Climate scientists issue dire warning
Categories:
Climate scientists issue dire warning
David Adam, environment correspondent
Tuesday February 28, 2006
The Guardian
The Earth's temperature could rise under the impact of global warming to levels far higher than previously predicted, according to the United Nations' team of climate experts.
A draft of the next influential Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report will tell politicians that scientists are now unable to place a reliable upper limit on how quickly the atmosphere will warm as carbon dioxide levels increase. The report draws together research over the past five years and will be presented to national governments in April and made public next year. It raises the possibility of the Earth's temperature rising well above the ceiling quoted in earlier accounts.
Such an outcome would have severe consequences, such as the collapse of the Greenland ice sheet and disruption of the Gulf Stream ocean current.
The shift in position comes as Tony Blair is expected to pledge today to work towards a date for stabilising international greenhouse gas emissions when he meets Stop Climate Chaos, the climate change equivalent of Make Poverty History. The group is campaigning for a target date of 2015 for stabilisation, saying a later date would endanger the planet.
The new IPCC report will underpin international talks on how to cut greenhouse gas emissions when the first phase of the Kyoto protocol expires in 2012.
Set up in 1988 by the UN, the IPCC brings together hundreds of experts to summarise the state of climate science for policymakers. It has produced three reports since 1990, each of which has been instrumental in establishing national and international strategies to address global warming. Government officials have until June to comment on the new draft, when scientists will gather in Bergen, Norway, to produce a final version.
The IPCC's removal of the upper temperature estimation is posited on new predictions about how the atmosphere would react to the carbon blanket wrapped around it. The three previous reports assumed that a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would increase average global temperature by between 1.5 and 4.5C. Since then, computer models have foreseen increases as high as 11C, and some scientists wanted the naturally conservative IPCC to raise the upper end of the range. Others said such a move would be increase would be misleading and alarmist.
According to sources who have seen it, the draft now assumes a doubling of carbon dioxide would cause a likely temperature rise of between 2 and 4.5C, but says higher increases are possible.
The shift follows several high profile studies convincing some scientists the atmosphere may be much more sensitive to greenhouse gases than they had thought. Peter Cox, a leading climate expert at the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in Winfrith, Dorset, said: "The scientific agenda has moved from improving the predictions to thinking about what are the chances of something awful happening."
Dr Cox said the IPCC's move is significant because it will force governments to seriously consider extreme scenarios that are unlikely but potentially devastating. "The most probable thing is not the most important thing to worry about. The upper end is where the big problems are, because the impact rises as the temperature does."
If we continue to burn fossil fuels at current rates, levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will reach 550 ppm (parts per million) - double pre-industrial levels - by around 2050. The most recent IPCC report, published in 2001, said this would increase global temperatures by between 1.4 and 5.8C by 2100, and that sea levels would rise by between 0.09 and 0.88 metres.
Climate scientists remain divided about the likelihood of the worst-case scenario being realised. James Annan, a British climate scientist who works on the Japanese Earth simulator supercomputer in Yokohama, says the risks of extreme climate sensitivity and catastrophic consequences have been overstated. He is about to publish a study showing that the chance of climate sensitivity exceeding 4.5C is less than 5%. He said: "It seems to me that some people seem to be talking up the possibility of disaster in order to scare people into doing something."
Dave Stainforth, a climate modeller at Oxford University, said: "This is something of a hot topic but it comes down to what you think is a small chance - even if there's just a half per cent chance of destruction of society, I would class that as a very big risk."
The IPCC findings mirror a British report on avoiding dangerous climate change published last month, in which Mr Blair admitted that the risks may be more serious than previously thought. It included a warning from Chris Rapley, head of the British Antarctic Survey, that the huge west Antarctic ice sheet may be starting to disintegrate, an event that would raise sea levels around the world by five metres. "The last IPCC report characterised Antarctica as a slumbering giant in terms of climate change," he said. "I would say it is now an awakened giant. There is real concern."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1719607,00.html?gusrc=rss
What is the REAL problem?
What is the REAL problem?
For the few individuals masquerading behind and endless string of anonymous 'internet identities' it is that the SCIENCE I present IS valid AND is even common knowledge and practice. These 'few' are NOW near immediately attempting to attack, harass and/or belittle myself, knowing FULL WELL that every point they would otherwise raise has already been indicated as flawed in SCIENCE, in 'numerous other places' as well as here.
So too is the already seen harassment with the attempts to indicate ANYTHING about my use of a TRADEMARK that is NOT noticing the already rendered information that such TRADEMARK is to IDENTIFY myself as a REAL person.
Not only is it associated with my CURRENT residential address (always), it was gained with MORE personal identity information that was needed for a PASSPORT (at the time I gained such TRADEMARK) and the information can be used IN the Australian White Pages (online also) to gain my PRESENT phone contacts AND verify the ADDRESS I reside at. I have even given the links to the Australian Intellectual Property Site AND the Australian White Pages site, but these FEW seem NOT to wish to look at REAL information.
That I have been ill, and not working AT ALL for over a decade, also makes STILL a mockery of the repeated attempt(s) to allude to some supposed 'corporate affiliation' as reason for me in raising the points and issues that I do.
The email address I use, being Hartlod@bigpond.com, is infact my ISP ACCOUNT email address, NOT a 'free account' as the few HAVE attempted to make innuendo from behind in anonymity.
Still however these self interested few attempt to PROTECT these 'greenhouse concepts', but NOW they attempt to not even associate these concepts with their 'comment's knowing already the inherent flaws within these 'greenhouse concepts'.
* You can refer to material (for further detail) contained within the links:-
http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312 and http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/348
For a short outline with slides, see:- http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/113579/index.php#comments
Your's,
Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
Hartlod(tm)...is it a product or just another corporado?
Of course they issue dire warnings you moron, it's a dire situation; unless you happen to be among the VERY FEW still attempting to debunk what the VAST, VAST MAJORITY of world scientists are warning us about.
When is it that a 'climate scientist' is NOT being 'dire'?
Climate is never still, it seems the 'climate community' is the only to not now realise this, and a few journalists within the UK. 'Climate Doom & Woe' began 30 years ago with 'global cooling', progressed to 'global warming' and now seems intent on foisting 'greenhouse danger'. Seriously, how can these few 'scientists' expect to 'trade' any longer on only 'opinion', 'rhetoric' and press releases regarding more 'dire warnings'?
To save time retyping, you (and others) should look at
http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312
Notice the plot of Human population. From 500 million to over 5 billion in under 400 years, the most rapid rise within the past 100 years. The commonly quoted 'average temperature increase' is also of the planetary surface, and this represents ONLY that kinetic energy NOT as yet conducted to the atmosphere to then produce the effects of Turbulence, including Convection, which is displayed also in the motions of Oceanic currents.
The energy incident to the surface is seen in the plot of atmospheric energy absorbance, and is encompassed in the lower and upper Visible spectrum (where this energy is consumed by the process of Photosynthesis), and within the lower third of the UV spectrum (NOT REGION).
You will notice from the slides in the mentioned link that it is obvious that alterations to the planetary surface are inducing the redistribution to kinetic energy induction, and so are leading weather patterning away from what some would call the 'normal'.
Climate is presenting 'persistence', and NEVER permanence.
It should be realised that the climate is progressing out of a glaciation. These glaciations are seen to reoccur within irregularly occurring periods of varying length, see the last side below. This particular period of glaciations is already 2 million years old.
In the last glaciation (from which present climate is rising), there was permanent snow, with dependant fauna (and I assume flora) somewhere just north of today's Texas, as example, at around 15,000 years ago. 'Texas' itself would have been grassed heavily with ample water from melt as the glaciation reverted to the present warming period.
Now, we have much marginal terrain (desert like) within the planetary 'equatorial region'. The 'temperate region' is heavily covered in photosynthetic mass (if you imagine the forests removed by Humanity to be present, for illustrative purpose). The 'Polar Regions' are now just warming.
This indicates to the MAJORITY (many of the other ~500 Million tertiary educated members of the public, and also those interested in looking at what is taught pre-tertiary level) in regard to natural climate alterations, that what we are seeing as effect is primarily the NATURAL progressions of the primary CLIMATE oscillation; again see http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312 for more detail.
What 'climate science' tries to present however is a 'new phrase', as an example "Polar Amplification", as it seems linguistic dexterity is a more major component of 'climate education' than is SCIENCE, and common knowledge (and sense). Perhaps too much 'political science' is incorporated in to 'climate tutorials'.
It is indeed, as some have mentioned in this site, that too much 'politics' is used in reference to 'greenhouse warming'. It is that after the 'greenhouse hypothesis' FAILED to be validated in its three attempts, it was run into the political arena, where it remains as a platformed ideology, still invalid in it's implementations of SCIENCE.
The natural oscillation of climate is well KNOWN, documented and realised as EXISTENT. It is NOT as yet shown that any substantial alterations to this oscillation have been made. It IS noted that additions of KINETIC ENERGY have been made to some events linked to Turbulence. This is recorded as a small increase in surface temperatures, a measure of retained intrinsic KINETIC ENERGY generation within the MATERIALS of the surface. This is link to the alterations OF the MATERIALING present, due to the activities of Humanity within the past 400 years and in particular in the last 100 years.
These additions of kinetic energy will increase the AMPLITUDE of the short term oscillations of climate, but have little effect on the LONG TERM oscillation. The LONG TERM oscillation is defined by interactions of oscillators such as the planetary axial precession and orbital path variations. You also have the 'climate systems' of the Star Sol creating variations in energy output INDEPENDANT of our planetary oscillator's altogether.
As such the trivariant of axial precession, orbital variation and Solar Climate form one primary oscillator, with the Solar Climate being the greatest 'unknown' variant component, as an example. This alters the placement of land mass surface to the 'face' of the system star.
Is there 'compelling evidence' for this being 'the warmest period in the past 1000 years', the warmest its been for 5000 years with the highest rate of 'warming' for the past 10000 years with all this related to 'greenhouse concepts'? No not really, let us all think, ICE AGE, and consider when and why the ice retreated.
Are we at or near a peak in the NATURAL climate oscillation? If you look AT the numerous temperature plots about, you might note the 'symmetry' of the 'wobble' exhibited.
See the link again http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312 and additional comments.
If the overall oscillation was still upwards, there would be additive effects for the 'Positive secondary oscillator output' with the 'primary waveform'; this would also limit the 'subtractive interactions' effects as these would be working against the overall effect. You would see smaller periods of rapid rise into warmth with cooler periods in between.
If the overall oscillation was past peak and descending again, the 'secondary positive additions' would be 'subtractive' and the 'negative secondary additions' would be 'additive'. You would see rapid descent into mini cold period's tween small periods of relative 'warmth'. It is presently considered that the climate is in a warming period tween periods of cooling, or even glaciation.
The primary oscillation will 'carry' this mini (secondary) oscillation along, varying the extremes of the 'mini peaks and troughs' and the RATE of rise/decline between these shorter periods. You can reference any number of 'temperature' plots to note the symmetry of the 'wobble'.
This will be the case unless the primary oscillation is at a peak or trough, where the 'flatness' of the primary oscillator effect is made 'transparent' in effect, and we can see the secondary effects with greatest CLARITY.
Climate is never still, never has been still, and never will. It is Humanity that has labeled behavior and developed concepts relating to 'permanence' when perhaps the notion of 'persistence' would have been the better basis of definition.
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
Post new comment