In anticipation of the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, the International Alliance of Research Universities has issued a report presenting an update of a broad range of research relating to climate change. The report synthesizes "the newest research results relating to climate change and what action can be taken in response to climate change."
According to the IARU, "the 36 page report is written for non-specialists and is based on discussions and presentations made at the scientific congress “Climate change: Global Risks, Challenges & Decisions” held in Copenhagen in March."
The report is organised into six key messages:
1. Climatic Trends. Recent observations indicate that many aspects of the climate are changing according to the more severe IPCC projections. Sea level rise is changing at even greater rates than IPCC projections and new modelling methods suggest a rise of around one metre by 2100. Since 2007, Arctic sea ice has rapidly decreased. Recent work has indicated that the vulnerability of natural carbon sinks will further amplify these changes.
2. Social and Environmental Disruption. Although a 2ºC rise is the quoted threshold above which climate change is deemed dangerous, this level still has significant risks for society and the environment. For example, modelling studies indicate that a 2ºC temperature rise would double the death rate caused by heatwaves. Increasing atmospheric CO2 is causing acidification of the oceans and threatening marine ecosystems. There are already reports of 19 per cent decrease in the growth of Great Barrier Reef corals.
3. Long-term strategy: Global targets and timetables. Recent studies indicate that if the peak and subsequent decline of greenhouse gases (GHGs) does not occur until after 2020, emission reduction rates will have to exceed 5 per cent per year to meet the 2ºC threshold. Immediate reductions are needed with a long-term expectation that carbon prices will rise.
4. Equity Dimensions. The impacts of climate change are greater for the poor, the uneducated and the isolated. In a 2050 world of 9 billion people, carbon emissions per capita will need to be about 2 tonnes of CO2 per annum, or less, to avoid dangerous climate change. Current per capita emissions vary widely. For example, in the USA they are over 20 tonnes and in China (which has the greatest total emissions) they are 4 tonnes.
5. Inaction is inexcusable. Renewable energy technologies are already available and, combined with reduced energy use and improved efficiency, they have the potential to achieve a 50 per cent decrease in GHG emissions by 2050. There are also positive developments in land management, deforestation and transport.
6. Meeting the Challenge. Cultural dimensions of climate change need to be included in research and policy. For example, a recent analysis indicated that 12 billion people could be nourished on less than one third of the present agricultural area by using the best sites for the most appropriate crops. Linking climate change with broader consumption and production issues can help sustainable development but will require long-term global deals.
The full report can be downloaded at the IARU conference site here.
If you skipped over it, go back and read key message 1 above. It's getting worse, faster than we had anticipated.
The time to act is now.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 144
Like the GOP resistance to act--this should be interesting. I am waiting to hear the oil people argue in the predictable direction. The Coal miners are lobbying for a seat at the table and I know a little about coal--and it is NOT clean. Chemically, it is carbon burn it you get carbon, compress it you get carbon--aka diamond, it is still carbon.
I have supported the new technology available now as the best way to start cleaning up the environment. Some technology is not new like wind generators but are being improved all the time to make them more efficient and cost effective. I think we are making a big mistake in flooding the public with electric cars because at this time it will more use of conventional fuels to produce the needed electricity to keep these cars moving, its putting the cart before the horse.
The deniers are really a small group but well funded and can do a lot of harm and delay needed good legislation needed to clean up the environment.
I do not favor carbon credits as a way to help us go green because it just taxes the public and gives corporation more incentive to keep removing mountain tops, burn coal, oil and keep destroying the environment.
"This is good news as there is already way too many people", when I see people posting like this to good scientific reports it shows me the lack of concern a lot of people have for their own family and future generations, it seems to be the mind set in America on all the important issues facing us.
I have written asking for a great ...Global Public out cry.......Today I cry as i see millions of people effected by floods here in South India [Its in the news]...they say its been the first of its kind in100years.......the people have no idea why all this happens.??How much proof do people want ??....Are we going to wake up when we are living in some sealed oxygen capsule ..in a community on the moon and looking down seeing our dear earth dispeared.
As Jack said I futher add that the present north pole pay be the new world.We will thn have a new colonialism.Countries will be figting to get a new country there..This not a joke...it may be a reality.
EXCELLENT QUESTION!!! Of course, cynics will claim that there is no proof that climate change causes these floods. That is mostly a phenomenon of statistics - statistics are valid for a large number of events, not single events. But the IPCC predicts increased frequency, intensity and duration of storms and droughts. You are seeing that in India. We see that in the U.S. Even Rupert Murdoch acknowledges Australia is in a millenial drought.
Yes David, agreed, the time to act is now. It's still like pulling teeth however. Add a few dollars to my electrical rates, how dare you even suggest such a thing. Cheap electricity is guaranteed by the Constitution, right?
Even Thomas Jefferson, bright and imaginative as he was, was not capable of imagining a world with so many energy-hungry humans that they endanger the functioning of the sky.
Climate is determined by observing weather over a period of time. Therefore I can say with certianity that the Climate in MT has gotten colder since this has been the coldest weather, for the last several months, in memory.
Learn some facts, or at the very least, look them up and copy them correctly.
For example, go to where you said that degrees C is 5/9 of degrees F. Well, George, that's wrong. And when others told you it was wrong you simply said that's what it said at your source. But it didn't say that at your source. You got it wrong.
Then for good measure a couple of comments later you forget even that and somehow assume that two temperature systems with completely different scales (which you had already apparently figured out) could be treated as if they were exactly the same scale.
So not only didn't you get the facts right, you contradicted your own statement with an absolute lack of logic.
No, George, learn some facts, check them, try to understand them, and don't try to lecture others when you can't even sound coherent.
Only when you can get your facts straight and communicate coherently can anyone even begin to decipher enough meaning to agree or disagree with any opinion that might be hiding in your subconscious.
Are you going to answer the question. Where does the US stand in per capata CO2 contributions or polution as you choose? I published the chart from one of your "scientists" so that should be easy for you. I posed a question answer it if you can.
As for your question about "per capata [sic]" CO2 contributions, are you talking about your post "A QUESTION FOR GLOBAL WARING [sic] ENTHAUSASTS [sic]? Seriously? Take another look at it, George. Not only is it incomprehensible, with charts falling outside the borders so it can't even be read, it is irrelevant. Why? Because you conflate totally unrelated factors to the point where your question is meaningless, not to mention so far out from logical that one has to question your ability to even comprehend basic English. You certainly don't use it in your writing.
Don't understand where you conflated? Think 5.7 billion vs 54 million. Work it out from there.
Go down a ways and you will see Sam's comment. you will see also where I corrected my error.
In other words, understand what you write, rather than post something illogical and incomprehensible and expect others to tell you what it means, which of course you will deny, just like any other fact that you don't like, or more likely, don't understand.
Good luck, Mr. Phelps.
For your information per capita means population (per person). your post seems to say you don't know that.
I ask a serious question and all I get from you is flack, thanks a lot.
Steve, why don't you go wash your car or something. You are not helping. Maybe you have an answer to the questions I jsut posted.
It's true you don't know the answers, or even understand the question. But yet you draw an implied conclusion. How is that possible since you admit you don't understand what you presented?
But your attempted deflection (again) doesn't change the fact that you began with a predetermined conclusion based solely on your ideology, then sought some tidbit you thought somehow supported your conclusion, and presented it without even understanding what, if anything, it meant.
That's the point. Get the facts correct first.
Plus, David makes another valid point: Why does any of that mean the US should do nothing.
Point 3: I live in Washington. If you think last winter was the coldest in memory, you have a pretty short memory. It was a winter similar to the ones I experienced as a child. El Nino and La Nina have made the preceding several winters milder than normal, which made last winter seem more severe. While we here in Spokane did have one record snowfall (aka "Snowmegeddon"), neither snowfall nor temperature was anywhere as abnormal as you claim.
But the fact remains that the nay-sayers will continue to claim that "Global Warming" is a myth while the climate continues to change around them. Climate change (the more-accurate name of the phenomenon) entails a change in the overall climate. That change can be (and has been) experienced by a local decrease in average temperature, rainfall, etc; it can also be experienced as a local increase in all of the above. Saying "It was cold last winter" as if that factoid totally debunks conclusions derived from years of scientific research is disingenuous, to say the least.
Averages are not necessarily the most descriptive thing in some situations.
And why don't you know where you really got the info? Didn't you link the original source? Didn't you evaluate the reliability of that source? How do you know if the numbers are real and not just made up by someone? Usually the original source provides context to understand what things mean.
So did you get it from the Wiki article? Or the original CDIAC source? The former is possible, the latter is highly doubtful. Or did you just get it from a blog or email you received? That might explain why you don't know where the information came from or what it means and doesn't mean.
Try linking your sources. Try reading them. Try thinking critically. It really does help you understand what you're presenting so you can have an honest, factual, informed conversation.
Not a sermon, just a thought.
Go ahead. Point to the links of mine that you refer to. The ones that somehow prove the point you were trying to make in an article you posted before I posted. The ones that somehow make the fact that you don't know what you even posted seem intelligible. The ones that somehow make your incorrect and illogical temperature comparisons no longer incorrect and illogical. The ones that make virtually everything you write sound uninformed and incomprehensible.
Go for it.
Post the actual links. No bumper stickers like your comment above with no meaning and no connection to any fact or even reality.
If you can do that, we can talk. Otherwise I'll take Steve's advice and let you talk to yourself. You seem comfortable with that.
Here are some questions I would like to have answered.
“If humanity is to learn from history and to limit these threats, the time has come
for stronger control of the human activities”
**** What History? Has this happened before? If so what happened?
Temperature rises above 2oC will be difficult for contemporary societies to cope with, and are likely to cause major societal and environmental disruptions through the rest
of the century and beyond.
***** So what they are saying is that a 2 degree Celsius rise will cause problems? C is 5/9 F I think. So that would be 1.11 degrees F. It is 120 degrees in the shade at times with no shade so one degree or two is going to cause a problem?
***** It is cold on the arctic and Antarctic circles. Say 20 below C. Raise that ten degrees and Ice still remains ice. Is there a problem with that?
modern Homo sapiens evolved around 200,000 years ago.
*****Do they know about the new discovery, they just dug up a human skeleton that is 1 million years old.
These are off just the first few pages. I hate bad sales pitches.
People ARE Homo Sapiens Roy.
I love the way pro Global Warming people think they have to demean people and call names to get their point across. It sounds so intelligent.
Yeah, but you know what Colonel, you still have no qualms in being quickly judgemental with other people, like you did with me, in response to comments of mine on one of your posts, earlier this summer. If this is how ranking military officers, like you were, are prone to think, then it should be no wonder to We the People, as to why the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan bode so poorly. So thank you for helping to make it clear, why taxpayer money being spent on such $h!t like war profiteering, is not taxpayer money well spent.
"The U.K. Met Office concludes that without action a 7.2°F (4°C)" from Sam below. If 4 degrees C is 7.2 degrees F then 2 degrees C is half of that or just over 3 degrees. No such a big deal as its made out to be.
" I will actually be laughing my head off at ignorant dolts like yourself, when you all decide to drop a load in your pants and scream "What have we done???". Intelligence and ignorance are not equal, nor in any way similar.
Bottom line: f**k you and every other willfully ignorant @$$hole like you that has ruined this country, and this planet!"
Now then did I call you names before or after you made that very intelligent comment?
It seems to me we were having a rather good conversation untill that point and you got offensive on a personal level. I don't know you? Right, but your statements said you had guts enough to leave your place of residence and find work. That in itself tells me you must be a resourceful individual with a strong work ethic.
You are right an officer in the service does need to make judgements. i.e. you don't send a sluff-off Beatle Baily out to do an important job. You send soomeone who has shown he is reliable.
In my case I got the rank because I did the jobs no one else wanted or in most instances didn't have a skill I had. I have a nerve problem today because of it in that I constantly shake and can't even sign my name so anyone can read it. It's nice that you appreciate that, thank you.
The very fact that this has so much political overtones leads me to believe it is a political issue, and therefore not as real as claimed. Fox news is conservative, that's a given, but why would a conservative news source not be just as alarmed as anyone else if our very existance is threatened?
To hear the Global Warming people talk this is about equilivant to a giant Asteroid headed toward earth.
EricT: no Bull**it detected
Col. George: Registers at neck deep
Carry on
Look I am not a climate scientist, a geologist, or what have you. But you wanna know why I am thoroughly convinced that man made climate change is for real? It all goes back to one of the most basic laws of science. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Since the industrial revolution, we have put so much junk into the environment (land, air, sea) that simply does NOT belong there... PERIOD! And with developing nations following the footsteps of the more so-called developed nations doing it, that is a multiplier effect. And the idea that these unfavorable changes could be happening at an accelerated rate, harken back to another basic but yet golden rule: expect the unexpected!
Col. George W. Oct 3, 2009, 12:14pm EDT
If that's the case, tell me it isn't pure political BS.
It isn't pure political bullshit~
Call it whatever you want, but the issue needs to be addressed, and cap and trade is one way to address it.
come on off the silly soapbox~Col.~ and let's go foxtrot back into reality~ I'll lead and I'll even wear the little black dress with the *CENSORED*~ =D
Good point.
One example: Krakatoa erupted in 1883, sending ash into the atmosphere . The resulting decrease in the mean temperature caused the "little Ice Age".
Scientists (no ditto marks) have examined ice cores which indicate that the climate has changed dramatically not once but many times over the Earth's lifespan.
Those problems were from natural phenomena, not man made. I suppose Mt St Helens had some effects on the climate for a while too. They indicate that man made climate change has happened before but that is not true. It makes one question their findings in other things as well.
Thank you for your answer, at least you didn't ignore it like the others.
Climate Policy Memo #3: Cost of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 Found to Be Small According to Government Analyses
June 2009
For more information on this subject and other memos in this series, click here.
Economic analysis by its nature is better suited to providing insights and not absolute predictions of the future and when these insights are confirmed by more than one analysis, the results are typically considered more credible. With this in mind, two recent government analyses that looked at the costs of the cap and trade portion of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES) have found that the likely impact of this portion of the bill would be fairly small. Taking into account the included cost containment provisions and that much of the revenue raised by the bill would be returned in some fashion to households, both EPA and CBO suggest that household impacts would be less than $200 per year.
For More: http://www.pewclimate.org/acesa/costs
The Department of Agricullture has little to do with National Forests Eric. That is in the jurisdiction of the Forest Service and clear cutting is not as bad as the environmentalists claim because the areas are re-planted with new trees. What the environmentalist tree huggers have done to our national forests have destroyed a lot more trees than the logging industry because of their passion for not cutting out beetle infested trees. Montana has suffered great loss of forests because of that.
It really is that kind of stuff that you spew, with clear disregard of the facts, that causes those of us to break down to call names, because we can't take it anymore, and it appears more and more likely, by the day, that it will collectively do us in.
Okay, so which is it? Not cutting out beetle infested trees, or not cutting out trees at all. Yes, I know trees are replanted, and just purely FYI, no, I am not suggesting we stop cutting down trees completely. Selective cutting is far more environmentally responsible, possibly healthy, and we should rely more on recycled materials and other sustainable methods, which there are plenty.
Most of the trees they have prevented logging off or cutting out infestation are actually in places that are not being logged or the trees are too small for timber to be cut into lumber.
I agree we should rely more on sustainable methods and one of those is Industrial Hemp which the idoits in DC will not let the farmers grow because it LOOKS like it's cousing Marijuana. From that 20,000 products could be made including fuel for vehicles, plastic and other things that come from oil. Also it makes paper and that would preserve a lot of trees.
Selective cutting or clear cutting has been a debate for years.
The Department of Agricullture has little to do with National Forests Eric. That is in the jurisdiction of the Forest Service... As has been said above, the Forest Service is an agency of the Dept of Ag.
What the environmentalist tree huggers have done to our national forests have destroyed a lot more trees than the logging industry because of their passion for not cutting out beetle infested trees. Like the loggers would take infested trees!
Even if the trees are too far gone to make lumber they can be used for posts and for pulp wood to make paper. The thing is to get them down and out before the infect other trees and eventually a whole forest.
Bottom line is that given free rein, companies seek to minimize their costs (often by externalizing it to society) and maximize profit. That's how business works. Regulations protect the environment and the public and actually stimulate innovation as companies are forced to deal with the costs they had previously foisted upon society, consumers, and taxpayers. Most companies today make profit off what used to be waste that they dumped, usually in ways that cost us all much more later.
B. Loggers don't hunt down trees that are infested, the Forest Service does.
C. Clear cutting was encouraged by the Forest Service and the practice of re-planting was started by lumber companies on their private property to re-grow trees for harvest.
Obviously you know less about the timber industry than you think you know.
A lot of the newer uses of trees has been brought on by new innovation not by government. A pile of sawdust now can be made into fireplace logs and into sheets of wood. Chips can be made into chip board. That's called innovation and using what used to be discarded to make money government had nothing to do with it.
A. Off topic? Forest fires are supposed to be a large source of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The comment was related to your diversion into infested trees, not forest fires. Perhaps if you tried sticking to one topic rather than hopscotching around every time someone counters your unsupported statements it wouldn't get so hard for you to follow.
B. Loggers don't hunt down trees that are infested, the Forest Service does.
Then why did you say "Yes the loggers would take infested trees. Every time a logging operation starts up in Montana to get rid of those infested trees the tree huggers take them to court" in your comment above? Are you changing your story again? Every time someone counters something you say you simply rewrite history as if people can't just read back at what you wrote (which is all still there).
C. Clear cutting was encouraged by the Forest Service and the practice of re-planting was started by lumber companies on their private property to re-grow trees for harvest.
You have a source for that George? Obviously clear cutting and forestry practices in general is more complex than the simplified discussion we've had so far here. But to suggest that lumber companies are altruistic is to buy in to the company propaganda just a little more than is credible, George. Bet they told you a lot of things 50 years ago.
Obviously you know less about the timber industry than you think you know.
I'm pretty comfortable with my knowledge of the timber industry. Especially given the superficial nature of a few comments traded on a social networking site.
A lot of the newer uses of trees has been brought on by new innovation not by government. A pile of sawdust now can be made into fireplace logs and into sheets of wood. Chips can be made into chip board. That's called innovation and using what used to be discarded to make money government had nothing to do with it.
Guess you conveniently forget all the government incentivizing that stimulated companies to seek innovative ways to handle what used to be low value collateral damage.
in total carbon emissions the USA is number two. but i don't think that counts the last one hundred years of carbon emissions.
in per capita emissions the USA is number two behind australia.
Neither are you Chuck. All you do is quote employees of the UN.
Actually, Colonel, I am. I do, in fact, hold two science degrees, so I understand the scientific process... which you do not. As for "UN employees," wouldn't know one if I killed it, but if you're talking about scientists whose research was funded by UN grants... yep, you betcha. You see, those scientists work like other scientists (except for actual payroll johnnies who just get paid to use their degrees as backdrop while they pooh-pooh REAL science - they never really DO science). The UN-funded scientists, as do all other scientists, spend their careers trying to falsify their results (i.e., prove their hypotheses and theories WRONG!). THAT'S scientific method, Colonel. That's how they HAVE to work, if they're to have ANY credibility in the scientific community AT ALL.
In this case, the denier scientists primary problem is that they've forgotten this requirement, and they're trying to prove themselves RIGHT. They'll NEVER achieve acceptance of their ideas doing THAT!
Actually, according to this site, "we're number 1!"
And why did you give us what appears to be a partial source for what Jeannie already provided to us in the URL presented in the comment immediately above yours?
We're looking for your source; she already provided hers.
Sorry, due to your inability to discuss this honestly, the conversation is over. Bye.
only 5% of climate scientists believe that humans do not 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).
"The impacts of climate change on Europe's environment and society are shown in this report. Past trends in the climate, its current state and possible future changes are presented using 22 selected indicators. For almost all of these a clear trend exists and impacts are already being observed. The report highlights the need to develop strategies at European, national, regional and local level for adapting to climate change."
Here is a presentation they have:-
http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/climate_report_2_2004/climate_change_impacts_presentation.pdf
Europe too have the same conclusions....Scott and David
[Full Report ]http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/climate_report_2_2004/impacts_of_europes_changing_climate.pdf
the scientific consensus is that humans contribute to global warming.
Colonel George, wait a minute, you don't know who Jon Stewart is? What the heck.
Of course the dirty little temperature secret is at -40.
:)
Nippy's reference to -40 is the one temperature that is the same on both scales.
Of course, if you really want to liven up a party, we could get into the fact that there are also the Rankine scale, the Kelvin scale, Newton's scale, and a few other scales (starting to sound like a fish). :)