Tipping points

RealClimate has a great post up on climate "tipping points," a notion that has been used and abused with great frequency lately by laymen and journalists.. It goes into detail picking apart positive feedbacks, tipping points, and points of no return.The most valuable bit for me was clarifying what James Hansen has in mind when he says that we have ten years to fundamentally change course:

A new study out of Sydney, Australia has shown a link between depression (and bipolar disorder) and deficiency of Omega-3 fatty acids in the diet.

Ecodrive, a large Canadian supplier of electric vehicles, announced today that they will be releasing the world's first commercially available electric motorcycles and scooters powered by Polymer Lithium-Ion (PLI) batteries. The company says the polymer technology will overcome many of the shortcomings associated with other types of rechargeable batteries. The batteries will be used in their E-cycles and EVT lines of electric motorcycles. :: Ecodrive

What does the greenhouse effect have to do with global warming?

The "greenhouse effect" refers to the natural phenomenon that keeps the Earth in a temperature range that allows life to flourish. The sun's enormous energy warms the Earth's surface and its atmosphere. As this energy radiates back toward space as heat, a portion is absorbed by a delicate balance of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere—among them carbon dioxide and methane—which creates an insulating layer. With the temperature control of the greenhouse effect, the Earth has an average surface temperature of 59°F (15°C). Without it, the average surface temperature would be 0°F (-18°C), a temperature so low that the Earth would be frozen and could not sustain life.

"Global warming" refers to the rise in the Earth's temperature resulting from an increase in heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere.

back to top

What is causing global warming?

		offsite   General emissions information       Past emissions trends   Emissions trends in the United States      International emissions trends

Scientists have concluded that human activities are contributing to global warming by adding large amounts of heat-trapping gases to the atmosphere. Our fossil fuel use is the main source of these gases. Every time we drive a car, use electricity from coal-fired power plants, or heat our homes with oil or natural gas, we release carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases into the air. The second most important source of greenhouse gases is deforestation, mainly in the tropics, and other land-use changes.

Since pre-industrial times, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased by 31 percent. Over the same period, atmospheric methane has risen by 151 percent, mostly from agricultural activities like growing rice and raising cattle.

As the concentration of these gases grows, more heat is trapped by the atmosphere and less escapes back into space. This increase in trapped heat changes the climate, causing altered weather patterns that can bring unusually intense precipitation or dry spells and more severe storms.

The observed warming over the past 100 years is unlikely to be due to natural causes alone; it was unusual even in the context of the last 1,000 years.
There are better techniques to detect climatic changes and attribute them to different causes.
Simulations of the climate's response to natural causes (sun, volcanoes, etc.) over the latter half of the 20th century alone cannot explain the observed trends.
Most simulation models that take into account greenhouse gas emissions and sulphate aerosols (which have a cooling effect) are consistent with observations over the last 50 years.

How much warmer is the Earth likely to become?

		offsite   View past global temperature trends   View U.S. and global climatic      trends      Latest IPCC (WG I) projections

The IPCC's Third Assessment Report projects that the Earth's average surface temperature will increase between 2.5° and 10.4°F (1.4°-5.8°C) between 1990 and 2100 if no major efforts are undertaken to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases (the "business-as-usual" scenario). This is significantly higher than what the Panel predicted in 1995 (1.8°-6.3°F, or 1.0°-3.5°C), mostly because scientists expect a reduced cooling effect from tiny particles (aerosols) in the atmosphere.

Scientists predict that even if we stopped emitting heat-trapping gases immediately, the climate would not stabilize for many decades because the gases we have already released into the atmosphere will stay there for years or even centuries. So while the warming may be lower or increase at a slower rate than predicted if we reduce emissions significantly, global temperatures cannot quickly return to today's averages. And the faster and more the Earth warms, the greater the chances are for some irreversible climate changes.

Would a temperature rise of a couple degrees really change the global climate?

		offsite    Potential impacts on the U.S.    Worldwide early warning signs

An increase of a few degrees won't simply make for pleasantly warmer temperatures around the globe. Even a modest rise of 2°- 3°F (1.1°-1.7°C) could have dramatic effects. In the last 10,000 years, the Earth's average temperature hasn't varied by more than 1.8°F (1.0°C). Temperatures only 5°-9°F cooler than those today prevailed at the end of the last Ice Age, in which the Northeast United States was covered by more than 3,000 feet of ice.

Scientists predict that continued global warming on the order of 2.5°-10.4°F over the next 100 years (as projected in the IPCC's Third Assessment Report) is likely to result in:
a rise in sea level between 3.5 and 34.6 in. (9-88 cm), leading to more coastal erosion, flooding during storms, and permanent inundation severe stress on many forests, wetlands, alpine regions, and other natural ecosystems
greater threats to human health as mosquitoes and other disease-carrying insects and rodents spread diseases over larger geographical regions
disruption of agriculture in some parts of the world due to increased temperature, water stress, and sea-level rise in low-lying areas such as Bangladesh or the Mississippi River delta.

Is global warming connected to the hole in the ozone layer?

NASA image -- Ozone layer hole

Global warming and ozone depletion are two separate but related threats. Global warming and the greenhouse effect refer to the warming of the lower part of the atmosphere (also known as the troposphere) due to increasing concentrations of heat-trapping gases. By contrast, the ozone hole refers to the loss of ozone in the upper part of the atmosphere, called the stratosphere. This is of serious concern because stratospheric ozone blocks incoming ultraviolet radiation from the sun, some of which is harmful to plants, animals, and humans.

The two problems are related in a number of ways, including:
Some human-made gases, called chlorofluorocarbons, trap heat and destroy the ozone layer. Currently, these gases are responsible for less than 10 percent of total atmospheric warming, far less than the contribution from the main greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide.
The ozone layer traps heat, so if it gets destroyed, the upper atmosphere actually cools, thereby offsetting part of the warming effect of other heat-trapping gases. But that's no reason to rejoice: the cooling of the upper layers of the atmosphere can produce changes in the climate that affect weather patterns in the higher latitudes.
Trapping heat in the lower part of the atmosphere allows less heat to escape into space and leads to cooling of the upper part of the atmosphere. The colder it gets, the greater the destruction of the protective ozone layer.

		offsite   Kyoto Protocol (greenhouse gases)      Montreal Protocol (ozone)

Reducing ozone-depleting gases is crucial to preventing further destruction of the ozone layer, but eliminating these gases alone will not solve the global warming problem. On the other hand, efforts to reduce all types of emissions to limit global warming will also be good for the recovery of the ozone layer.

Is there anything we can do about global warming?

		in global environment   Personal global warming solutions   The role of forests in protecting     climate  on UCS website   Clean vehicles program   Clean energy program         offsite   Fuel-efficient cars   Energy-efficient products   Green-e Renewable Energy Program

Yes! The most important action we can take to slow global warming is to reduce emissions of heat-trapping gases. Governments, individuals, and businesses can all help. Governments can adopt a range of options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, including
increasing energy efficiency standards
encouraging the use of renewable energy sources (such as wind and solar power)
eliminating subsidies that encourage the use of coal and oil by making them artificially cheap
protecting and restoring forests, which serve as important storehouses of carbonIndividuals can reduce the need for fossil fuels and often save money by
driving less and driving more fuel-efficient and less-polluting cars using energy-efficient appliances
insulating homes using less electricity in general Businesses can increase efficiency and save substantial sums by doing the same things on a larger scale. And utilities can avoid building expensive new power plants by encouraging and helping customers to adopt efficiency measures.

Will responding to global warming be harmful to our economy?

		in publications   Clean Energy Blueprint    Drilling in Detroit    Common Sense on Climate Change  offsite     Economics of climate change

Reducing our impact on the global climate does not have to hurt the world's economies. The answer depends much on the "how" and "when."

The challenge is to strike a balance between responding early enough to avoid major negative (costly) impacts, and responding some time later in order to avoid taking big, expensive steps now which then may turn out to be unnecessary or inappropriate. This type of challenge is typical in business and industry; decision-making under uncertainty is the daily bread of most managers.

Clearly, global warming still involves many unknowns, but the remaining uncertainties in our scientific understanding no longer warrant a "wait and see" stance. Science tells us with increasing certainty that we are in for a serious long-term problem that will affect all of us.

And there is much we can do now that makes sense in terms of the economic bottom line while helping to reduce our impact on the global climate and on our local environment and health. The United States and other developed countries should seize the opportunity to take the lead in developing new, clean, energy-efficient technologies, and help developing countries take a greener path to economic prosperity. All of this can be done in a cost-effective manner, while creating jobs and new business opportunities.

More questions? If you have other questions about global warming, check out our briefings, updates, recommendations, analyses, guides, and links. In addition, there are many web sites that answer frequently asked questions. We recommend the following: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf
/content/ClimateScienceFAQ.html

The Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html

The United Nations Environment Programme/World Meteorological Organization:
http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/qa/cover.html

Living beyond the planet’s limits

Can humankind win the 21st-century civil war against its own destructive, wasteful lifestyles? Mayer Hillman argues that this is a matter not of choice but of survival. A primary lesson that the world’s people failed to learn during the 20th century must be learned in the 21st century: that economic growth, as pursued in all countries around the world, cannot be maintained. The planet has a fixed capacity to absorb the greenhouse gases that are too closely associated with that growth, and the damaging consequences of ignoring this fact are already evident. Prospects are grim indeed unless the energy-profligate lifestyles that represent one of the primary components of growth are drastically curbed. We are truly at a defining moment in history. Don’t miss other articles in openDemocracy’s debate on the politics of climate change This fixed capacity makes it essential that we no longer gloss over the issue of fairness as we have done in the past – outrageously fobbing off those complaining about the size of their slice of cake on the grounds that, with the larger cake that growth will assuredly deliver, they will have more to eat. That line of argument cannot be deployed any more: we now know that if some have more than their fair share, others inevitably must have less. Successive governments have not acknowledged the enormity of the essential changes that have to be made in light of this simple and obvious equation. From this perspective, and on moral and political grounds alike, there is only one type of policy with any prospect of delivering the degree of reduction in carbon emissions required to avoid serious destabilisation of the planet’s climate: one based on the emissions’ fair allocation. How well do governments in countries responsible for the largest emissions, those in the rich western world, respond to this challenge? The equitable figure for the populations of affluent countries such as Britain is a reduction in emissions into the atmosphere of over 90% by 2050, but Tony Blair’s government has pledged a target of only 60% – even though the targets determined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were global ones. This crucial consideration is often ignored. Moreover, the 2050 target presupposes without evidence that feedback mechanisms will before that date be stalled or reversed: for example, higher temperatures melting the tundra in northern latitudes, releasing vast quantities of methane (a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide), in the process accelerating global warming beyond human control. Indeed, there is fairly compelling evidence that this is occurring now. Likewise, the ceiling of 550ppm (parts per million) set for this concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere presupposes that a “no-regrets” limit (at present about 380ppm — a level which is already the source of serious climatic changes) will not be exceeded. As seems likely in view of the urgency with which action needs to be taken, an annual reduction of 10% over the next twenty-five years is required to achieve the 90% decrease. A cause for very real concern, therefore, is the underlying continuing promotion of energy-intensive activities. In Britain, the annual distances travelled by each person in the last fifty years have increased six-fold; within the next twenty years, mileage by air alone is forecast to exceed current mileage by road and rail combined. In other parts of the developed world, such as north America, the situation is far worse. The fact that we continue with these totally unsustainable lifestyles reflects a widespread collective amnesia and near-universal state of denial about the compelling significance of climate change. These attitudes help to fuel eight fallacious, interlocked assumptions about what could be done to prevent severely damaging outcomes from climate change. These include: the primary route to raising the quality of life is by improving our material circumstances there are no limits to this process – provided it is done “sustainably” economic growth can be decoupled sufficiently from energy use to prevent carbon emissions leading to climatic catastrophes market forces combined with proper pricing are the best way of achieving this technology can provide the answers to any difficulties that may arise in implementing the strategy the aim of policy can continue to be widening public choice, for example enabling “further and faster” travel by road, rail and air — with restriction solely limited to what can be reasonably afforded to provide local, or at best, national protection of the environment public transport, with greater public investment, can be relied upon as the panacea for the “transport ills” caused by too great a demand for private transport greater energy efficiency, an accelerated programme of transfer from the use of fossil fuels to energy renewables and the sequestration of carbon dioxide will prove sufficient to enable avoidance of any major modifications to our preferred lifestyles. Belief that such an ill-founded strategy will prove adequate is very attractive. It suits politicians who wish to impress on the electorate the view that they have matters well in hand; it appeals to industry, the viability of which is very dependent on a “business as usual” growth scenario; and it feeds most people’s strong wish not to be denied ever-widening choice and improved circumstances to the point that these are almost seen as an inalienable right. No time to lose A very different framework to combat climate change – and in my view the only solution that has both moral justification and the political prospect of broad intergovernmental agreement – has been developed by the Global Commons Institute (GCI). It is called “contraction & convergence”, and involves steadily reducing global carbon dioxide emissions from the annual average per person (in Britain, currently close to 10 tons) towards identical emissions across the world’s population of less than 1.5 tons. Translated to the personal and household level, contraction & convergence will take the form of a carbon ration equivalent to a new currency tradable on the “white market”. In the early years of its introduction, relatively wealthy people may be able to buy the surplus from those who lead energy-thrifty lifestyles. In this respect, it will represent a “win-win” situation, progressively redistributing income and rewarding “conservers” – those who are imposing the least environmental burden. But the cost of buying any surplus will steadily rise as the ration is progressively ratcheted down from year to year. Insofar as so much activity is locked into too high use of fossil fuels, it is very clear that such a radical change in our choices and therefore in our personal behaviour will pose substantial difficulties, in the first instance for politicians who are motivated by fear of the electoral consequences of prescribing what appear at first sight to be unattractive policies. The strategy poses problems too for other decision-makers, for instance in industry where the future is predicated on a continuation of past growth trends. Finally, it is unlikely to be welcomed by an uninformed public. It is for this essential reason that education has a primary role in the process of the electorate coming to understand that we have no right to constrain the choices of future generations nor to burden them with the costs of coping with the likely horrendous damage that our self-indulgent preferences will have brought on them. Only in this way will it be possible for the difficult transition to very different lifestyles to be made without considerable public opposition. Indeed, politicians, industry and the public alike must learn very quickly that all proposals for the future that are not founded on very low energy use are no longer realistic options — for example, the growth rather than the decline of international tourism and, with it, the need for airport capacity, the staging of the 2012 Olympics in London, or indeed anywhere. Widespread ignorance on this score cannot be allowed to stand in the way of responsible decision-making. There is an obvious and urgent need for as consensual a degree of support as is possible for this approach from all the political parties because it is the only fair solution. Hoping to “muddle through” without an overall and binding framework for decisions would clearly be doomed. The longer the delay in acting, the more severe will be the task of limiting the consequent damage. If the public, politicians and industry are not persuaded to support the concept of rationing and to end continuing procrastination on the subject of global warming, the result will be one of two outcomes: an intensification of climate-change-induced problems, or the operation of market forces that prevent much of the world (especially the populations of developing countries) from being able to afford the energy essential to their basic standard of living. We must face the reality that there is no escape-route that will allow us to continue with our current lifestyles. Mayer Hillman is a fellow at the Policy Studies Institute. His latest book is How We Can Save The Planet (Penguin, 2004) An illuminating profile of Mayer Hillman, by Anne Karpf, is here It is all too apparent that a voluntary approach could only succeed if the great majority of the population of developed and developing countries were prepared to join in a collective act of responsible world citizenship. This expectation is wholly unrealistic and, in any case, “freeriders” would have far too much to gain. This is why some inter-governmental coalitions must take the lead in international negotiations for the urgent adoption of the contraction and convergence framework and for the early introduction of equal per capita carbon rationing. One such opportunity arises during Britain’s presidency of the European Union in the second half of 2005, when Tony Blair – perhaps acting in collaboration with African states, as proposed in the Chanctonbury Initiative – may be able to bring together EU member-states behind these efforts. Future generations will justifiably sit in judgment on what we chose to do in the early part of this century in full knowledge – as accessories before the fact – of the devastating consequences of continuing with our energy-profligate lifestyles. The accumulation of evidence on climate change and its damaging impacts make it progressively unacceptable that in the years ahead we attempt to plead ignorance with the excuse “we did not know”.

This article appears as part of openDemocracy‘s online debate on the politics of climate change. The debate was developed in partnership with the British Council as part of their ZeroCarbonCity initiative – a two year global campaign to raise awareness and stimulate debate around the challenges of climate change ... Mayer Hillman ... 2005

Strains on Nature Are Growing,

By REUTERS: Humans are damaging the planet at a rapid rate and raising risks of abrupt collapses in nature that could spur disease, deforestation or "dead zones" in the seas, an international report said Wednesday. The study, by 1,360 researchers in 95 nations, the biggest review of the planet's life support systems ever, said that in the last 50 years a rising human population had polluted or overexploited two-thirds of the ecological systems on which life depends, including clean air and fresh water. "At the heart of this assessment is a stark warning," said the 45-member board of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. "Human activity is putting such strain on the natural functions of earth that the ability of the planet's ecosystems to sustain future generations can no longer be taken for granted." The report said future strains on nature could bring sudden outbreaks of disease. Warming of the Great Lakes in Africa from climate change, for instance, could create conditions for a spread of cholera. The study urged changes in consumption, better education, new technology and higher prices for exploiting ecosystems.

  This page is often under construction
©1995-2006 ... Point of View NZ. All Rights Reserved.