Drastischer Eis-Schwund: erschreckende Erkenntnisse aus der Antarktis
Weltklima im Wandel - was erwartet uns in der Zukunft? http://www.telepolis.de/tp/r4/artikel/22/22563/1.html
rudkla - 1. Mai, 22:10
Global Warming - Globale Erwaermung
Montag, 1. Mai 2006
Sonntag, 23. April 2006
Over half the plant species in Europe at risk because of climate change
20.04.2006
UFZ scientists present research findings at the UN Conference on Biological Diversity in Brazil. http://www.sonnenseite.com/index.php?pageID=80&news:oid=n5083
UFZ scientists present research findings at the UN Conference on Biological Diversity in Brazil. http://www.sonnenseite.com/index.php?pageID=80&news:oid=n5083
rudkla - 23. Apr, 08:44
Samstag, 22. April 2006
Climate change could affect tectonic plates
By BJS
Created 04/21/2006 - 05:45
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/node/10458/print
The erosion caused by rainfall directly affects the movement of continental plates beneath mountain ranges, says a University of Toronto geophysicist — the first time science has raised the possibility that human-induced climate change could affect the deep workings of the planet.
“In geology, we have this idea that erosion’s going to affect merely the surface,” says Russell Pysklywec, a professor of geology who creates computer models where he can control how a range of natural processes can create and modify mountains over millions of years. Pysklywec conducts field research in the Southern Alps of New Zealand, where the mountains are high and geologically “young.” He found that when mountains are exposed to New Zealand-type rainfall (which causes one centimetre of erosion per year) compared to southern California-type rainfall (which erodes one-tenth of a centimetre or less), it profoundly changes the behaviour of the tectonic plates beneath the mountains. “These are tiny, tiny changes on the surface, but integrating them over geologic time scales affects the roots of the mountains, as opposed to just the top of them,” says Pysklywec. “It goes right down to the mantle thermal engine — the thing that’s actually driving plate tectonics. It’s fairly surprising — it hasn’t been shown before.”
It takes a supercomputer several days to run one of Pysklywec’s models, which reveal the inner workings of the Earth to hundreds of kilometres below the surface, where the temperature can reach 1,500 degrees Celsius. In extreme conditions, he says, the erosion effect can even cause the underlying plate to reverse direction. “As a concept, imagine blanketing the European Alps with a huge network of ordinary garden sprinklers. The results suggest that the subtle surface weathering caused by the light watering have the potential to shift the tectonic plates, although you would have to keep the water on for several million years.” In the long run, says Pysklywec, it raises the question of whether human activity, which is affecting climate, could ultimately influence deep Earth processes. “That’s what these findings suggest,” he says. “We’re talking millions of years, but it’s one more example of how all these natural systems are interrelated.”
The study appears on the cover of the April issue of Geology and was funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and Lithoprobe.
From University of Toronto [1]
Links:
[1] http://www.news.utoronto.ca/bin6/060420-2217.asp
Informant: NHNE
Created 04/21/2006 - 05:45
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/node/10458/print
The erosion caused by rainfall directly affects the movement of continental plates beneath mountain ranges, says a University of Toronto geophysicist — the first time science has raised the possibility that human-induced climate change could affect the deep workings of the planet.
“In geology, we have this idea that erosion’s going to affect merely the surface,” says Russell Pysklywec, a professor of geology who creates computer models where he can control how a range of natural processes can create and modify mountains over millions of years. Pysklywec conducts field research in the Southern Alps of New Zealand, where the mountains are high and geologically “young.” He found that when mountains are exposed to New Zealand-type rainfall (which causes one centimetre of erosion per year) compared to southern California-type rainfall (which erodes one-tenth of a centimetre or less), it profoundly changes the behaviour of the tectonic plates beneath the mountains. “These are tiny, tiny changes on the surface, but integrating them over geologic time scales affects the roots of the mountains, as opposed to just the top of them,” says Pysklywec. “It goes right down to the mantle thermal engine — the thing that’s actually driving plate tectonics. It’s fairly surprising — it hasn’t been shown before.”
It takes a supercomputer several days to run one of Pysklywec’s models, which reveal the inner workings of the Earth to hundreds of kilometres below the surface, where the temperature can reach 1,500 degrees Celsius. In extreme conditions, he says, the erosion effect can even cause the underlying plate to reverse direction. “As a concept, imagine blanketing the European Alps with a huge network of ordinary garden sprinklers. The results suggest that the subtle surface weathering caused by the light watering have the potential to shift the tectonic plates, although you would have to keep the water on for several million years.” In the long run, says Pysklywec, it raises the question of whether human activity, which is affecting climate, could ultimately influence deep Earth processes. “That’s what these findings suggest,” he says. “We’re talking millions of years, but it’s one more example of how all these natural systems are interrelated.”
The study appears on the cover of the April issue of Geology and was funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and Lithoprobe.
From University of Toronto [1]
Links:
[1] http://www.news.utoronto.ca/bin6/060420-2217.asp
Informant: NHNE
rudkla - 22. Apr, 09:32
Montag, 17. April 2006
The melting of the North and South Poles is accelerating
[Below is a translation from a new 194-page Atlas recently published by *Le Monde diplomatique*, these two pages are devoted to describing what has been learned recently about the effects of global warming on the northern and southern ice caps.[1] -- The new Atlas du Monde diplomatique (a previous edition was published in 2003, but the the 2006 edition is entirely new), which aims to reveal "the relations and interactions among phenomena that are situated in different spheres," sells for 12 euros (ISSN 0026-9395) and is divided into five sections: -- (1) The Planet in Danger (28 maps with accompanying charts and text); -- (2) A New Geopolitics (35 maps with accompanying charts and text); -- (3) Globalization, Winners and Losers (25 maps with accompanying charts and text); -- (4) Those Persistent Conflicts
(48 maps with accompanying charts and text); -- (5) Asia's Irresistible Ascent (38 maps with accompanying charts and text). -- *L'Atlas du Monde diplomatique* is edited by Alain Gresh, Jean Radvanyi, Philippe Rekacewicz, Catherine Samary, and Dominique Vidal, with the collaboration of some 70 specialists. -- Copies can be ordered by calling 011 33 344 318 048. --Mark]
http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/4370/
1.
The Planet in Danger
THE MELTING OF THE NORTH AND SOUTH POLES IS ACCELERATING
By Frédéric Durand
** Climate warming does not affect the planet uniformly. Most models expect it to be greater in the northern hemisphere. For a rise of 2 degrees Centigrade, the Arctic zone could warm up twice or three times as much. The southern hemisphere, less affected, is nevertheless also expected to be disturbed. **
L'Atlas du Monde diplomatique (2006) Pages 10-11
The North Pole is already showing marked signs of change. Apart from seasonal and yearly variation that is considerable, the area covered by the ice field is estimated to have diminished by 10% in 30 years, and the thickness of the ice field is thought to be down 40%. By the end of the 21st century, it may be cut in half.
Some would like to see postive aspects in these developments, particularly the opening of the northern passages for marine transport or an easier access to the hydrocarbons of the Great American North and Siberia, which constitute 40% of world reserves. But these advantages are meager compared to the negative impacts. In the short term, the most serious of these will doubtless be the disturbance of the Gulf Stream. Preliminary investigations show its flow to have declined by 20% between 1950 and 2000. This may bring about a temporary period of sharply colder temperatures in Europe.
More structurally, the melting is expected to cause an acceleration of warming by reducing the level of refraction of solar radiation, which is 80% for ice, as opposed to 30% for bare soil and 7% for the oceans. This is inducing, in some places, a melting of the permafrost (permanently frozen soil), on which are constructed buildings and infrastructures and which contains enormous quanitites of methane. Confronted by such threats, the Council of the Arctic, which brings together the United States, Canada, and Russia, has shown itself to be incapable of the most minimal action. By itself, the melting of the polar ice field does not bring about a rise in ocean levels, to the extent that the ice is already floating on the water. On the other hand, the progressive melting of the Greenland ice sheet as well as glaciers on land could contribute significantly to this. Measurements by the Topex-Poseidon satellite indicate at present a rise of sea level by 2.4mm per year. This is expected to produce a rise of at least 25cm by the beginning of the 22nd century, but more and more forecasts are envisioning a rise of one meter, or even several meters should the melting of certain Antarctic regions be verified. Beyond the uncertainties, it is thought that a third of this phenomenon is due to the simple expansion of the oceans as a result of warming, with another third coming from the melting of glaciers. For the rest, recent studies indicate that the South Pole may today be contributing 15%.
RISING SEAS
Until recently, in fact, researchers thought that only the Antarctic peninsula was affected. It warmed by 3 degrees Centigrade between 1974 and 2000, and it is from this region that the vast Larsen platform broke off in 2002. If all the peninsula's ice melted, the level of water would rise by an additional 45 cm. However, it is not directly linked to the continental ice cap, which until recently was considered to be stable and immune from the influence of warming for at least a century. But in October 2004 NASA revealed that certain parts of the continent may warm by more than 3.5 degrees Centigrade between now and 2050, while in December 2004 a British Antarctic Survey team observed that the western part of Antarctica was losing 250 cubic kilometers of ice per year. This is still a limited quantity, but should it accelerate the water from this region could induce a sea-level rise of 8 meters! For the moment, only eastern Antarctica, by far the most massive part (the equivalent of a sea-level rise of 64 meters), appears to be spared.
Alongside this disturbing problem, the reduction of the Antarctic ice sheet may also lead to another major upheaval concerning aquatic fauna. Indeed, stocks of krill, a small shrimp that feeds on algae living beneath the ice, and which is at the heart of the sea's food chain, since squid, fish, and whales feed on it, are thought to have declined by 80% in the past 30 years. This phenomenon, combined with overfishing and the weakening of the coral reefs, undeniably constitutes an additional reason for concern.
--Frédéric Durand is maître de conférences at the University of Toulouse-II-Le Mirail and author of *La Jungle, la nation et le marché: Chronique indonésienne* (L'Atalante, 2001) ('The Jungle, the Nation, and the Market: Indonesian Chronicle').
[MAP 1] CLIMATIC WARMING OF THE ARCTIC REGION (Sources: Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP), 1998, 2002, 2004; World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC); United States Energy Information Administration (EIA); National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOIA); International Permafrost Association (IPA); *Impacts of a Warming Arctic: Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) Overview/Report* (Cambridge University Press, 2004); *Vital Arctic Graphics, People and Global Heritage on Our Last Wild Shores*
(UNEP/GRID-Arendal, 2005).
[MAP 2] WARMING OF ANTARCTICA EXPECTED BY 2050 (Source: National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA), 2004.)
[CHARTS] (1) EXTENT OF THE ICE CAP, 1900-2000 (Millions of square km); (2) VARIATIONS IN THE SURFACE OF THE ICE CAP: DEPARTURES FROM THE MEAN, 1973-2004 (Sources: *Impacts of a Warming Arctic: Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) Overview/Report* (Cambridge University Press, 2004); Hadley Center, 2005; Office météorologique mondial (OMM), 2005; Met Office, 2005).
ON THE WEB
--Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA): http://www.acia.uaf.edu
--International Arctic Science Committee (IASC): http://www.iasc.no
--Arctic Council: http://www.arctic-council.org
--Center for International Climate and Environmental Research-Oslo (Cicero): http://www.cicero.uio.no
--Laboratoire d'océanographie dynamique et de climatologie (Lodyc): http://www.lodyc.jussieu.fr
--Organisation météorologique mondiale (OMM): http://www.wmo.ch
--International Conference on Arctic Research Planning (Icarp): http://www.icarp.dk
Translated by Mark K. Jensen Associate Professor of French Department of Languages and Literatures Pacific Lutheran University Tacoma, WA 98447-0003 Phone: 253-535-7219 Home page: http://www.plu.edu/~jensenmk/ E-mail: jensenmk@plu.edu
UNITED FOR PEACE & JUSTICE | 212-868-5545
From ufpj-news
(48 maps with accompanying charts and text); -- (5) Asia's Irresistible Ascent (38 maps with accompanying charts and text). -- *L'Atlas du Monde diplomatique* is edited by Alain Gresh, Jean Radvanyi, Philippe Rekacewicz, Catherine Samary, and Dominique Vidal, with the collaboration of some 70 specialists. -- Copies can be ordered by calling 011 33 344 318 048. --Mark]
http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/4370/
1.
The Planet in Danger
THE MELTING OF THE NORTH AND SOUTH POLES IS ACCELERATING
By Frédéric Durand
** Climate warming does not affect the planet uniformly. Most models expect it to be greater in the northern hemisphere. For a rise of 2 degrees Centigrade, the Arctic zone could warm up twice or three times as much. The southern hemisphere, less affected, is nevertheless also expected to be disturbed. **
L'Atlas du Monde diplomatique (2006) Pages 10-11
The North Pole is already showing marked signs of change. Apart from seasonal and yearly variation that is considerable, the area covered by the ice field is estimated to have diminished by 10% in 30 years, and the thickness of the ice field is thought to be down 40%. By the end of the 21st century, it may be cut in half.
Some would like to see postive aspects in these developments, particularly the opening of the northern passages for marine transport or an easier access to the hydrocarbons of the Great American North and Siberia, which constitute 40% of world reserves. But these advantages are meager compared to the negative impacts. In the short term, the most serious of these will doubtless be the disturbance of the Gulf Stream. Preliminary investigations show its flow to have declined by 20% between 1950 and 2000. This may bring about a temporary period of sharply colder temperatures in Europe.
More structurally, the melting is expected to cause an acceleration of warming by reducing the level of refraction of solar radiation, which is 80% for ice, as opposed to 30% for bare soil and 7% for the oceans. This is inducing, in some places, a melting of the permafrost (permanently frozen soil), on which are constructed buildings and infrastructures and which contains enormous quanitites of methane. Confronted by such threats, the Council of the Arctic, which brings together the United States, Canada, and Russia, has shown itself to be incapable of the most minimal action. By itself, the melting of the polar ice field does not bring about a rise in ocean levels, to the extent that the ice is already floating on the water. On the other hand, the progressive melting of the Greenland ice sheet as well as glaciers on land could contribute significantly to this. Measurements by the Topex-Poseidon satellite indicate at present a rise of sea level by 2.4mm per year. This is expected to produce a rise of at least 25cm by the beginning of the 22nd century, but more and more forecasts are envisioning a rise of one meter, or even several meters should the melting of certain Antarctic regions be verified. Beyond the uncertainties, it is thought that a third of this phenomenon is due to the simple expansion of the oceans as a result of warming, with another third coming from the melting of glaciers. For the rest, recent studies indicate that the South Pole may today be contributing 15%.
RISING SEAS
Until recently, in fact, researchers thought that only the Antarctic peninsula was affected. It warmed by 3 degrees Centigrade between 1974 and 2000, and it is from this region that the vast Larsen platform broke off in 2002. If all the peninsula's ice melted, the level of water would rise by an additional 45 cm. However, it is not directly linked to the continental ice cap, which until recently was considered to be stable and immune from the influence of warming for at least a century. But in October 2004 NASA revealed that certain parts of the continent may warm by more than 3.5 degrees Centigrade between now and 2050, while in December 2004 a British Antarctic Survey team observed that the western part of Antarctica was losing 250 cubic kilometers of ice per year. This is still a limited quantity, but should it accelerate the water from this region could induce a sea-level rise of 8 meters! For the moment, only eastern Antarctica, by far the most massive part (the equivalent of a sea-level rise of 64 meters), appears to be spared.
Alongside this disturbing problem, the reduction of the Antarctic ice sheet may also lead to another major upheaval concerning aquatic fauna. Indeed, stocks of krill, a small shrimp that feeds on algae living beneath the ice, and which is at the heart of the sea's food chain, since squid, fish, and whales feed on it, are thought to have declined by 80% in the past 30 years. This phenomenon, combined with overfishing and the weakening of the coral reefs, undeniably constitutes an additional reason for concern.
--Frédéric Durand is maître de conférences at the University of Toulouse-II-Le Mirail and author of *La Jungle, la nation et le marché: Chronique indonésienne* (L'Atalante, 2001) ('The Jungle, the Nation, and the Market: Indonesian Chronicle').
[MAP 1] CLIMATIC WARMING OF THE ARCTIC REGION (Sources: Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP), 1998, 2002, 2004; World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC); United States Energy Information Administration (EIA); National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOIA); International Permafrost Association (IPA); *Impacts of a Warming Arctic: Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) Overview/Report* (Cambridge University Press, 2004); *Vital Arctic Graphics, People and Global Heritage on Our Last Wild Shores*
(UNEP/GRID-Arendal, 2005).
[MAP 2] WARMING OF ANTARCTICA EXPECTED BY 2050 (Source: National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA), 2004.)
[CHARTS] (1) EXTENT OF THE ICE CAP, 1900-2000 (Millions of square km); (2) VARIATIONS IN THE SURFACE OF THE ICE CAP: DEPARTURES FROM THE MEAN, 1973-2004 (Sources: *Impacts of a Warming Arctic: Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) Overview/Report* (Cambridge University Press, 2004); Hadley Center, 2005; Office météorologique mondial (OMM), 2005; Met Office, 2005).
ON THE WEB
--Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA): http://www.acia.uaf.edu
--International Arctic Science Committee (IASC): http://www.iasc.no
--Arctic Council: http://www.arctic-council.org
--Center for International Climate and Environmental Research-Oslo (Cicero): http://www.cicero.uio.no
--Laboratoire d'océanographie dynamique et de climatologie (Lodyc): http://www.lodyc.jussieu.fr
--Organisation météorologique mondiale (OMM): http://www.wmo.ch
--International Conference on Arctic Research Planning (Icarp): http://www.icarp.dk
Translated by Mark K. Jensen Associate Professor of French Department of Languages and Literatures Pacific Lutheran University Tacoma, WA 98447-0003 Phone: 253-535-7219 Home page: http://www.plu.edu/~jensenmk/ E-mail: jensenmk@plu.edu
UNITED FOR PEACE & JUSTICE | 212-868-5545
From ufpj-news
rudkla - 17. Apr, 09:33
Sonntag, 16. April 2006
Chief scientist warns temperature will put 400 million at risk
The world's temperature is on course to rise by more than three degrees Centigrade despite efforts to combat global warming, Britain's chief scientist has warned.
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article357783.ece
From Information Clearing House
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article357783.ece
From Information Clearing House
rudkla - 16. Apr, 09:03
Die nächste Flut kommt bestimmt
12.04.2006
Nun kommen die Jahrhundert-Fluten schon nahezu jedes Jahr: 2002, 2005 und 2006 war Deutschland betroffen und jedesmal heißt es Jahrhundertflut. http://www.sonnenseite.com/index.php?pageID=6&news:oid=n4992
Nun kommen die Jahrhundert-Fluten schon nahezu jedes Jahr: 2002, 2005 und 2006 war Deutschland betroffen und jedesmal heißt es Jahrhundertflut. http://www.sonnenseite.com/index.php?pageID=6&news:oid=n4992
rudkla - 16. Apr, 08:41
Samstag, 15. April 2006
Stark warning over climate change
By Roger Harrabin
BBC Environment Correspondent
M-way jam (BBC)
The UK's own carbon emissions have gone up recently The world is likely to suffer a temperature rise of more than 3C, says the UK government's chief scientist.
That would cause drought and famine and threaten billions of lives, said Professor David King in a report based on computer predictions.
Tony Blair wants a global consensus on stabilising greenhouse gas emissions, blamed for climate change. The government shares the EU's 2C limit.
The US refuses to cut emissions, and those of India and China are rising. The government report says a 3C rise would cause:
# A drop worldwide of between 20 and 400 million tonnes in cereal crops
# About 400 million more people at risk of hunger
# Between 1.2bn and 3bn more people at risk of water stress
At such a temperature, it said, few ecosystems could adapt
(natural forests could not); half of nature reserves would cease to be worthwhile [perish] and at least a fifth of the remaining coastal wetlands would be lost.
Agreement 'unlikely'
Prime Minister Tony Blair said recently in New Zealand he wanted the world to agree a level for stabilising greenhouse gas emissions.
He wants to stabilise the climate at an increase of no more than 2C, according to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Downing Street.
Threat
The forecast effects of a 3C temperature rise are made in Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, a report based on early computer modelling by the UK's Hadley Centre, a world leader in climate projection!
It said the world absolutely must hold temperature rise to below 2C despite the opposition of the United States, and the need for China and India to increase their economies to tackle poverty.
The scale of the mis-match between climate science and climate politics highlight the discrepancy between the UK government's stated goals and the figures on which its policies are based. How the changes in UK government attitude can bring about the immediate turnaround of global practices is uncertain, and thus defines the very modest measure of the chances of environmental survival.
Informant: Millennium Twain
--------
Stark warning over climate change
By Richard Black
Environment Correspondent,
BBC News website
Rising concentrations of greenhouse gases may have more serious impacts than previously believed, a major scientific report has said.
The report, published by the UK government, says there is only a small chance of greenhouse gas emissions being kept below "dangerous" levels.
It fears the Greenland ice sheet is likely to melt, leading sea levels to rise by 7m (23ft) over 1,000 years.
The poorest countries will be most vulnerable to these effects, it adds.
The report, Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, collates evidence presented by scientists at a conference hosted by the UK Meteorological Office in February 2005.
The conference set two principal objectives: to ask what level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is too much, and what the options are for avoiding such a level.
It's the irreversibility that I think brings it home to people
Margaret Beckett
In the report's foreword, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair writes that "it is now plain that the emission of greenhouse gases... is causing global warming at a rate that is unsustainable."
Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett said the report's conclusions would be a shock to many people.
"The thing that is perhaps not so familiar to members of the public... is this notion that we could come to a tipping point where change could be irreversible," she told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
"We're not talking about it happening over five minutes, of course, maybe over a thousand years, but it's the irreversibility that I think brings it home to people."
Vulnerable ecosystems
The report sets out the effects of various levels of temperature increase.
The European Union (EU) has adopted a target of preventing a rise in global average temperature of more than two degrees Celsius.
But that, according to the report, might be too high, with two degrees perhaps enough to trigger melting of the Greenland ice sheet.
This would have a major impact on sea levels globally, though it would take up to 1,000 years to see the full predicted rise of 7m.
Above two degrees, says the report, the risks increase "very substantially", with "potentially large numbers of extinctions" and "major increases in hunger and water shortage risks... particularly in developing countries".
'Without delight'
The report asked scientists to calculate which greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere would be enough to cause these "dangerous" temperature increases.
No country is going to turn off a power station which is providing much-desired energy for its population to tackle this problem
Sir David King
Currently, the atmosphere contains about 380 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas of concern, compared to levels before the industrial revolution of about 275ppm.
To have a good chance of achieving the EU's two-degree target, levels should be stabilised at 450ppm or below, the report concludes.
But, speaking on Today, the UK government's chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, said that was unlikely to happen.
"We're going to be at 400 ppm in 10 years' time, I predict that without any delight in saying it," he said.
"But no country is going to turn off a power station which is providing much-desired energy for its population to tackle this problem - we have to accept that.
"To aim for 450 (ppm) would, I am afraid, seem unfeasible."
But Myles Allen, a lecturer on atmospheric physics at Oxford University, said assessing a "safe level" of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was "a bit like asking a doctor what's a safe number of cigarettes to smoke per day".
"There isn't one, but at the same time people do smoke and live until they're 90," he told Today.
On the other question asked at the 2005 conference - what are the options for avoiding dangerous concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? - the report says that technological options to reduce emissions do exist.
It concludes that the biggest obstacles to the take up of technologies such as renewable sources of energy and "clean coal" lie in vested interests, cultural barriers to change and simple lack of awareness.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/4660938.stm
Published: 2006/01/30 11:00:31 GMT
© BBC MMVI
BBC Environment Correspondent
M-way jam (BBC)
The UK's own carbon emissions have gone up recently The world is likely to suffer a temperature rise of more than 3C, says the UK government's chief scientist.
That would cause drought and famine and threaten billions of lives, said Professor David King in a report based on computer predictions.
Tony Blair wants a global consensus on stabilising greenhouse gas emissions, blamed for climate change. The government shares the EU's 2C limit.
The US refuses to cut emissions, and those of India and China are rising. The government report says a 3C rise would cause:
# A drop worldwide of between 20 and 400 million tonnes in cereal crops
# About 400 million more people at risk of hunger
# Between 1.2bn and 3bn more people at risk of water stress
At such a temperature, it said, few ecosystems could adapt
(natural forests could not); half of nature reserves would cease to be worthwhile [perish] and at least a fifth of the remaining coastal wetlands would be lost.
Agreement 'unlikely'
Prime Minister Tony Blair said recently in New Zealand he wanted the world to agree a level for stabilising greenhouse gas emissions.
He wants to stabilise the climate at an increase of no more than 2C, according to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Downing Street.
Threat
The forecast effects of a 3C temperature rise are made in Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, a report based on early computer modelling by the UK's Hadley Centre, a world leader in climate projection!
It said the world absolutely must hold temperature rise to below 2C despite the opposition of the United States, and the need for China and India to increase their economies to tackle poverty.
The scale of the mis-match between climate science and climate politics highlight the discrepancy between the UK government's stated goals and the figures on which its policies are based. How the changes in UK government attitude can bring about the immediate turnaround of global practices is uncertain, and thus defines the very modest measure of the chances of environmental survival.
Informant: Millennium Twain
--------
Stark warning over climate change
By Richard Black
Environment Correspondent,
BBC News website
Rising concentrations of greenhouse gases may have more serious impacts than previously believed, a major scientific report has said.
The report, published by the UK government, says there is only a small chance of greenhouse gas emissions being kept below "dangerous" levels.
It fears the Greenland ice sheet is likely to melt, leading sea levels to rise by 7m (23ft) over 1,000 years.
The poorest countries will be most vulnerable to these effects, it adds.
The report, Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, collates evidence presented by scientists at a conference hosted by the UK Meteorological Office in February 2005.
The conference set two principal objectives: to ask what level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is too much, and what the options are for avoiding such a level.
It's the irreversibility that I think brings it home to people
Margaret Beckett
In the report's foreword, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair writes that "it is now plain that the emission of greenhouse gases... is causing global warming at a rate that is unsustainable."
Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett said the report's conclusions would be a shock to many people.
"The thing that is perhaps not so familiar to members of the public... is this notion that we could come to a tipping point where change could be irreversible," she told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
"We're not talking about it happening over five minutes, of course, maybe over a thousand years, but it's the irreversibility that I think brings it home to people."
Vulnerable ecosystems
The report sets out the effects of various levels of temperature increase.
The European Union (EU) has adopted a target of preventing a rise in global average temperature of more than two degrees Celsius.
But that, according to the report, might be too high, with two degrees perhaps enough to trigger melting of the Greenland ice sheet.
This would have a major impact on sea levels globally, though it would take up to 1,000 years to see the full predicted rise of 7m.
Above two degrees, says the report, the risks increase "very substantially", with "potentially large numbers of extinctions" and "major increases in hunger and water shortage risks... particularly in developing countries".
'Without delight'
The report asked scientists to calculate which greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere would be enough to cause these "dangerous" temperature increases.
No country is going to turn off a power station which is providing much-desired energy for its population to tackle this problem
Sir David King
Currently, the atmosphere contains about 380 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas of concern, compared to levels before the industrial revolution of about 275ppm.
To have a good chance of achieving the EU's two-degree target, levels should be stabilised at 450ppm or below, the report concludes.
But, speaking on Today, the UK government's chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, said that was unlikely to happen.
"We're going to be at 400 ppm in 10 years' time, I predict that without any delight in saying it," he said.
"But no country is going to turn off a power station which is providing much-desired energy for its population to tackle this problem - we have to accept that.
"To aim for 450 (ppm) would, I am afraid, seem unfeasible."
But Myles Allen, a lecturer on atmospheric physics at Oxford University, said assessing a "safe level" of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was "a bit like asking a doctor what's a safe number of cigarettes to smoke per day".
"There isn't one, but at the same time people do smoke and live until they're 90," he told Today.
On the other question asked at the 2005 conference - what are the options for avoiding dangerous concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? - the report says that technological options to reduce emissions do exist.
It concludes that the biggest obstacles to the take up of technologies such as renewable sources of energy and "clean coal" lie in vested interests, cultural barriers to change and simple lack of awareness.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/4660938.stm
Published: 2006/01/30 11:00:31 GMT
© BBC MMVI
rudkla - 15. Apr, 12:08
SCIENTIST ISSUES GRIM WARNING ON GLOBAL WARMING
By Sam Knight Times Online
April 14, 2006
The Government's chief scientist today gave his starkest warning yet about the world's increasing carbon emissions saying that even the best-case scenario put millions of lives at risk by the end of the century.
Professor Sir David King said that a 3C rise in global temperatures is likely within 100 years, a process that will lead to a rise in sea levels and increase in desertification that will place 400 million people at the risk of hunger. Parts of Britain will be flooded as the UK comes under coastal attack.
Developing countries will be the hardest hit, with ecosystems failing to adapt and between 20 million to 400 million tonnes of cereal production being lost, according to Sir David.
He said the temperature rise would be the consequence of carbon dioxide levels of 500 parts per million, roughly double those of the Industrial Revolution. The current carbon dioxide concentration stands at 380 parts per million, already the highest levels likely to have been experienced on Earth for 740,000 years.
Sir David said that his grim prediction was based on an optimistic reading of the world's ability to control its carbon emissions. Many scientists believe emissions could rise to 550 million parts per million and even larger temperature rises.
"The temperature rise could well be in excess of 3C and yet we are saying
500 parts per million in the atmosphere is probably the best we can achieve through global agreement," Sir David said.
He said that further increases in CO2 concentrations could put the situation beyond the planet's control.
"If we go beyond 500 parts per million we reach levels of temperature increase and sea level rise in terms of the coming century which would be extremely difficult for world populations to manage," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
Until recently, the Government has been committed to restraining global carbon emissions to around 475 parts per million, believing that such a concentration could keep temperatures rising more than 2C. The Kyoto Protocols, signed in 1997 and set to expire in 2012, aimed at a concentration of 450 parts per million.
Last month Margaret Beckett, the Environment Secretary, admitted that the Government was set to miss its target of reducing Britain's emissions by 20 per cent by 2010, saying it was more likely to achieve cuts of between 15 and 18 per cent.
Sir David said it was crucial to confront the gloomy outlook with information and investment.
"We don¹t have to succumb to a state of despondency where we say that there is nothing we can do so let¹s just carry on living as per usual. It is very important to understand that we can manage the risks to our population," he said.
"What we are talking about here is something that will play through over decades - we are talking 100 years or so. We need to begin that process of investment. It is going to be a major challenge for the developing countries."
But Sir David, who has been criticised in the past for restraining his warnings on the advice of Government ministers, had stern words for politicians who say that carbon emissions can be controlled by the use of new, environmentally-friendly technologies.
"There is a difference between optimism and head in the sand," he said. "Quite clearly what we have to do as we move forward with these discussions is see that this consensus position of the scientific community is brought right into the table where the discussions are taking place."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2134760,00.html
Informant: NHNE
April 14, 2006
The Government's chief scientist today gave his starkest warning yet about the world's increasing carbon emissions saying that even the best-case scenario put millions of lives at risk by the end of the century.
Professor Sir David King said that a 3C rise in global temperatures is likely within 100 years, a process that will lead to a rise in sea levels and increase in desertification that will place 400 million people at the risk of hunger. Parts of Britain will be flooded as the UK comes under coastal attack.
Developing countries will be the hardest hit, with ecosystems failing to adapt and between 20 million to 400 million tonnes of cereal production being lost, according to Sir David.
He said the temperature rise would be the consequence of carbon dioxide levels of 500 parts per million, roughly double those of the Industrial Revolution. The current carbon dioxide concentration stands at 380 parts per million, already the highest levels likely to have been experienced on Earth for 740,000 years.
Sir David said that his grim prediction was based on an optimistic reading of the world's ability to control its carbon emissions. Many scientists believe emissions could rise to 550 million parts per million and even larger temperature rises.
"The temperature rise could well be in excess of 3C and yet we are saying
500 parts per million in the atmosphere is probably the best we can achieve through global agreement," Sir David said.
He said that further increases in CO2 concentrations could put the situation beyond the planet's control.
"If we go beyond 500 parts per million we reach levels of temperature increase and sea level rise in terms of the coming century which would be extremely difficult for world populations to manage," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
Until recently, the Government has been committed to restraining global carbon emissions to around 475 parts per million, believing that such a concentration could keep temperatures rising more than 2C. The Kyoto Protocols, signed in 1997 and set to expire in 2012, aimed at a concentration of 450 parts per million.
Last month Margaret Beckett, the Environment Secretary, admitted that the Government was set to miss its target of reducing Britain's emissions by 20 per cent by 2010, saying it was more likely to achieve cuts of between 15 and 18 per cent.
Sir David said it was crucial to confront the gloomy outlook with information and investment.
"We don¹t have to succumb to a state of despondency where we say that there is nothing we can do so let¹s just carry on living as per usual. It is very important to understand that we can manage the risks to our population," he said.
"What we are talking about here is something that will play through over decades - we are talking 100 years or so. We need to begin that process of investment. It is going to be a major challenge for the developing countries."
But Sir David, who has been criticised in the past for restraining his warnings on the advice of Government ministers, had stern words for politicians who say that carbon emissions can be controlled by the use of new, environmentally-friendly technologies.
"There is a difference between optimism and head in the sand," he said. "Quite clearly what we have to do as we move forward with these discussions is see that this consensus position of the scientific community is brought right into the table where the discussions are taking place."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2134760,00.html
Informant: NHNE
rudkla - 15. Apr, 09:27
Mittwoch, 12. April 2006
Climate Change: A GLOBAL TITANIC
There were many factors that led to the sinking of the Titanic and the death of so many; most of them were caused by human ignorance.
The first was the rush to get the ship to its destination in order to gain reputation and financial success. Secondly the numbers of life boats were reduced to make the ship look more aesthetic. Thirdly the belief that the ship was unsinkable created a false sense of security which led to an imprudent attitude about how robust the ship was matched against the power of the ocean. Finally those on the ship were so absorbed with their personal affairs that the idea Titanic was sinking wasn't taken seriously until it was plainly obvious.
Why do I bring up these factors? Well there is a striking resemblance between the human ignorance that led to the sinking of the Titanic and the sinking of our whole existence owing to climate change. It seems that the first factor that led to the sinking of the Titanic was greed. In the same way, governments and corporations continue to put economic motives above the very thing that sustain us - the environment. As a consequence, we are heading speedily towards a metaphorical iceberg; (if there are any left) and our eyes have been firmly closed about this for some time. Secondly we are putting our own aesthetic values of materialism over the planets ability to cope; putting aesthetics over safety will always lead to failure.
Thirdly the belief that humanity is indestructible and that all the things we have created and accumulated are enduring, has given rise to a false sense of security. In the image of the Titanic, our fixed assumptions like the proclamation "Titanic is unsinkable", echoes the sentiment "The world will always be the same no matter how much we consume". Anything created by the mind of (hu)man is minute compared to the might created by nature. This was laid bare for all to see on that fateful night when the so-called mighty Titanic sank. The idea that climate change will radically affect the so-called mighty humanity within the first half of this century is inconceivable to most of us. We have all built a false sense of security about this sinking ship by clinging to our personal and collective presumptions which we take so much for granted. Unless we take intelligent action, question our presumptions and climb out of our compliancy, then the ship will surely sink.
Finally an obvious parallel is this - those people on the Titanic were so absorbed with their own personal affairs that they didnt open their eyes to see the reality until the very last moments. It is also the case that climate change is clearly the biggest threat to human existence and yet it still isnt taken seriously and given priority over everything else. It seems that we are ignoring the fact that it is already a reality and not just an abstract concept far away in the future. We continue to put our petty political, religious, social, economic and personal soap operas above the sinking ship that contains us all. Perhaps the most chilling thing about human ignorance is that while the Titanic was sinking, people only started to take action when it was too late. I wonder if the same human ignorance will take place in the advent of climate change as it progressively gets worse or have we learnt from our mistakes? Are we acting with greater intelligence? It appears that this is not the case since we are not seriously doing anything about it right now. It may not be too late for us just yet; however, the ship is already sinking.
By James
http://www.teamhumanity.com/jointheteam.asp
Dedicated to uniting all countries in peace and cooperation, for the good of all people.
Informant: politics128
An Open Letter to all people
http://www.teamhumanity.com/openletter.htm
--------
DECLARATION OF DEPENDENCE: A DECLARATION FOR HUMAN SURVIVAL
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/313445720
The first was the rush to get the ship to its destination in order to gain reputation and financial success. Secondly the numbers of life boats were reduced to make the ship look more aesthetic. Thirdly the belief that the ship was unsinkable created a false sense of security which led to an imprudent attitude about how robust the ship was matched against the power of the ocean. Finally those on the ship were so absorbed with their personal affairs that the idea Titanic was sinking wasn't taken seriously until it was plainly obvious.
Why do I bring up these factors? Well there is a striking resemblance between the human ignorance that led to the sinking of the Titanic and the sinking of our whole existence owing to climate change. It seems that the first factor that led to the sinking of the Titanic was greed. In the same way, governments and corporations continue to put economic motives above the very thing that sustain us - the environment. As a consequence, we are heading speedily towards a metaphorical iceberg; (if there are any left) and our eyes have been firmly closed about this for some time. Secondly we are putting our own aesthetic values of materialism over the planets ability to cope; putting aesthetics over safety will always lead to failure.
Thirdly the belief that humanity is indestructible and that all the things we have created and accumulated are enduring, has given rise to a false sense of security. In the image of the Titanic, our fixed assumptions like the proclamation "Titanic is unsinkable", echoes the sentiment "The world will always be the same no matter how much we consume". Anything created by the mind of (hu)man is minute compared to the might created by nature. This was laid bare for all to see on that fateful night when the so-called mighty Titanic sank. The idea that climate change will radically affect the so-called mighty humanity within the first half of this century is inconceivable to most of us. We have all built a false sense of security about this sinking ship by clinging to our personal and collective presumptions which we take so much for granted. Unless we take intelligent action, question our presumptions and climb out of our compliancy, then the ship will surely sink.
Finally an obvious parallel is this - those people on the Titanic were so absorbed with their own personal affairs that they didnt open their eyes to see the reality until the very last moments. It is also the case that climate change is clearly the biggest threat to human existence and yet it still isnt taken seriously and given priority over everything else. It seems that we are ignoring the fact that it is already a reality and not just an abstract concept far away in the future. We continue to put our petty political, religious, social, economic and personal soap operas above the sinking ship that contains us all. Perhaps the most chilling thing about human ignorance is that while the Titanic was sinking, people only started to take action when it was too late. I wonder if the same human ignorance will take place in the advent of climate change as it progressively gets worse or have we learnt from our mistakes? Are we acting with greater intelligence? It appears that this is not the case since we are not seriously doing anything about it right now. It may not be too late for us just yet; however, the ship is already sinking.
By James
http://www.teamhumanity.com/jointheteam.asp
Dedicated to uniting all countries in peace and cooperation, for the good of all people.
Informant: politics128
An Open Letter to all people
http://www.teamhumanity.com/openletter.htm
--------
DECLARATION OF DEPENDENCE: A DECLARATION FOR HUMAN SURVIVAL
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/313445720
rudkla - 12. Apr, 16:48
CLIMATE CHANGE SHATTERING MARINE FOOD CHAIN
rudkla - 12. Apr, 13:40
