The international community faces the daunting task of determining which countries face the most significant impacts from global warming
"All states may well be candidates for assistance in the uncertain, undoubtedly-turbulent world that awaits if we continue to dither on controlling carbon emissions," he wrote in the report. "We are all in this together, and my results indicate that dangerous climate change is already upon us."
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500
See what we're tweeting about
FlyingTrilobite Tomorrow's Globe shocker: Rob Ford is Vinz Clortho, Keymaster to Gozer. Plans to unleash Destructor/Marshmallow Man upon downtown.
BecCrew Dragon Island Blue is taking over my life
docfreeride Plus side of commencement: I leave so early no one expects me to prepare breakfast before I depart. When I return, however ... #LateLunch
Deadline: Jun 30 2013
Reward: $1,000,000 USD
This is a Reduction-to-Practice Challenge that requires written documentation and&
Deadline: Jun 29 2013
Reward: $7,000 USD
The Seeker for this Challenge desires proposals for chemical methods that could rapidly degrade a dilute aqueous solution
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
28 Comments
Add CommentWe have to take what the world offers. The U.S. cannot make whole everyone from what nature does. And as for global warming, won't there be winners? Fewer deaths from hypothermia? Longer growing seasons? Global cooling would be worse. Enjoy it! Recall, that there has been global warming since the last glaciers lay on the land, in a blink of an eye in geological terms. I doubt man caused the glacier to melt.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUh huh. Yeah, that makes perfect sense, because we are totally not screwing up the world's climate by pumping billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. Of course it's just a big conspiracy to give money to undeserving poor people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHave you ever used common sense? CO2 has been known to be a greenhouse gas for 151 years. It is a scientific fact. It is also a scientific fact that we have raised the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere significantly in the last 100 years. Think logically here: we have this substance that traps heat, and we put more of it in the air, what's going to happen? It's going to get warmer! There are 3 things that could reasonably affect the climate: the sun, volcanoes, and human activity. Solar output has been completely normal in the last few decades, so that's not it. How about volcanoes? Nope, no unusual volcanic activity either. That leaves us. Have we done anything to change the composition of the atmosphere. Well what do you know, we have! Logically, that means observed changes in climate are most likely our fault, not nature's.
And as far as your "wealth redistribution" theory: the GDP of the US is more than $15 trillion, $100 billion to help out poor countries is chump change compared to the US budget.
Commenting on the ARTICLE - it is obvious that there is no scientifically-correct solution to which nation is most deserving of the world's financial aid because of climate - change or otherwise. Natural events have been going on since the earth cooled and many were a lot more extreme and disastrous than those of today. There seems to be a thought that if man is causing bad weather man should compensate those most affected. That is really a political decision, not a scientific decision.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTaken to its conclusion, someone should compensate my neighbors whose barn was burned in a brush fire last week, driven by 50 mph winds. Who caused the high winds? Was it man-caused "climate change"?
While those who believe all or almost all climate change is being caused by man, is there proof provided by scientific method research? Of course not. You can't cut off CO-2 to test the hypotheses. There is a THEORY, supported by "models." Since the climate has warmed since the last glaciation - only some 10,000 years ago, before man created any CO-2, there is reason to suspect that the climate changes without the input of man.
"There is a THEORY, supported by "models." "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you think that the theory is based only on models, you have been misinformed. It isn't really a singular theory anyway; it is a conglomeration of theories such as Planck's Law, Beer and Lambert, Stefan-Boltzmann, chemistry, fluid dynamics, etc. Besides, what do you think are put into the models anyway if not the laws of physics? The models are just ways to try to estimate the things for which there are no simple equations, like, how will the earth's albedo be affected by warmer temperatures reducing the snow and ice cover, and what will happen to Hadley Cell circulation as the energy content of the sea and air increases. History already shows that global warming is real and happening now, models just help to tell us where this road will take us.
And no Sisko, global models are not expected to be very good and predicting regional effects, that does not mean that the models are way off. Obviously, some models will be better than others. Some background:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/faq-on-climate-models/
Three cheers for humans! We are more powerful than the sun, volcanoes, and all other things in nature and we are officially to "blame" for the world’s climate change. Question - which change is it? You may recall that in the 1970s that science was suggesting we prepare for another ice age. So should I pack a swim suit or a parka? Point is, climate change is not that simple. So before you write a check to the Green Fund as penance for the evil CO2 you keep exhaling, consider the point of the article: everyone is fighting over who is more deserving of a fund that has no balance. The fact is that there are many poor people in these countries that are trying to survive and really don’t care if they are first, second, or last on a list as long as they are helped. I personally do not believe the UN or G-77 organizations are an effective means to help these people. Charities and relief organizations that spend their energy on acting, vice arguing, are more likely to effectively use our money.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe fact is that the Earth is getting warmer. If you feel you are to blame, that is your choice. Personally, I am not interested in who or what is to blame, or determining who is more deserving. I think we need to focus more on solutions. The Green Fund is not part of the solution. It seems to only be serving to give governments of developing countries, many of which are corrupt, an opportunity to argue about who will bring home more bacon.
"You may recall that in the 1970s that science was suggesting we prepare for another ice age."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, I don't recall that. Can you survey the peer-reviewed literature and let us know how many thought cooling forces would prevail and how many thought warming forces would be stronger? You can start with the work already done here if you like.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
We can decide to do nothing about this issue now, but we'll just pay for it later. Food prices will continue to rise and water will continue to become increasingly scarce leading to even more political instability and debt crises. If you think we should just stand by and do nothing to address the impact of climate change on the rest of the world, just look at what's happened to our economy and the price of oil recently because of the debt problems in Europe and the instability in the Middle East.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaybe this is the same person you are referring to; however, her conclusions do not appear to support your position.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"We conclude that global data indicate a 30-year trend toward more frequent and intense hurricanes, corroborated by the results of the recent regional assessment (29). This trend is not inconsistent with recent climate model simulations that a doubling of CO2 may increase the frequency of the most intense cyclones (18, 30)..."
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/309/5742/1844.full?ijkey=iqoyPaiwaACR6
What was that about me reading sites other than RealClimate?
Besides, if you have questions about climate models, are you suggesting that you better source than some of the people writing them?
I would like to direct readers to a post on the : Why Are Americans So Ill Informed about Climate Change? The post makes more sense & is more informative than all the articles published on the subject by SA in a very long time. See:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this112. dhhalsey 11:35 AM 2/25/11
Scientifically the statement is quite correct. Tapping the tides, ditto, spacecraft using the slingshot gravity assist method slow the orbital speed of the bodies that they gain energy from. Of course the efects are infitesimal. Despit asides like this, the post is excelent. Chosing to cherrypick things like this & insinuating that because the described efect is minimal, does not invalidate the post. Would that SA & other posters were as accurate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClimate change? Yes I believe in it. Why? Because I grow organic vegetables. From 1957 to about 2003 there was always drought in summer, but enough rain MOST years Spring and Fall. No more. The dry heat starts weeks earlier (with some frost damage).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt affects me directly. That's the crux of it.
A LOT of people feel nothing personally, so they may or may not WANT to consider Climate Change. On top of that personal effect the BIG question - What are YOU willing to give up to improve the situation?
I don't have air conditioning. BUT - I would like it. Most people keep all their windows shut year round - using a lot more ENERGY than years ago. Look at your fuse box, if you have one. Consider how many of those gadgets, utilities, and the BIG climate control heat and air are sucking up energy and spewing out the waste. Count the number of plastic bags, plastic this and that you get and then throw out. ETC.
WHAT ARE YOU WILLING TO GIVE UP in order to reduce your polution to the atmosphere? Not much I bet!
Yes but perhaps if you had been associated with the land since the 1930 or 40s as I have you would have different memories & viewpoint. I was raise on the land during that earlier period & have had association ever since as a grazier & bee keeper(amongst many other interests & enterprises). I now see a repeat of that early period occuring in my area today. the real issue is that both my experience period & yours are both but a blink historically.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs possible evidence that there have been fairly large fluctuations of climate fairly recently in geologic time, but before man had any influence, I quote Richard Foster Flint, Professor of Geology, Yale University: Glacial Geology and the Pleistocene Epoch, p. 525: "taken in conjunction with the evidence (in the fossil record) given by the lowered regional snowlines of mountain regions they indicate a fluctuation of mean temperature, between full glacial and full interglacial conditions, amounting in places to as much as 10 degrees C." There is more, but the truth is we are just in an interglacial period, and a little warming is a good thing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvidently the fact that solar/volcanic activity hasn't changed while the climate has, combined with the fact that human activity has changed atmospheric composition, is not a good enough reason to believe humans are at least mostly responsible for recent climate changes. I am curious what johnjacksonjr thinks is causing it then, if not us, the sun or volcanoes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding the models, it is true that they are all inaccurate when compared with the few things that have measurably changed since they were made: they are all too conservative in their estimates of what changes to expect. As in, even the worst case scenario doesn't predict as much ice loss in the Arctic as we have actually seen. By now everyone has heard about the worst-case scenarios causing mayhem, death and destruction all over the place, and usually even people who acknowledge changing climate dismiss those as unlikely. But so far reality has bested even those simulations. It is entirely possible that that is just a fluke, but what if it's not? It is true that we don't have a full understanding of the climate, and there are feedback mechanisms that affect things, but most of those are positive feedbacks. For example, methane hydrates: ices that are only stable when under a lot of pressure and in relatively cold water. Water temperature goes up, methane gets released. Methane is about 20 times more potent than CO2 as a GHG, and there are billions of tonnes of methane hydrates on the ocean floor. If the temperature crosses a certain point, some of that will be released, which may well raise the temperature enough to release the rest of it. Look up "Great Permian Extinction", methane hydrates played a key role there.
shame on you....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiseven chinese people now are aware of the danger of global warming.i know we didnt reach an agreement in Copenhagen，and maybe this is because the administration group is afraid to lose their margin in some fields,i do feel disappointed in our policy-makers,but as individual who live in this beautiful planet,we care about the climate,the river,the air etc.if we couldnt leave all the prejudice and old-idea behind us,the damages which the climate brings about will not do good to any of us.
As we now know, there is a solar storm underway, with possibly unknown consequences here on earth, and the magnetic pole seems to be accelerating its movement, perhaps preparatory to a switch in its orientation, as has happened several times in the past. There seem to be scientists predicting major unknown consequences of both the solar storm and the magnetic pole movement, including climate change. Neither of these seem to be related to human activity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI find it impossible to believe that human intervention has made a major impact to global warming, even if it might have some effect.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThink about it. Suppose have a greenhouse in your garden, say 10 feet x 8 feet x 6 feet high. When the sun plays on it, it gets very hot pretty quickly. In winter, you would heat it artificially for some reason or other but it uses so much power you would not think of spending so much money. Now lets imagine greenhouses side by side in every direction to cover the whole of LA, for example. How many millions of greenhouses are we talking about? How much heat? A huge amount, of course. Yet this is a tiny, tiny fraction of the heat generated by the sun and falling on the Earth at any one time.
I think we probably can takes the scientists sufficiently on trust and that global warming is either here or pretty close to empirically becoming a proven fact. Yet, even with CO2 from the first fires lit by primitive man accumulating from then until now with some huge industrial plants across the globe and citizens all over the world using power domestically, with heat from these and any other man made sources over the last few thousand years of history and the cumulative effect, the sum total is nothing compared to the sun and anything else from within the earth's core.
Mankind has this hugely inflated ego and forgets the fact that in the schemes of nature our numbers and our significance is absolutely minimal EXCEPT TO US. Yes, we do have a responsibility not to squander our habitat but what we can do may only prolong this planet for humans to survive here for a few nanoseconds more, or less - wars and nuclear bombs excluded.
Just think of it this way. What is currently going on in Libya and everywhere else is hugely unimportant to the evolution of this planet. That it is so important to us means that we are looking inwardly and losing our sense of absolute proportion. So is with global warming and what we can do to influence it.
Almost completely regardless of what we do and do not do, the universe will evolve 99.999999...99% the same way as if we were not even here.
Those who think the major cause of global warming is mankind should be locked up in mental hospitals. Now there's a real problem. Where will we find enough places in hospital for all those who deserve to be there?
Scientific American was once the standard in objective science reporting. Please step back from this "settled" position on man-made climate change and species esteem issues and maybe you can restore a fraction of your scientific credibility. Get back to science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStrange isn’t it. Barely ever any mention of Antarctic by the AGW adherents. Could this possibly be because if the Antarctic is taken into account, the global ice audit actually shows an increase in land based ice? Far from leading to an increase in sea level, this could in fact lower sea levels. Floating ice makes no difference to sea levels even if it does melt completely, which it will not in any foreseeable future. Average sea ice extent in the Antarctic has also been increasing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAsking the question of which countries are at higher risks and who is to receive the limited funds doled out would be first in line, is like asking the question of people on the Titanic who will be in the life boats and those who will not. I feel that when it comes to climate change the whole planet is at risk, and that famine, flooding, droughts, and the Three Horsemen of the Apocalypse is the order of the day. To me climate change is already a done deal that is effecting us now, and it not something that will occur in the not-to-distant-future. As the north and south polar caps melts and the seas rise, fires and droughts scour the land. Most species on planet Earth changes with the conditions of the environment that it lives in,except we as the members of the human race; for we want the world to change according to our wishes and our designs. If humanity does not change will we be one day on the endangered species list?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor every action there is an "equally" positive or negative reaction. Since the time of the industrial revolution when mass production came to be the norm, industrialization has changed the very landscape of the earth; from strip mining to toxic dumping of DDT, dioxin, sulfides, Carbon Dioxide, mercury, human and animal wastes, and heavy doses of nitrogen. Why do we want to believe that all the things we do do not have any consequences for the planet as a whole. Why do we act like spoiled children and want to believe, "I want what I want, and I want it. NOW!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile we debate who or what is to blame for climate change, we can only say,"We shall reap what you sow, and we shall reap the whirlwind".
Scientist overstep their competency when they depart from understanding the world (science) and step into "how to fix the world" which is a social issue for ALL social players to act. Why do we "whine" so much when we enter the social arena of social decisions? Perhaps it is the scientist that needs to be more "socially adult" and stop expecting the world to acquiesce social decisions to the few with the “truth”- at least for a few moments until we learn the next truth – and the next… Did we forget Thomas Kuhn and the scientific revolutions that make science so valuable?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKristi, Your Titanic metaphor is flawed. This is a conversation among people on a cruise ship arguing who will be hurt worse when the sky falls. The argument no longer assumes the hatred of industry and mankind in the discussion of naturally-occurring climate change.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKristi, you have compelling feelings but climate-change is not about feelings. Real science is finally being heard and the truth will recover from the intent to skew the facts with children's feelings books such as "An Inconvenient Truth." I don't share your intense negativity and hatred for mankind or your species-esteem issues. If we vanished from this earth it would recover in its entirety in 50 years. I choose not to be so arrogant as to believe we are really making a lasting impact except in our relationships with each other. Then again, I sort of like humans and what they are about.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's astonishing to me how many retarded conservatives think it's a smart idea to post their crybaby "Whaaa, there's no global warming" bullshit on a forum for a *science* magazine, of all places.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor chrissakes, take your dumbassery back to a Freeper forum, you tools. When you run around waving your hands about nonexistent 'solar storms' and 'oh wow, there is no consensus why do you keep saying there is' and 'I just cannot BELIEVE humanity has this effect' you only demonstrate your inability to absorb factual information. Take your malfunctioning neurons - what few there are - and gracefully exit.
T
Not long ago on this site I got into a debate saying that both sides of the climate change people want your money. There is persent big energy that wants you to keep paying them and there is the climate scare mongers that want your money. The other person was sadly too inane to accept that those in support of climate change want money for it. Now I look at this and smirk with smug knowing that humanity would not let me down.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLook at charts of world temperature http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record and it is clear that climate has been both much hotter and much colder than the present, many times.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat seems to be overlooked is that past climate variations have had major impact in the evolution of humans. The first was warming and drying in Africa that started 20mya and speeded up 10mya. Somewhere along the way, apes which had evolved to hang from trees were forced to walk on ground as trees thinned out and eventually to change their lifestyle, becoming bipedal hunter gatherers.
As the world came out of the last Ice Age 14,000 ya, human populations grew. They came under survival pressure from a sudden dip that took just 50 years to drop into a mini Ice Age 11,000 ya, the Younger Dryas, snapping out of it almost as suddenly about 10,000 ya. That pressure forced some humans in the Fertile Crescent to change their lifestyle. They herded animals they had previously hunted and farmed crops they had previously gathered in the wild. Farming meant settling on land, leading to settlements, towns and, about 6,000 ya, the first cities.
That major change in lifestyle required a change in how humans used the brain that had evolved over millions of years to pass on traditional practices that made humans expert hunter gatherers. Humans began to use conscious processes as a major function of the brain, producing innovations and new technologies in lifestyles that were much more diverse than traditional hunter gatherer lifestyles.
The 10,000 years during which humans have developed modern complex societies just happens to be one of the longest and most stable interglacial periods in recorded climate history. Humans have already influenced climate by clearing land for agriculture and construction of cities. Greenhouse gas emissions might just reach a tipping point that throws climate back into a cycle of volatility and unpredictable surviavl pressures on humans.
actually it would recover after some hundred thousand years, says one book...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this