The title of this post is also the title of a new report from the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP). The bottom line = The ability of the Earth's living systems to store carbon could play a vital role in the mitigation of climate change. The report, a PDF of which can be downloaded from here, suggests that safeguarding and restoring carbon in ecosystems has the potential to prevent huge amounts of carbon entering the atmosphere - some estimates say well over 50 gigatonnes (Gt).
The three priority ecosystems for carbon conservation and management are forests, peatlands and agriculture. For example, reducing deforestation rates by 50 per cent by 2050 could avoid the release of up to 50 Gt of carbon this century. Emissions from deforestation are equivalent to about 15 per cent of the total global anthropogenic carbon emissions. Similarly, the draining of peatland for agricultural land and other land uses emits up to 0.8 Gt of carbon a year. And in agriculture, if best management practices were adopted it could save up to 6 Gt of CO2 equivalent per year by 2030.
The report suggests that the management of carbon storage and uptake is achievable if the right policy framework is in place. It suggests we need to change our perception of the natural world from an offset mechanism, though the authors do note that there is some uncertainty about the amounts of carbon that can be sequestered and that all stores could eventually reach saturation.
See the report here. As I've reported before, we have to start finding solutions to climate change.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 132
but why should we do that? dr. singer, a former consultant for exxon and shell, says it is not necessary, doesn't he?
I also allow the trees on my property to prosper by keeping the vines off them.
I believe we already have technology that could be working now to reduce the amount of coal and oil used and it just needs more aggressive action to be put into use.
Wikipedia HERE
No one can argue the importance of carbon emission reductions but the picture of HOW much effect we can control has been distorted to some degree, by the lack of reference to what part of the total carbon emissions are a result of man's activities. "Natural sources of carbon dioxide are more than 20 times greater than sources due to human activity...."
But the most important of the greenhouse gasses is water vapor...as far as the amount of this gas and the impact on our temperatures and weather.
"Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.
This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.
Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold." ....from THIS source....
Ninety-seven percent of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century.
Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; the rest are unsure.
This chart adapted after Nigel Calder (6) illustrates that variations in sun activity are generally proportional to both variations in atmospheric CO2 and atmospheric temperature (Figure 3).
Put another way, rising Earth temperatures and increasing CO2 may be "effects" and our own sun the "cause".
farmer, your source appears to believe something that has been disproven by scientists. the solar global warming theory has been disproven.
solar activity is not the cause of global warming, scientists say.
Of course the cause of global temperature increases is the sun (solar activity)....the ultimate cause...it is the source of the energy. But I understand your objection to the premise. By the way...per the poll you have quoted..."Overall, only 5% describe the study of global climate change as a “fully mature” science...". In other words, the scientists..95% of them, are admitting that the science of global climate is not yet a reliable tool of the scientific method.
One of the considerations of the explanations of how the earth's temperature fluctuates that must be considered is not just how much energy is reflected and how much is absorbed, but the magnetic instabilities in the core of the sun.
I don't understand the science behind the earth's temperature fluctuations...but the scientists don't either..not fully.
i don't know. did i post this link yet? only 5% of climate scientists believe humans do not contribute to global warming.
Based on current trends, 41% of scientists believe global climate change will pose a very great danger to the earth in the next 50 to 100 years, compared to 13% who see relatively little danger. Another 44% rate climate change as moderately dangerous.
Scientists have delivered the final blow to the theory that recent global warming can be explained by variations in the natural cycles of the Sun - a favourite refuge for climate sceptics who dismiss the influence of greenhouse-gas emissions.
Related articles
Mark Steel: Global warming must be a lie. Just look who says so
An analysis of the records of all of the Sun's activities over the past few decades - such as sunspot cycles and magnetic fields - shows that since 1985 solar activity has decreased significantly, while global warming has continued to increase.
Mike Lockwood, of the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Chilton, Oxfordshire, said: "In 1985, the Sun did a U-turn in every respect. It no longer went in the right direction to contribute to global warming. We think it's almost completely conclusive proof that the Sun does not account for the recent increases in global warming."
so your source merely does not tell the whole truth. VARIATIONS in the sun's energy output are apparently not the cause of the current global warming.
it looks as if your dr. singer is against the kyoto protocol. i think most scientists are for kyoto.
dr. singer was a consultant for exxon and shell.
Dr. Singer
But the effect of the forest is more than the sum of individual tree's effects.
The trees use the carbon dioxide to produce food. When the tree is producing food it also produces oxygen.
Then if we were to grow more trees, turn them into mulch, spread them across the landscape, and plant new trees to repalce the ones we harvested then we could be capturing carbon from the atmosphere, releasing more oxygen, make the land more fertile?
If this is the case, I wonder how the energy demands for using the trees versus one of the latest scheme to extract CO2 in parts per million from the atmosphere, compress it and then inject it into the ground (caverns and such) compares?
But this does not take into account the huge effect of algae and the CO2 cycle....the oceans are subject to the variables of temperature and current and cloud cover and are very difficult to "model" or predict the volume of the activity of the CO2 cycle.
Also, other natural sources of CO2 are not typically taken into account when the models for climate change are developed....such as the effects of volcanoes.
Read THIS article...it really puts the topic of climate and greenhouse gasses into focus.
Thank you for the links, I have made my first read of the two articles. I will read some of the imbedded links later.
These seem to be less than glowing support for the proposition of manmade driver of CO2 change and thus “global warming.” What is the perception of the author? Where between the “deniers” and the “greenies” do you think the scientific community places the author?
In your reading I wonder if you can help me with a question I have so far had ignored. As I understand the “green house gases” prevent the earth radiation of heat and that is what is causing the atmospheric temperature rise. The other ways (per Wikipedia) are convection and conduction. Have you read anything about how the CO2 and other “green house gases” affect those heat transfer methods?
This is so complicated and I am strictly a layman in this area of study. The very best source I can offer for the total picture about how our planet regulates it's temperature is a book by Dorion Sagan (Carl's son) ..."Notes from the Holocene: A Brief History of the Future". In his book, Sagan (who is brilliant by the way) explains many of the mechanisms by which the earth regulates it's temperature....you will be amazed...I promise. The book... HERE ...is a very enjoyable read and it's rather uplifting at the same time. If you want to get a copy...Amazon has used paperbacks for about $7 including postage.
Thanks for the link. The book isn't in my library so I have ordered it (I am cheap and took standard delivery 2 weeks) for under $7, shipping included.
“This is so complicated and I am strictly a layman in this area of study.” Well I am classified as a “science illiterate” and it has been pointed out to me that only “scientists” are able to speak knowledgably on this topic so I am grateful to talk to a layman and get whatever help I can because I believe this is a very important issue.
“Greenhouse gases absorb this infrared radiation and trap the heat in the atmosphere.” I think I grasp the reflecting of radiation and the heat the is trapped by the gases. But it seems that if the “greenhouse gases” less water are less than 0.3% of the atmosphere that there is some limit to how much heat they can absorb and reflect back to earth.
It would seem that the other gases would have similar capabilities albeit not to the same level.
Unless the only way the earth looses heat is by reflected radiation from the earth’s surface (which no one has said is the case) then the atmospheric gases would seem to carry heat and since those gases are actively moving and the hot ones rise (recalling my high school science) then unlike a greenhouse those gases would be carrying heat away from the earth and as it rises it would release that heat as it rose to the edge of the atmosphere. Have you come across any article in your reading that addresses this consideration, either disregarding it or even better explaining why it doesn’t apply? This is how I interpreted Wikipedia’s description of conduction and convection heat transfer.
Again thanks for the information you have shared and for any help on this thought.
BAck to the wood for a moment, what if the logs were taken a desert for storage, would they decay as fast and release as much CO2?
From my past experience with Amazon...your book will arrive in less than 2 weeks. I am really pleased that you have ordered this book and I feel like you will be positively influenced by the information Sagan presents and the manner in which that information is presented....it really is an interesting read.
Water vapor is by far the most abundant greenhouse gas. For me, this fact does beg the question of how much effect he other gasses can have...simply due to their having much, much less volume. Some scientists discount the effect of water vapor in the long term because "water vapor has a short cycle in the atmosphere (a few days) before it is incorporated into weather events and falls to Earth, so it cannot build up in the atmosphere in the same way as carbon dioxide does." * This sounds a little weak to me...it's like saying that once the lake has been drained...it will always be dry. I wonder if the replacement water vapor...although technically not a build up, can still be discounted. But CO2 builds up and sticks around. Think of the green house gasses as a blanket around the earth. The thicker the blanket, the more it insulates....as I understand the concept. Also...the other source of heat for the planet is from the earth's molten core. I don't recall having heard this source of heat as a consideration of importance from the scientists who are investigating the "climate heat wave"....I don't know if the effect IS worth considering.
*Union of Concerned Scientists
I think the answer to your log in the desert question is that decay must occur for the release of CO2..or combustion... and the rate of decay in a dry location is slower than that rate in a damp one. (I'm pretty sure) Another factor (I think) is temperature.
I hope you will contact me after you read Sagan's book. I would really like to hear what you have to say about it.
from the Union of Concerned Scientists
I am still struggling with how 0.3% of the atmosphere can blanket the whole earth. If it were even at 1% that would that would suggest that at no more than a half mile up that all of the CO2 molecules would have collect to form a blanket around the earth to prevent the reradiation of heat from escaping. Otherwise it would be like a poorly seal house with 94% of the air circulating in and out of the house with the 6% "greenhouse gases."
Interesting articles have been posted by many scientists who disagree with the findings of the IPCC.
The Truth About Arctic and Greenland Ice
Leonard Weinstein, ScD
May 21, 2009
Debunking the CO2 Positive Feedback Myth
Leonard Weinstein, ScD
May 11, 2009
The Middlebury Community Network
Editorial: The Great Global Warming Hoax?
Additionally...the accused culprit in the global warming trend is CO2...but most of the CO2 that accumulates in our atmosphere is not anthropogenic...not caused by humans. The numbers from one source are 3.225% CO2 caused by human activity, 96.775% caused by natural occurrences.
From THIS page:
Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.
At 368 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.
CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life-- plants and animals alike-- benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.
CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans-- the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.
farmer, from dr. singer who was a consultant for exxon and shell.
I got the book and have started reading it. Dorion has an interesting Introduction; he starts with look to science for answers, but will consider speculations from sceince fiction, mystiques, and philosphers. He raises the point that SO2 could increase cloud cover mitigating the "greenhouse gas" effects. (Kind of like the cause dreaded acid rain could have mitigated 'global warming' if it hadn't been so aggressively ban before its full impact could be understood.)
I have begun reading, I am a very poor/slow reader so it will take me a while, howevr I will come back here and talk a bit about how the book cause me to think about the issues. Thanks for the recommendation.
I am disappointed in how the Dorion Sagan is presented; the few promos I have read abou the book it seems they focus on his being the son of a famous father as if it is the link to the father that justifys reading the book rather than content Dorion wrote.
David Deming is a geophysicist and associate professor of Arts and Sciences at the University of Oklahoma.
Deming from THIS essay...
"Global warming predictions by meteorologists are based on speculative, untested, and poorly constrained computer models. But our knowledge of ice ages is based on a wide variety of reliable data, including cores from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. In this case, it would be perspicacious to listen to the geologists, not the meteorologists. By reducing our production of carbon dioxide, we risk hastening the advent of the next ice age. Even more foolhardy and dangerous is the Obama administration's announcement that they may try to cool the planet through geoengineering. Such a move in the middle of a cooling trend could provoke the irreversible onset of an ice age. It is not hyperbole to state that such a climatic change would mean the end of human civilization as we know it.
Earth's climate is controlled by the Sun. In comparison, every other factor is trivial. The coldest part of the Little Ice Age during the latter half of the seventeenth century was marked by the nearly complete absence of sunspots. And the Sun now appears to be entering a new period of quiescence. August of 2008 was the first month since the year 1913 that no sunspots were observed. As I write, the sun remains quiet. We are in a cooling trend. The areal extent of global sea ice is above the twenty-year mean."
"The areal (of or relating to or involving an area) extent of global sea ice is above the twenty-year mean" .........
"18 Apr 09 – “Ice is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap,” says this article in The Australian.
“The results of ice-core drilling and sea ice monitoring indicate there is no large-scale melting of ice over most of Antarctica, although experts are concerned at ice losses on the continent's western coast.
“Antarctica has 90 per cent of the Earth's ice and 80 per cent of its fresh water.
If Antarctica contains 90 percent of the earth’s ice – and the amount
is increasing – wouldn’t that mean that more than 90 percent of the
world’s glaciers are growing? (As I've been saying all along.)
“East Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica and parts of it are cooling. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report prepared for last week's meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations in Washington noted the South Pole had shown "significant cooling in recent decades".
From THIS article: "..... although some 10 million square kilometres (3.8 million square miles) of sea-ice melts each summer, each September the Arctic starts to freeze again. And the extent of the ice now is 500,000 sq km (190,000 sq miles) greater than it was this time last year – which was, in turn, 500,000 sq km more than in September 2007, the lowest point recently recorded (see the Cryosphere Today website). By April, after months of darkness, it will be back up to 14 million sq km (5.4 million sq m) or more."
Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
"Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close.
Ice levels had been tracking lower throughout much of 2008, but rapidly recovered in the last quarter. In fact, the rate of increase from September onward is the fastest rate of change on record, either upwards or downwards.
The data is being reported by the University of Illinois's Arctic Climate Research Center, and is derived from satellite observations of the Northern and Southern hemisphere polar regions."
"Sea ice is floating and, unlike the massive ice sheets anchored to bedrock in Greenland and Antarctica, doesn't affect ocean levels. However, due to its transient nature, sea ice responds much faster to changes in temperature or precipitation and is therefore a useful barometer of changing conditions.
Earlier this year, predictions were rife that the North Pole could melt entirely in 2008. Instead, the Arctic ice saw a substantial recovery. Bill Chapman, a researcher with the UIUC's Arctic Center, tells DailyTech this was due in part to colder temperatures in the region. Chapman says wind patterns have also been weaker this year. Strong winds can slow ice formation as well as forcing ice into warmer waters where it will melt."
The Cooling World
By Peter Gwynne
28 April 1975
"There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production — with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas — parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia — where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.
The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually."
I posted this excerpt from a nearly 45 year old article written by a scientist to illustrate the fallibility of making predictions about climate trends. Even with today's super computers...the accuracy of what comes out depends upon the accuracy AND the completeness of what goes in. Our climate is influenced by too many variables for accurate climate forecasts. Hell...those computers can't accurately predict the weather for week after next.
My effort Scott, et al, is to challenge the mindset of alarmist, reactionary actions....the mindset that allows for no questions. Maybe the scientists that have predicted a dangerous global warming trend are right...I don't know. Maybe the scientists that claim the actions of humans can affect our climate are right...again...I don't know. But to not challenge is systematic of a loss of the ability for critical thought. It is the "sheeple" effect....blind allegiance and mass hysteria....mob mentality.
there was never consensus for global cooling in the scientific community.
farmer, your link appears to contridict you. the union of concerned scientists say that carbon dioxide causes most of the global warming.
Most climate scientists say that the targets set in the Kyoto Protocol are merely scratching the surface of the problem.
The agreement aims to reduce emissions from industrialised nations only by around 5%, whereas the consensus among many climate scientists is that in order to avoid the worst consequences of global warming, emissions cuts in the order of 60% across the board are needed.
This has led to criticisms that the agreement is toothless, as well as being virtually obsolete without US support.
But others say its failure would be a disaster as, despite its flaws, it sets out a framework for future negotiations which could take another decade to rebuild.
Kyoto commitments have been signed into law in some countries, US states and in the EU, and will stay in place regardless of the fate of the protocol itself.
from the bbc
most climate scientists say that kyoto does not reduce greenhouse emission enough.
the scientists who authored the ipcc report.
it looks to me like all 620 authors of the ipcc report are scientists.
Studying the Quaternary is critically important because it has been a time of frequent and dramatic environmental changes, exemplified by growing and decaying continental ice sheets and mountain glaciers.
Beyond understanding the forces that shaped our modern environment, studying the Quaternary Period is significant because the Ice Age environmental changes were the backdrop for global changes in floral and faunal communities, including extinction of a diverse megafauna, and for the evolution of modern humans and their dispersal throughout the world.
from the epa.
the largest producer of carbon dioxide emissions are humans.
from the epa
from the world meteoralogical association (sp?)
the world meteorological organization says humans are the main cause of carbon dioxide emissions.
Filed under: Climate Science FAQ Greenhouse gases Paleoclimate— eric @ 22 December 2004 - () ()
Note:This is an update to an earlier post, which many found to be too technical. The original, and a series of comments on it, can be found here. See also a more recent post here for an even less technical discussion.
Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have risen from 280 to nearly 380 parts per million (ppm). The fact that this is due virtually entirely to human activities is so well established that one rarely sees it questioned. Yet it is quite reasonable to ask how we know this.
One way that we know that human activities are responsible for the increased CO2 is simply by looking at historical records of human activities. Since the industrial revolution, we have been burning fossil fuels and clearing and burning forested land at an unprecedented rate, and these processes convert organic carbon into CO2. Careful accounting of the amount of fossil fuel that has been extracted and combusted, and how much land clearing has occurred, shows that we have produced far more CO2 than now remains in the atmosphere. The roughly 500 billion metric tons of carbon we have produced is enough to have raised the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to nearly 500 ppm. The concentrations have not reached that level because the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere have the capacity to absorb some of the CO2 we produce.* However, it is the fact that we produce CO2 faster than the ocean and biosphere can absorb it that explains the observed increase.
from "real climate by climate scientists"
real climate by climate scientists says that humans are the main cause of carbon dioxide emissions.
yes, you don't know. that is correct. but the vast majority of scientists believe that global warming is taking place and human activity contributes to it.
indeed, the tobacco industry bought a quite a few amoral scientists too.
for example, the corporate media does not focus on the stats poll i linked to earlier which says only 5% of scientists believe that humans do not contribute to global warming.
"..... although some 10 million square kilometres (3.8 million square miles) of sea-ice melts each summer, each September the Arctic starts to freeze again. And the extent of the ice now is 500,000 sq km (190,000 sq miles) greater than it was this time last year – which was, in turn, 500,000 sq km more than in September 2007, the lowest point recently recorded (see the Cryosphere Today website). By April, after months of darkness, it will be back up to 14 million sq km (5.4 million sq m) or more."
In other words...how you found evidence that the "The areal (of or relating to or involving an area) extent of global sea ice is above the twenty-year mean" is not true?
I gather from yo comments that believe that that "global warming" is only reversible by stopping the CO2 emmissinos. I have heard that some "scientists" are staying that we have already reached the tipping point and no matter what we do that the atompshere will contiinue to rise (though I haven;t heard if there is any maximum).
If we have pased the tipping point, shold we accept it and whold we change how we look and react to "global warming'?
"In May, 2008, the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) predicted that the North Pole would be ice-free during the 2008 melt season because of ‘global warming.’
Today, they admitted that they’ve underreported Arctic ice extent by 193,000 square miles (500,000 square kilometers). They blamed the error on satellite problems and sensor drift."
Can you challenge THIS? (As opposed to the NSIDC information, AMSR-E data - compiled in cooperation with the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency and the Advanced Earth Science and Technology Organization of Japan - shows that sea ice extent in 2009 is running ahead of 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008.)
Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.
No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously."
arctic ice melted faster than scientists predicted.
Do you see any problem with using your article to debate what has not yet happened at the time the article was written?
interesting. one theory holds that global warming could actually cause an ice age by inhibiting the salt belt in the north atlantic.
He said it was likely that the La Nina phenomenon would continue into the summer. If his forecast is right it would mean temperatures have not risen globally since 1998 when El Nino warmed the world.
La Nina (the little girl) and El Nino (the little boy) are two great natural Pacific currents whose effects can be felt worldwide.
Recently La Nina caused one of the coldest winters in memory in China, Canada and the Arctic and brought torrential rains to Australia.
Where can I go to better understand the La Nina and El Nino effects and what causes them?
I have been able to find innumerable sites that explain what they are and how they work. However, none I have found can explain what cause them. The best they say uis that they have a 3-8 cycle.
I am curious of why do they happen becuae they seem to have a very apprent and immediate impact our weather conditions. As has been mention the impact can overwhlem the "global warming".
None I have found explain what triggers either of them.
From all I read the "scieintists" know that CO2 is the cause of "global warming".
What is the cause of el nino/la nina?
colder 2008 due to la nina, says scientist.
the ipcc, a group of global scientists, says stringent reductions in emissions are needed. but the ipcc does not say that it's too late to solve the problem.
from your jaxa link.
jaxa says arctic sea ice has recently reduced drastically.
jaxa says arctic sea ice has recently reduced drastically.
No..it shows (the graph shows) a significant increase of sea ice so far in 2009 as compared to 2007.
"He (Michel Jarraud, secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organisation) said it was likely that the La Nina phenomenon would continue into the summer. If his forecast is right it would mean temperatures have not risen globally since 1998 when El Nino warmed the world."
You can't argue global warming if the global temps are falling...for what ever the reason.
But the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) said the decade from 1998 to 2007 was the warmest on record and forecast a new record high temperature within five years.
Over the last century the world’s average surface temperature has risen by 0.74C.
Michel Jarraud, secretary general of the WMO, said: “When you look at climate change you should not look at any particular year.
“You should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming.
“La Nina is part of what we call ‘variability’. There has always been and there will always be cooler and warmer years, but what is important for climate change is that the trend is up; the climate on average is warming even if there is a temporary cooling because of La Nina.”
Scientist Adam Scaife, of the Hadley Centre in Exeter, says, “What’s happened now is that La Nina has come along and depressed temperatures slightly but these changes are very small compared to the long-term climate change signal, and in a few years time we are confident that the current record temperature of 1998 will be beaten when the La Nina has ended.”
1998 was the hottest year on record. we have not beat that record yet....yet would be the key word.
1998 was the hottest year on record, but we may beat that record in a few years.
the scientific consensus is that humans contribute to global warming.
IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].
Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).
it looks like cap and trade is running into some difficulty in the senate. not good.
the arctic sea ice extent is a little bit greater than 2007, when it reached a record low. That is not a cooling trend, not by a long shot. The graph looks like this:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
not exactly reassuring, unless of course one is a denialist. Those people really are willing to grasp at a straw and call it a tree trunk.
By the way...this "straw" ..the Antarctic...contains 90 per cent of the Earth's ice and 80 per cent of its fresh water.
In order to understand the global climate...we must look at it's history. There have been periods in which the temps of the Earth, ambient and ocean, have been a lot higher than now..and a lot higher than those predicted for the coming years by many scientists. Some of us are using our RECENT history to determine what the Earth's temperatures are "supposed" to be. Some are using measurement data that helps suggest what the Earth's temperatures MAY have been thousands of years ago...even millions of years ago. Although the findings of what Earth's temperatures MAY have been in the past are debatable from a factor of reliability and accuracy...the fact that the Earth's temperatures are NOT static is the one fact that is really a fact.
From THIS article....
"As both the National Academy of Sciences and the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have stated, the proxy techniques discussed here (measurement techniques) are sufficient to show with high confidence that there has been warming in the last century that is anomalous relative to what would have been expected based upon the natural variations of the geologically recent past—and human greenhouse-gas emissions are at least partly to blame. That said, the uncertainties of these techniques make them grossly insufficient to provide the basis for some of the more extreme claims that have been made. We have reason to be skeptical of both those who design elaborate hypotheses to explain away global warming and those who would have us panic."
My effort Chris..is not to 'explain away global warming'...I can't do that...no one can. but what I CAN do is refrain from crying that "the sky is falling".
Our planet has had many different climate patterns before man could have had any effect on the climate...which is only for about 150 years. To expect the climate to become suddenly non changing because we WANT it to be is not realistic.
welll, I have ignored that fact because it is not a fact.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_daily_extent_hires.png
Personally, I think it's a bit scary. This is the arctic, there is supposed to be summer ice.
The scientific community is very unevenly split about this issue...in favor of global warming...and more importantly in favor of the notion that our present temperatures are being affected by the activities of man....
I wonder how you could have drawn the conclusion that I may believe otherwise.
good job Farmer Slim, at least you are reality based. Now, my question is, why don't you just listen to the scientists?
I am listening to BOTH sides of a scientifically undecided debate. The issue is not settled and this is my point. I've no side here...except the side of wanting to know the truth....which can't be voted upon. If you will recall...there have been numerous instances of the majority being wrong. We don't have the data that is required to honestly assess the climate trend of this planet. We can't even accurately measure the temperatures required to establish a true AVERAGE current temperature on Earth. We cannot employ all the variables as computer climate models are written...we don't even know what all the variables are.
In other words...this matter is not settled as a product of the scientific method. Scientists use the scientific method to search for cause and effect relationships in nature. We don't understand or know ALL the causes..so the effect cannot be fully understood.