from and under it's surface. The Earth has a magnetosphere. It is experiencing pole reversal. I believe the complicated magnetosphere caused by pole reversal is generating induction heating above and below it's surface.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis induction heating plays a major roll in causing global heating. The carbon is due to humans turning our atmosphere into a toilette !.
Jeff Griffiths
Umhlanga
South Africa
Maybe now the climatologists can tell the economists how much temperature benefit will come by taking certain actions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd then the economists can tell us if it makes sense to spend money preventing climate change, or adapting to it.
Or are the climatologists going to speak for the economists?
It is a shame that this article does not show just how much of the 380 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere comes from man made CO2. Well I can tell you that it is only an insignificant 19 parts per million and over the past 10 years CO2 from natural sources increased by 78.5 parts per million. If man had eradicated all of its CO2, then CO2 would still have increased by 4 times the amount eradicated. In other words the USA is correct, because reducing man made CO2 will have no effect on climate. We should accept global warming and do something to protect those that will be most seriously affected
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wish there would be a summary article to discuss the exact data that "experts" are using to determine global warming. I hate being led blindly by faith and what "experts" are "telling" me. Show me the beef!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a response to David Watkin's assertion on the source of CO2, it would be very helpful to understand the source of this information. Because I've seen David post the same information against other stories, also unattributed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTwo issues: 1. if you can't attribute where data comes from, it could come from anywhere: why should we trust it, and 2. the very report that this article refers to has an entirely opposite story to tell, and is based on peer-reviewed work.
So David's making a massive assertion, totally contrary to the IPCC, and not backing it up. We deserve better.
BTW, some words from the IPCC's
(continued...)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBTW, some words from the IPCC's "Summary for Policymakers":
"Carbon dioxide is the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas (see Figure SPM.2). The global atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased from a pre-industrial value of about 280 ppm
to 379 ppm in 2005. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2005 exceeds by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm) as determined from ice cores. The annual carbon dioxide
concentration growth rate was larger during the last 10 years (1995–2005 average: 1.9 ppm per year), than it has been since the beginning of continuous direct atmospheric measurements (1960–2005 average: 1.4
ppm per year) although there is year-to-year variability
in growth rates.
The primary source of the increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide since the pre-industrial period results from fossil fuel use, with land-use change providing another signifi cant but smaller contribution."
Full citation (practicing what I preach...)
IPCC, 2007: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
What effect do Global evection and epeirogeny have on Global warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe know the moom is definitely affected by the former if not the latter. We've never seen anything in writing on either effect. GPZepeda
Woodyone on 7/3/08 is absolutely correct in the figures that he quotes. My figures were given by a UK Government spokesman, who stated that over the past 10 years, Human CO2 had added 1.5 ppm to the atmosphere making the human proportion of CO2, 19 parts per million.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wrote to DEFRA, the agency that gives the information to the Government and had a reply last week.They stated that over the past 10 years humans had added approx 14 ppm CO2 to the atmosphere, which equated with the overall CO2 increase in 10 years of 14 ppm to 380 ppm, thus concluding that the increase was wholly caused by humans. They then went on to state that human emissions were only 3.5% of the overall total CO2, which means that the human CO2 proportion would only be 13 ppm, (i.e less than their stipulated increase in 10 years). I have always understood that the human CO2 proportion was 5%, which would confirm the original Government announcement that the human proportion is 19 ppm. (5% of 380). So I come back to my original statement that if CO2 has increased by 80 ppm, then if we eliminated 100% (19 ppm) of human emissions, it would have no effect at all on global warming. DEFRA also stated that approx 50% CO2 was absorbed by the oceans and vegetation. DEFRA gave no explanation of the fact that there has been no global warming in the past 10 years, even though human CO2 emissions have been the highest.
Out of interest you may like to know that the warmest decade in Greenland was the 1930s and the ice sheet did not melt, so there is no fear of the ice melting and increasing sea levels for quite some time, as temperatures there are still well down on the 1930s.
Woodyone on 7/3/08 is absolutely correct in the figures that he quotes. My figures were given by a UK Government spokesman, who stated that over the past 10 years, Human CO2 had added 1.5 ppm to the atmosphere making the human proportion of CO2, 19 parts per million.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wrote to DEFRA, the agency that gives the information to the Government and received their reply last week. They stated that over the past 10 years humans had added approx 14 ppm CO2 to the atmosphere, which equated with the overall CO2 increase in 10 years of 14 ppm to 380 ppm, thus concluding that the increase was wholly caused by humans. They then went on to state that human emissions were only 3.5% of the overall total CO2, which means that the human CO2 proportion would only be 13 ppm, (i.e less than their stipulated increase in 10 years). I have always understood that the human CO2 proportion was 5%, which would confirm the original Government announcement that the human proportion is 19 ppm. (5% of 380). So I come back to my original statement that if CO2 has increased by 80 ppm, then if we eliminated 100% (19 ppm) of human emissions, it would have no effect at all on global warming. DEFRA also stated that approx 50% CO2 was absorbed by the oceans and vegetation. DEFRA gave no explanation of the fact that there has been no global warming in the past 10 years, even though human CO2 emissions have been the highest.
Out of interest you may like to know that the warmest decade in Greenland was the 1930’s and the ice sheet did not melt, so there is no fear of the ice melting and increasing sea levels for quite some time, as temperatures there are still well down on the 1930’s.
Global temperature: Just what is being measured, and how - particularly for past millenia? Sea, air, earth temperature? Where? How is such a measure, obviously some sort of average, being quoted to such a degree of accuracy, ie tenths of a degree - even if perhaps we're only talking about changes in temperature?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFinally! Thank you all for not buying into this crap that we humans are the cause of Global Warming. It is true that we should curb our use of fossil fuels to clean our air but as David Watkins pointed out, even if we didn't use fossil fuels at all, that would still not affect Global Warming. What is the real cause? The answer is very simple, and yet I've read articles in this magazine, or others just like it, that reveal the fact that "true" information is being suppressed to ensure the implementation of a global carbon tax. This is a tax on life people! Which both main presidential candidates support by the way. So then what pray tell is the actual cause of Global Warming? Its big, its bright, you couldn't have life on Earth the way we know it without it, it is (dun-da-da-dunn) the Sun. As you know the Sun is going through a period of increased activity which has an affect on us on a global scale. Here's a question for people who still argue it is us and our cars causing this problem: Other planets in our solar system are experiencing similar conditions, ie: the melting of ice-caps, so please tell me how our driving automobiles and us BREATHING has anything to do with these global changes on other worlds? The answer: absolutely nothing. And if we are not the cause of global warming on other worlds then again I ask : what is the cause? And again I answer: the sun!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFinally! Thank you all for not buying into this crap that we humans are the cause of Global Warming. It is true that we should curb our use of fossil fuels to clean our air but as David Watkins pointed out, even if we didn't use fossil fuels at all, that would still not affect Global Warming. What is the real cause? The answer is very simple, and yet I've read articles in this magazine, or others just like it, that reveal the fact that "true" information is being suppressed to ensure the implementation of a global carbon tax. This is a tax on life people! Which both main presidential candidates support by the way. So then what pray tell is the actual cause of Global Warming? Its big, its bright, you couldn't have life on Earth the way we know it without it, it is (dun-da-da-dunn) the Sun. As you know the Sun is going through a period of increased activity which has an affect on us on a global scale. Here's a question for people who still argue it is us and our cars causing this problem: Other planets in our solar system are experiencing similar conditions, ie: the melting of ice-caps, so please tell me how our driving automobiles and us BREATHING has anything to do with these global changes on other worlds? The answer: absolutely nothing. And if we are not the cause of global warming on other worlds then again I ask : what is the cause? And again I answer: the sun!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd Barack Obama wants to declare CO2 a dangerous pollutant, the legal equivalent of lead and carbon monoxide? Utterly asinine. How about oxygen? it does far more damage, rusting cars and machinery, creating CO2 when it decomposes organic matter. Far more dangerous and sinister; let's outlaw O2! And the wind! it aids and abets the production of CO2 by increasing oxidation! Ban the wind!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you Shoshin. Many people believe the hype and feel Obama is trying to do the best for us by saving the environment, when, in actuality, he is not. If he believes this information is the truth then he is just a blind fool. My guess, however, is that he knows exactly what he's doing and the people will believe it because the Mainstream Media says to believe it. This tax is the equivalent to enslavement of every living person on Earth just because they are alive and breathe air. It's so very sad that people will follow Obama or McCain blindly without knowing what these candidates are intending to do. Please people think, think, think.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are no "FINAL REPORTS" in science; everything is up for grabs always, even Einstein's work. If you want to issue "FINAL REPORTS", stick to politics or religion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDavid Biello is not a scientist, nor is he a journalist. He is a propagandist or at best, an alarmist, working for the globalist machinery. The report is garbage. People must penetrate the matrix and begin thinking for themselves. Carbon is the BASIS of LIFE. More bio-active Carbon = more bio-life. One only needs to examine geological history to confirm this fact. Those ages, with warm temps and high CO2, were ages of extremely abundant life, widely distributed. More so, than now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is reckless to assume that the ideal climate for the planet is the present one. To attempt to preserve this climate, would be an attempt to keep the planet locked in it's current ice age. I for one, do not want to doom the planet to a eternal ice age.
The concern about anthropogenic CO2 is grossly misplaced. None of the AGWers will mention the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. At 300 parts per million it amount to 5*(10)**15 pounds and our contribution is 3 orders of magnitude less. Another sticky-wicket for the global warmers is the Carbon-14, the isotope produced high in the atmosphere. The fossil fuel CO2 does not contain that isotope so the concentration of C14 should be decreasing; it isn't.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere can be no further discussion. All of the scientists that we agree with agree we have to take drastic immedate measures to save the earth! or we might cause Global Warming as bad as happened 125,000 years ago.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf I remember correctly isn't 125,000 years the length of an ice age cycle
This warming would vary from place to place, with some regions experiencing far more. "The last time our polar regions of the earth were significantly warmer than they are today over an extended period occurred 125,000 years ago," Solomon notes. "At that very different time we did see reductions in the polar ice sheets that led to four to six meters (13 to 20 feet) of sea level rise." Adds geoscientist and lead author Jonathan Overpeck of the University of Arizona, some scientists "drilled through an Antarctic ice sheet and it wasn't there then. That's going to be a big focus for the future."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't understand how man can be blamed for global warming entirely. If the scientific community can agree that there were previous ice ages and thawing cycles, how can we logically state that humans cause global warming. How many factories, cars and coal power plants were around during the previous ice age?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow many cars and factories were there during the previous ice age thaw cycle 15,000 years ago that the same scientific community recognizes. I do not know what to believe anymore.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCARBON DIOXIDE IS NOT A POLLUTANT, it is an absolutely nesessary gas for the existence of life.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIT DOES NOT CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING, wake up people you are being lied to,conned. CO2 amount in the atmosphere follows temperature, it does not cause or lead temperature. Go look at the observed facts, don't let opinionators and theoryests think for you.
Cap and Trade is a huge TAX on poor people. Right now,as we speak, rich people are in Washington DC making up the rules to vastly enrich themselves.
Obama's on the way! He is appointing czars and advisors who believe in population control, eugenics, forced abortions, forced sterilizations from the food and water supply, and reduction in the amount of food we eat. Though his position on pushing for growing corn for ethanol feedstock on marginal land which requires significant fertilizer and irrigation which increases the N2O (298X worse than CO2) and water vapor would seem to contradict reducing GWG. But hey, if the UN says mankind is evil and must be brought under its thumb, let's get the enslavement started. Who cares that global temps have stabalized since 1998. Let's not let facts get in the way of globalization.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisall that I've searched says that man-made global warming is a hoax and a scam. originally a scheme by communists to heavily tax the people. Gore's movie adds to the hysteria and makes a billionaire out of gore and his cohorts.Lobbyist have convinced the congress of this great lie. since none of them read they eat it up.while preventing any reasonable debate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe IPCC report was scrubbed of all dissenting scientific data before issuing this report. An original summary review stated so, but subsequently the summary review was scrubbed so that nothing in writing admits that they deleted what did not comport to their pre-conceived conclusion. This is not science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe summary for Policymakers gives some suggestions to adapt to changes. I believe that is the only option for us. Other refuse we dump in atmosphere like mercury or sulfur are much worse for our health and should also be kept in focus.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe more I dig into "global warming" the more I feel that we are being fed a line of BS!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no doubt that the world has been warming. It started warming at the end of the mini ICE AGE (early to mid 1800's) and has cont to this very day.
It would appear that CO2 follows warming and does not drive it.
According to the ARGOS ocean drift buoy program the temp of the oceans are NOT rising. Therefore given that this is a water planet I would think that the global warming period has peaked or has leveled off.
As someone who has lived by and worked on the Pacific Ocean all his life I do not see evidence that the sea level is rising. Ocean levels cannot rise in one part of the world without doing it in all parts. therefore if it is not rising where I can observe it I don't believe it is rising anywhere else.
I believe that the worlds climates go through cycles of warming and cooling. Since man started keeping records the world was in a cooler than normal period. It has warmed considerably since the last cool period ended. We are still not up to what would be considered normal temp for this planet.
Man always has a desire to attribute dramatic events to his doings when in reality he really cannot come near to competing with nature in influencing anything as large as global climate.
I just don't buy it. Carbon credits etc etc. what a crock. Follow the $'s. Someone is making a fortune on the gullibility of people. The climate of the earth will rise when the climate of the SUN pours forth a higher amount of energy. It will cool when the climate of the Sun puts out a reduced amount of energy.