In 28 November to 11 December 2011 The United Nations Climate Change Conference was held in Durban, South Africa to establish a new treaty to limit carbon emissions. The conference agreed to a legally binding deal comprising all countries, which will be prepared by 2015, and to take effect in 2020. There was progress also regarding the creation of a Green Climate Fund for which a management framework was adopted. The fund is to distribute US$100bn per year to help poor countries adapt to climate impacts. While the president of the conference, Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, declared it a success, scientists and environmental groups warned that the deal was not sufficient to avoid global warming beyond 2 °C as more urgent action is needed. via
From http://en.wikipedia.org/
Tampilkan postingan dengan label climate change. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label climate change. Tampilkan semua postingan
Jumat, 16 Desember 2011
Jumat, 25 Februari 2011
Global warming - extreme events and weird weather
After a few days to find complete information about global warming, finally I found the article by Andrew Freedman of the "will of global warming make the weather more extreme. " And this is quite interesting in my opinion, you can read the article below:
I've never been a fan of absolutes. People who espouse rigid beliefs - be they about climate change, religion, or politics (or a mix of all three) - instinctively make me question their evidence. As a reporter, I tend to see things in varying shades of gray, rather than black and white, and I gravitate towards stories that are full of nuance and complexity, where absolutes are rarely, if ever, to be found.
For this reason, the oft-made assertions that "global warming will make the weather more extreme" or that warming "caused" a particular severe weather event to occur, make me cringe.
There are core scientific findings in climate science that most climate researchers, and most science journalists, including myself, no longer consider to be hotly debated, such as the conclusion that most of global warming is very likely due to manmade emissions of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide.
You can read more this articel here
I've never been a fan of absolutes. People who espouse rigid beliefs - be they about climate change, religion, or politics (or a mix of all three) - instinctively make me question their evidence. As a reporter, I tend to see things in varying shades of gray, rather than black and white, and I gravitate towards stories that are full of nuance and complexity, where absolutes are rarely, if ever, to be found.
For this reason, the oft-made assertions that "global warming will make the weather more extreme" or that warming "caused" a particular severe weather event to occur, make me cringe.
There are core scientific findings in climate science that most climate researchers, and most science journalists, including myself, no longer consider to be hotly debated, such as the conclusion that most of global warming is very likely due to manmade emissions of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide.
You can read more this articel here
Sabtu, 19 Februari 2011
Public seminar today explores climate change
See how much you can learn about Public seminar today explores climate change when you take a little time to read a well-researched article? Don't miss out on the rest of this great information.
The public is invited to a seminar today about how climate change will change agriculture in this region.
"Climate change and Crop Production, Prospects for the Northern Great Plains" is the topic at the University of Manitoba Wednesday afternoon.
Soil scientist Paul Bullock from the university faculty is delivering the lecture from 3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. at the Fort Garry campus, the Agriculture Building, #130 Carolyn Sifton Theatre.
The lecture marks the fifth Faculty Seminar Series this winter. Coffee and doughnuts will be served. Everyone is welcome. via
The public is invited to a seminar today about how climate change will change agriculture in this region.
"Climate change and Crop Production, Prospects for the Northern Great Plains" is the topic at the University of Manitoba Wednesday afternoon.
Soil scientist Paul Bullock from the university faculty is delivering the lecture from 3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. at the Fort Garry campus, the Agriculture Building, #130 Carolyn Sifton Theatre.
The lecture marks the fifth Faculty Seminar Series this winter. Coffee and doughnuts will be served. Everyone is welcome. via
Senin, 17 Januari 2011
Global warming is our common problems
Global warming is our common problems. This can not go unpunished. Increasing the temperature of the earth and climate change has become evidence of global warming. Clearly, global warming is a clear and present danger. The principle of common but differentiated responsibility, the cornerstone of the Kyoto Protocol, reflects historical reality. However, implementing the principle is near impossible in a world defined by states, which militate against a sense of global responsibility.
In 2010 actually confirms global warming because it was the 34th consecutive year with temperatures above the 20th century global average. One effect is the diminishing of the Arctic sea ice cover. It is at its third smallest since records began in 1979. Another effect is freak weather conditions across the globe. The earth's temperature was higher by 0.62 degrees Celsius on the 20th century average making 2010, along with 2005, the hottest years since US records began in 1880. Last year was also the warmest in India since our records began in 1901. via
In 2010 actually confirms global warming because it was the 34th consecutive year with temperatures above the 20th century global average. One effect is the diminishing of the Arctic sea ice cover. It is at its third smallest since records began in 1979. Another effect is freak weather conditions across the globe. The earth's temperature was higher by 0.62 degrees Celsius on the 20th century average making 2010, along with 2005, the hottest years since US records began in 1880. Last year was also the warmest in India since our records began in 1901. via
Senin, 03 Januari 2011
Recent facts about Global Warming in Spanish
Global warming still a hot issue for discussion. Recently, Spanish has a lot of facts about global warming. Southern Alliance for Clean Energy is now releasing Spanish versions of our newly created, state specific, global warming fact sheets. Through these translated materials, SACE is continuing its effort to educate the Latino community on the current and future impacts of global warming in the Southeast and the United States as a whole.
For far too long, Hispanics have been marginalized in the political process due to simple language barriers; an astounding fact given that over 15% of our country self-identifies as being of this ethnicity.
Global warming will affect everyone, yet studies show that it will affect some more than others. For example, there are nearly 4 million Hispanics in the state of Florida, comprising almost a quarter of the population.
Furthermore, Hispanics in the state earn on average $7,000 less a year than the average non-Hispanic white person. This disparity in income is important because a recent Oxfam America report highlighted that race and economic status play a key role in how much a person will be impacted by global warming.
The only way we can protect Latinos living in vulnerable areas is through education and encouraging increased participation to demand strong state and federal climate and energy policies from their legislators. via
For far too long, Hispanics have been marginalized in the political process due to simple language barriers; an astounding fact given that over 15% of our country self-identifies as being of this ethnicity.
Global warming will affect everyone, yet studies show that it will affect some more than others. For example, there are nearly 4 million Hispanics in the state of Florida, comprising almost a quarter of the population.
Furthermore, Hispanics in the state earn on average $7,000 less a year than the average non-Hispanic white person. This disparity in income is important because a recent Oxfam America report highlighted that race and economic status play a key role in how much a person will be impacted by global warming.
The only way we can protect Latinos living in vulnerable areas is through education and encouraging increased participation to demand strong state and federal climate and energy policies from their legislators. via
Minggu, 26 Desember 2010
Global Warming on Bulgaria on Christmas Day
Global warming is increasing. The previous record on Christmas Day in Veliko Tarnovo was recorded in 1956, long before the more recent effects of the global warming started to kick in, and it was only 16.6 degrees Celsius.
There is good reason to reflect for a moment about global warming. Weather forecasts predict that as of Monday, all of Bulgaria will experience much lower temperatures with the still typical winter weather setting in by the end of next week.
Instead of the traditional snowy Christmas, several Bulgarian cities had temperature records on December 25, 2010, Christmas Day. The highest air temperature in Bulgaria on Saturday was recorded in the northern city of Veliko Tarnovo – 20.1 degrees Celsius. via
There is good reason to reflect for a moment about global warming. Weather forecasts predict that as of Monday, all of Bulgaria will experience much lower temperatures with the still typical winter weather setting in by the end of next week.
Instead of the traditional snowy Christmas, several Bulgarian cities had temperature records on December 25, 2010, Christmas Day. The highest air temperature in Bulgaria on Saturday was recorded in the northern city of Veliko Tarnovo – 20.1 degrees Celsius. via
Kamis, 14 Oktober 2010
The dinosaur age may become extinct due to global warming
Extinction of dinosaurs in New Zealand caused by global warming. Several types of extinct reptiles. It has survived ice ages, volcanic eruptions and the intrusion of humans on its South Pacific island home, but New Zealand's last survivor of the dinosaur age may become extinct due to global warming.
Mounted with spiny scales from head to tail and covered by rough, grey skin that disguises them among the trees, the tuatara is one of the world's oldest living creatures.
But the lizard-like reptile is facing increasing risk of extinction from global warming because of its dependency on the surrounding temperature which determines the sexes of unborn young while still in their eggs.
"They've certainly survived the climate changes in the past but most of them (past climate changes) have been at a more slower rate," said Jennifer Moore, a Victoria University researcher investigating the tuatara's sexual behaviour.
"So you wouldn't expect these guys to be able to adapt to a climate that's changing so rapidly."
The sex of a tuatara depends on the temperature of the soil where the eggs are laid. A cooler temperature produces females, while a warmer soil temperature results in male offsprings. [source]
Mounted with spiny scales from head to tail and covered by rough, grey skin that disguises them among the trees, the tuatara is one of the world's oldest living creatures.
But the lizard-like reptile is facing increasing risk of extinction from global warming because of its dependency on the surrounding temperature which determines the sexes of unborn young while still in their eggs.
"They've certainly survived the climate changes in the past but most of them (past climate changes) have been at a more slower rate," said Jennifer Moore, a Victoria University researcher investigating the tuatara's sexual behaviour.
"So you wouldn't expect these guys to be able to adapt to a climate that's changing so rapidly."
The sex of a tuatara depends on the temperature of the soil where the eggs are laid. A cooler temperature produces females, while a warmer soil temperature results in male offsprings. [source]
Minggu, 16 Mei 2010
The science of climate change is now well established
The science of climate change is now well established. This is the result of painstaking work of over two decades carried out by thousands of scientists drawn from across the globe to assess every aspect of climate change for the benefit of humanity. The Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was produced in the year 2007, and highlighted, on the basis of careful observations extending over a long period of time, that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level.” It was also stated clearly that most of the “observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica).”
It is important to remember that changes in climate are not limited merely to an increase in temperature, but in fact involve several impacts such as an increase in intensity and frequency of floods, droughts, heat waves and extreme precipitation events. Therefore, these pose serious implications for the availability of water in several parts of the world and could have negative impacts on the yields of several crops.
read more beta.thehindu.com
It is important to remember that changes in climate are not limited merely to an increase in temperature, but in fact involve several impacts such as an increase in intensity and frequency of floods, droughts, heat waves and extreme precipitation events. Therefore, these pose serious implications for the availability of water in several parts of the world and could have negative impacts on the yields of several crops.
read more beta.thehindu.com
Jumat, 14 Mei 2010
Climate chief was told of false glacier claims
Ben Webster, Environment Editor
The chairman of the leading climate change watchdog was informed that claims about melting Himalayan glaciers were false before the Copenhagen summit, The Times has learnt.
Rajendra Pachauri was told that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment that the glaciers would disappear by 2035 was wrong, but he waited two months to correct it. He failed to act despite learning that the claim had been refuted by several leading glaciologists.
The IPCC’s report underpinned the proposals at Copenhagen for drastic cuts in global emissions.
Dr Pachauri, who played a leading role at the summit, corrected the error last week after coming under media pressure. He told The Times on January 22 that he had only known about the error for a few days. He said: “I became aware of this when it was reported in the media about ten days ago. Before that, it was really not made known. Nobody brought it to my attention. There were statements, but we never looked at this 2035 number.”
Asked whether he had deliberately kept silent about the error to avoid embarrassment at Copenhagen, he said: “That’s ridiculous. It never came to my attention before the Copenhagen summit. It wasn’t in the public sphere.”
However, a prominent science journalist said that he had asked Dr Pachauri about the 2035 error last November. Pallava Bagla, who writes for Science journal, said he had asked Dr Pachauri about the error. He said that Dr Pachauri had replied: “I don’t have anything to add on glaciers.”
The Himalayan glaciers are so thick and at such high altitude that most glaciologists believe they would take several hundred years to melt at the present rate. Some are growing and many show little sign of change.
Dr Pachauri had previously dismissed a report by the Indian Government which said that glaciers might not be melting as much as had been feared. He described the report, which did not mention the 2035 error, as “voodoo science”.
Mr Bagla said he had informed Dr Pachauri that Graham Cogley, a professor at Ontario Trent University and a leading glaciologist, had dismissed the 2035 date as being wrong by at least 300 years. Professor Cogley believed the IPCC had misread the date in a 1996 report which said the glaciers could melt significantly by 2350.
Mr Pallava interviewed Dr Pachauri again this week for Science and asked him why he had decided to overlook the error before the Copenhagen summit. In the taped interview, Mr Pallava asked: “I pointed it out [the error] to you in several e-mails, several discussions, yet you decided to overlook it. Was that so that you did not want to destabilise what was happening in Copenhagen?”
Dr Pachauri replied: “Not at all, not at all. As it happens, we were all terribly preoccupied with a lot of events. We were working round the clock with several things that had to be done in Copenhagen. It was only when the story broke, I think in December, we decided to, well, early this month — as a matter of fact, I can give you the exact dates — early in January that we decided to go into it and we moved very fast.
“And within three or four days, we were able to come up with a clear and a very honest and objective assessment of what had happened. So I think this presumption on your part or on the part of any others is totally wrong. We are certainly never — and I can say this categorically — ever going to do anything other than what is truthful and what upholds the veracity of science.”
Dr Pacharui has also been accused of using the error to win grants worth hundreds of thousands of pounds.
source www.timesonline.co.uk
The chairman of the leading climate change watchdog was informed that claims about melting Himalayan glaciers were false before the Copenhagen summit, The Times has learnt.
Rajendra Pachauri was told that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment that the glaciers would disappear by 2035 was wrong, but he waited two months to correct it. He failed to act despite learning that the claim had been refuted by several leading glaciologists.
The IPCC’s report underpinned the proposals at Copenhagen for drastic cuts in global emissions.
Dr Pachauri, who played a leading role at the summit, corrected the error last week after coming under media pressure. He told The Times on January 22 that he had only known about the error for a few days. He said: “I became aware of this when it was reported in the media about ten days ago. Before that, it was really not made known. Nobody brought it to my attention. There were statements, but we never looked at this 2035 number.”
Asked whether he had deliberately kept silent about the error to avoid embarrassment at Copenhagen, he said: “That’s ridiculous. It never came to my attention before the Copenhagen summit. It wasn’t in the public sphere.”
However, a prominent science journalist said that he had asked Dr Pachauri about the 2035 error last November. Pallava Bagla, who writes for Science journal, said he had asked Dr Pachauri about the error. He said that Dr Pachauri had replied: “I don’t have anything to add on glaciers.”
The Himalayan glaciers are so thick and at such high altitude that most glaciologists believe they would take several hundred years to melt at the present rate. Some are growing and many show little sign of change.
Dr Pachauri had previously dismissed a report by the Indian Government which said that glaciers might not be melting as much as had been feared. He described the report, which did not mention the 2035 error, as “voodoo science”.
Mr Bagla said he had informed Dr Pachauri that Graham Cogley, a professor at Ontario Trent University and a leading glaciologist, had dismissed the 2035 date as being wrong by at least 300 years. Professor Cogley believed the IPCC had misread the date in a 1996 report which said the glaciers could melt significantly by 2350.
Mr Pallava interviewed Dr Pachauri again this week for Science and asked him why he had decided to overlook the error before the Copenhagen summit. In the taped interview, Mr Pallava asked: “I pointed it out [the error] to you in several e-mails, several discussions, yet you decided to overlook it. Was that so that you did not want to destabilise what was happening in Copenhagen?”
Dr Pachauri replied: “Not at all, not at all. As it happens, we were all terribly preoccupied with a lot of events. We were working round the clock with several things that had to be done in Copenhagen. It was only when the story broke, I think in December, we decided to, well, early this month — as a matter of fact, I can give you the exact dates — early in January that we decided to go into it and we moved very fast.
“And within three or four days, we were able to come up with a clear and a very honest and objective assessment of what had happened. So I think this presumption on your part or on the part of any others is totally wrong. We are certainly never — and I can say this categorically — ever going to do anything other than what is truthful and what upholds the veracity of science.”
Dr Pacharui has also been accused of using the error to win grants worth hundreds of thousands of pounds.
source www.timesonline.co.uk
Sabtu, 04 Juli 2009
Climate ethics
Climate Ethics or Climate Justice is a new and growing area of research that focuses on the ethical dimensions of climate change.
Human-induced climate change raises many profound ethical questions, yet many believe that these ethical issues have not been addressed adequately in climate change policy debates or in the scientific and economic literature on climate change; and that, consequently, ethical questions are being overlooked or obscured in climate negotiations. It has been pointed out that those most responsible for climate change are not the same people as those most vulnerable to its effects.
One group working on climate ethics is the Collaborative Program on the Ethical Dimensions of Climate Change.
Overview
A recent article in the scientific journal Nature (Patz, 2005) concluded that the human-induced warming that the world is now experiencing is already causing 150,000 deaths and 5 million incidents of disease each year from additional malaria and diarrhea, mostly in the poorest nations. Death and disease incidents are likely to soar as warming increases. Facts such as this demonstrate that climate change is compromising rights to life, liberty and personal security. Hence, ethical analysis of climate change policy must examine how that policy impacts on those basic rights.
The rights to life, liberty, and personal security are basic human rights that are the foundation for deriving other widely recognized rights found in international law and practice. These rights, for example, have been the basis for such practical rules as the “no harm principle” and the “precautionary principle.” These rights are recognized in a number of international treaties and decisions in international tribunals, and are widely recognized as foundational by many of the world’s religions. These rights are also expressly set out in Article Three of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which expressly provides that:
* Everyone has a right to life, liberty, and personal security.
* Humans have rights to life, liberty, and personal security that create duties in others to refrain from interference with these basic rights. In this paper we seek to help clarify our duties to prevent the neglect or violation of those rights. Of course, climate change policy making raises additional ethical issues including questions about duties to protect future generations of humans, plants, animals, and ecosystems.
Climate change raises a number of particularly challenging ethical issues about distributive justice, in particular concerning how to fairly share the benefits and burdens of climate change policy options. Many of the policy tools often employed to solve environmental problems such as cost-benefit analysis usually do not adequately deal with these issues because they often ignore questions of just distribution.
The Program on the Ethical Dimensions of Climate Change
The Collaborative Program on the Ethical Dimensions of Climate Change was launched at the 10th Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change that was held in early December 2004 in Buenos Aires, Argentina. The major outcome of this meeting was the Buenos Aires Declaration on the Ethical Dimensions of Climate Change.
Objectives
The program on the Ethical Dimensions of Climate Change seeks to:
* Facilitate express examination of ethical dimensions of climate change particularly for those issues entailed by specific positions taken by governments, businesses, NGOs, organizations, or individuals on climate change policy matters;
* Create better understanding about the ethical dimensions of climate change among policy makers and the general public;
* Assure that people around the world, including those most vulnerable to climate change, participate in any ethical inquiry about responses to climate change;
* Develop an interdisciplinary approach to inquiry about the ethical dimensions of climate change and support publications that examine the ethical dimensions of climate change;
* Make the results of scholarship on the ethical dimensions of climate change available to and accessible to policy makers, scientists, and citizen groups;
* Integrate ethical analysis into the work of other institutions engaged in climate change policy including the Intergovernmental Program on Climate Change and the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Conference on Climate Change.
Position
Given the severity of impact to be expected and given the likelihood that some level of important disruptions in living conditions will occur for great numbers of people due to climate change events, this group contends that there is sufficient convergence among ethical principles to make a number of concrete recommendations on how governments should act, or identify ethical problems with positions taken by certain governments, organizations, or individuals.
Facts about climate change and fundamental human rights provide the starting point for climate ethics.
Members
Members of the Ethical Dimensions of Climate Change program include:
Rock Ethics Institute, Penn State University Secretariat
* Penn State Institutes of the Environment
* Pennsylvania Consortium for Interdisciplinary Environmental Policy
* Brazilian Forum on Climate Change
* Center for Ethics, University of Montana
* Centre for Applied Ethics, Cardiff University
* Centre for Global Ethics, Birmingham University
* Coordination of Post Graduate Programs in Engineering of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro–The Energy Planning Program
* EcoEquity
* Global Ecological Integrity Group
* International Virtual Institute on Global Change
* IUCN Environmental Law Commission–Ethics Specialist Group
* Munasinghe Institute for Development
* New Directions: Science, Humanities, Policy
* Oxford Climate Policy
* Sustainability Research Institute, University of Leeds
* Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
From http://en.wikipedia.org/
Human-induced climate change raises many profound ethical questions, yet many believe that these ethical issues have not been addressed adequately in climate change policy debates or in the scientific and economic literature on climate change; and that, consequently, ethical questions are being overlooked or obscured in climate negotiations. It has been pointed out that those most responsible for climate change are not the same people as those most vulnerable to its effects.
One group working on climate ethics is the Collaborative Program on the Ethical Dimensions of Climate Change.
Overview
A recent article in the scientific journal Nature (Patz, 2005) concluded that the human-induced warming that the world is now experiencing is already causing 150,000 deaths and 5 million incidents of disease each year from additional malaria and diarrhea, mostly in the poorest nations. Death and disease incidents are likely to soar as warming increases. Facts such as this demonstrate that climate change is compromising rights to life, liberty and personal security. Hence, ethical analysis of climate change policy must examine how that policy impacts on those basic rights.
The rights to life, liberty, and personal security are basic human rights that are the foundation for deriving other widely recognized rights found in international law and practice. These rights, for example, have been the basis for such practical rules as the “no harm principle” and the “precautionary principle.” These rights are recognized in a number of international treaties and decisions in international tribunals, and are widely recognized as foundational by many of the world’s religions. These rights are also expressly set out in Article Three of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which expressly provides that:
* Everyone has a right to life, liberty, and personal security.
* Humans have rights to life, liberty, and personal security that create duties in others to refrain from interference with these basic rights. In this paper we seek to help clarify our duties to prevent the neglect or violation of those rights. Of course, climate change policy making raises additional ethical issues including questions about duties to protect future generations of humans, plants, animals, and ecosystems.
Climate change raises a number of particularly challenging ethical issues about distributive justice, in particular concerning how to fairly share the benefits and burdens of climate change policy options. Many of the policy tools often employed to solve environmental problems such as cost-benefit analysis usually do not adequately deal with these issues because they often ignore questions of just distribution.
The Program on the Ethical Dimensions of Climate Change
The Collaborative Program on the Ethical Dimensions of Climate Change was launched at the 10th Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change that was held in early December 2004 in Buenos Aires, Argentina. The major outcome of this meeting was the Buenos Aires Declaration on the Ethical Dimensions of Climate Change.
Objectives
The program on the Ethical Dimensions of Climate Change seeks to:
* Facilitate express examination of ethical dimensions of climate change particularly for those issues entailed by specific positions taken by governments, businesses, NGOs, organizations, or individuals on climate change policy matters;
* Create better understanding about the ethical dimensions of climate change among policy makers and the general public;
* Assure that people around the world, including those most vulnerable to climate change, participate in any ethical inquiry about responses to climate change;
* Develop an interdisciplinary approach to inquiry about the ethical dimensions of climate change and support publications that examine the ethical dimensions of climate change;
* Make the results of scholarship on the ethical dimensions of climate change available to and accessible to policy makers, scientists, and citizen groups;
* Integrate ethical analysis into the work of other institutions engaged in climate change policy including the Intergovernmental Program on Climate Change and the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Conference on Climate Change.
Position
Given the severity of impact to be expected and given the likelihood that some level of important disruptions in living conditions will occur for great numbers of people due to climate change events, this group contends that there is sufficient convergence among ethical principles to make a number of concrete recommendations on how governments should act, or identify ethical problems with positions taken by certain governments, organizations, or individuals.
Facts about climate change and fundamental human rights provide the starting point for climate ethics.
Members
Members of the Ethical Dimensions of Climate Change program include:
Rock Ethics Institute, Penn State University Secretariat
* Penn State Institutes of the Environment
* Pennsylvania Consortium for Interdisciplinary Environmental Policy
* Brazilian Forum on Climate Change
* Center for Ethics, University of Montana
* Centre for Applied Ethics, Cardiff University
* Centre for Global Ethics, Birmingham University
* Coordination of Post Graduate Programs in Engineering of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro–The Energy Planning Program
* EcoEquity
* Global Ecological Integrity Group
* International Virtual Institute on Global Change
* IUCN Environmental Law Commission–Ethics Specialist Group
* Munasinghe Institute for Development
* New Directions: Science, Humanities, Policy
* Oxford Climate Policy
* Sustainability Research Institute, University of Leeds
* Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
From http://en.wikipedia.org/
Climate change in popular culture
The issue of climate change, its possible effects, and related human-environment interaction have entered popular culture since the late 20th century.
Science historian Naomi Oreskes has noted that "there's a huge disconnect between what professional scientists have studied and learned in the last 30 years, and what is out there in the popular culture". An academic study contrasts the relatively rapid acceptance of ozone depletion as reflected in popular culture with the much slower acceptance of the scientific consensus on global warming.
Literature
* Arctic Drift (2008) by Clive Cussler and Dirk Cussler. A thriller involving attempts to reverse global warming, a possible war between the US and Canada, and “a mysterious silvery mineral traced to a long-ago expedition in search of the fabled Northwest Passage.”
* Fallen Angels (1991) by Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle, and Michael Flynn. Set in North America in the "near future", a radical technophobic green movement dramatically cuts greenhouse gas emissions, only to find that manmade global warming was staving off a new ice age.
* Forty Signs of Rain (2004), Fifty Degrees Below (2005), and Sixty Days and Counting (2007) comprise the Science in the Capital series, a hard science fiction trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson. Set primarily in Washington, D.C., abrupt climate change causes weather disasters in the US capitol and flooding of the fictional island nation of Khembalung. Main characters are American scientists, politicians, and Buddhist monks.
* State of Fear by Michael Crichton, was released criticizing the Global warming consensus and accusing its proponents of using fear tactics.
Film
* The Day After Tomorrow (2004) starring Dennis Quaid. An abrupt shutdown of thermohaline circulation causes catastrophic climate change, plunging the Earth into a new ice age.
* The Arrival (1996) starring Charlie Sheen. Extraterrestrial aliens attempt to secretly cause global warming and thereby terraform Earth into an environment more suited to their needs.
* Waterworld (1995) starring Kevin Costner. Set in a future world, where the polar ice caps have melted due to global warming and the Earth is almost entirely covered with water.
Television
* South Park spoofed global warming in five episodes: Two Days Before the Day After Tomorrow, Spontaneous Combustion, Goobacks, Smug Alert! and Manbearpig.
* Star Trek: The Next Generation had two such global-warming themed episodes:
o Star Trek: The Next Generation episode Déjà Q (1990) - The crew suggests an artificial amplification of global warming using greenhouse gases to counter the cooling effects of dust from the impact of a moon on a planet.
o The Inner Light (1992) - Jean-Luc Picard lives a lifetime on a planet experiencing Global Warming and aridification. Ultimately the climate change becomes serious enough to threaten all life on the planet. This Hugo Award winner is among the 5 most popular out of all 178 episodes in the TNG series.
* The 1987 Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoon has four episodes dealing with global warming. In Shredder's Mom, Shredder and Krang use a mirror fixed to a satellite to warm up the Earth if the political leaders do not surrender to them. The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles get help from General Yogure to stop them. In Northern Lights Out a man named Eric Red in Norway plans to melt the polar ice cap and flood all the coastal cities on the Earth by blowing up underground volcanoes, which will make it "easy" for Eric Red and his gang to take over the Earth. In A Real Snow Job, set in the Alps in Austria, Krang and Shredder use a Zoetropic wave device to melt the worlds' ice, flooding the coastal cities and making the Earth easy for Krang and Shredder to take over. In Too Hot to Handle, Vernon Fenwick's nephew Foster has an invention that brings the Earth closer to the Sun, a "Solar Magnet".
* The 1980s Transformers animated series had at least one global-warming themed episode: "Revenge of Bruticus." There, the Combaticons (a faction of the series' main villains, the Decepticons, created by rebel Decepticon Starscream) use the Space Bridge device to hurl Earth toward the sun, hoping to destroy the Earth and all enemies. The Autobots are forced to help the humans endure the heat while putting aside their differences with the Decepticons in a race against time to restore Earth to its natural orbit.
Comic Books
* Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Adventures from Archie Comics. Set in their present (1980s/1990s), but also including time travels to a future, in which New York City is flooded because of global warming and the greenhouse effect.
Related Videos
* From Science to Time to Vanity Fair: Global Warming Becomes a Hot Topic. Lecture given by Amy Gajda, Assistant Professor of Journalism and Law, University of Illinois. February 8, 2007. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/
Science historian Naomi Oreskes has noted that "there's a huge disconnect between what professional scientists have studied and learned in the last 30 years, and what is out there in the popular culture". An academic study contrasts the relatively rapid acceptance of ozone depletion as reflected in popular culture with the much slower acceptance of the scientific consensus on global warming.
Literature
* Arctic Drift (2008) by Clive Cussler and Dirk Cussler. A thriller involving attempts to reverse global warming, a possible war between the US and Canada, and “a mysterious silvery mineral traced to a long-ago expedition in search of the fabled Northwest Passage.”
* Fallen Angels (1991) by Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle, and Michael Flynn. Set in North America in the "near future", a radical technophobic green movement dramatically cuts greenhouse gas emissions, only to find that manmade global warming was staving off a new ice age.
* Forty Signs of Rain (2004), Fifty Degrees Below (2005), and Sixty Days and Counting (2007) comprise the Science in the Capital series, a hard science fiction trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson. Set primarily in Washington, D.C., abrupt climate change causes weather disasters in the US capitol and flooding of the fictional island nation of Khembalung. Main characters are American scientists, politicians, and Buddhist monks.
* State of Fear by Michael Crichton, was released criticizing the Global warming consensus and accusing its proponents of using fear tactics.
Film
* The Day After Tomorrow (2004) starring Dennis Quaid. An abrupt shutdown of thermohaline circulation causes catastrophic climate change, plunging the Earth into a new ice age.
* The Arrival (1996) starring Charlie Sheen. Extraterrestrial aliens attempt to secretly cause global warming and thereby terraform Earth into an environment more suited to their needs.
* Waterworld (1995) starring Kevin Costner. Set in a future world, where the polar ice caps have melted due to global warming and the Earth is almost entirely covered with water.
Television
* South Park spoofed global warming in five episodes: Two Days Before the Day After Tomorrow, Spontaneous Combustion, Goobacks, Smug Alert! and Manbearpig.
* Star Trek: The Next Generation had two such global-warming themed episodes:
o Star Trek: The Next Generation episode Déjà Q (1990) - The crew suggests an artificial amplification of global warming using greenhouse gases to counter the cooling effects of dust from the impact of a moon on a planet.
o The Inner Light (1992) - Jean-Luc Picard lives a lifetime on a planet experiencing Global Warming and aridification. Ultimately the climate change becomes serious enough to threaten all life on the planet. This Hugo Award winner is among the 5 most popular out of all 178 episodes in the TNG series.
* The 1987 Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoon has four episodes dealing with global warming. In Shredder's Mom, Shredder and Krang use a mirror fixed to a satellite to warm up the Earth if the political leaders do not surrender to them. The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles get help from General Yogure to stop them. In Northern Lights Out a man named Eric Red in Norway plans to melt the polar ice cap and flood all the coastal cities on the Earth by blowing up underground volcanoes, which will make it "easy" for Eric Red and his gang to take over the Earth. In A Real Snow Job, set in the Alps in Austria, Krang and Shredder use a Zoetropic wave device to melt the worlds' ice, flooding the coastal cities and making the Earth easy for Krang and Shredder to take over. In Too Hot to Handle, Vernon Fenwick's nephew Foster has an invention that brings the Earth closer to the Sun, a "Solar Magnet".
* The 1980s Transformers animated series had at least one global-warming themed episode: "Revenge of Bruticus." There, the Combaticons (a faction of the series' main villains, the Decepticons, created by rebel Decepticon Starscream) use the Space Bridge device to hurl Earth toward the sun, hoping to destroy the Earth and all enemies. The Autobots are forced to help the humans endure the heat while putting aside their differences with the Decepticons in a race against time to restore Earth to its natural orbit.
Comic Books
* Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Adventures from Archie Comics. Set in their present (1980s/1990s), but also including time travels to a future, in which New York City is flooded because of global warming and the greenhouse effect.
Related Videos
* From Science to Time to Vanity Fair: Global Warming Becomes a Hot Topic. Lecture given by Amy Gajda, Assistant Professor of Journalism and Law, University of Illinois. February 8, 2007. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/
Jumat, 03 Juli 2009
Climate change denial
Climate change denial describes efforts to counter all or part of the theory of global climate change. While the term "climate skeptic" generally refers to scientists taking good faith positions on the global warming controversy, climate change denial usually refers to disinformation campaigns alleged to be promoted and funded by groups with a financial interest in misrepresenting the scientific consensus on climate change, particularly groups with ties to the energy lobby. Newsweek, as well as numerous journalists, including George Monbiot and Ellen Goodman, among others, describe it as a form of denialism.
Denial vs. skepticism
"Modern skepticism," according to Michael Shermer, editor of the scientific skepticism quarterly Skeptic, "is embodied in the scientific method, that involves gathering data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement." Terms such as "deny global warming" and "climate change denial" have been used since 2000 to describe business opposition to the current scientific consensus. Organizations such as the Global Climate Coalition, according to a leaked 1991 "strategy memo," set out not to gather data and test explanations, but to influence public perception of climate change science and "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact." The strategy was criticized as misrepresenting science in a 2006 Royal Society letter to ExxonMobil expressing disappointment that a recent industry publication "leaves readers with such an inaccurate and misleading impression of the evidence on the causes of climate change ... documented in the scientific literature."
The August 2007 Newsweek cover story "The Truth About Denial" reported that "this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks, and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change." Newsweek published a rebuttal piece by contributing editor Robert J. Samuelson, calling it "a vast oversimplification of a messy story" and "fundamentally misleading". He argues that "journalists should resist the temptation to portray global warming as a morality tale... in which anyone who questions its gravity or proposed solutions may be ridiculed".
Several commentators have compared climate change denial with Holocaust denial, whereas others have decried those comparisons as inappropriate.
Denial industry
"As soon as the scientific community began to come together on the science of climate change, the pushback began," according to University of California, San Diego historian Naomi Oreskes. Newsweek has reported that:
Individual companies and industry associations — representing petroleum, steel, autos and utilities, for instance — formed lobbying groups with names like the Global Climate Coalition and the Information Council on the Environment. ICE's game plan called for enlisting greenhouse doubters to "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact".
In 1998, John H. Cushman of the New York Times reported on a memorandum written by a public relations specialist for the American Petroleum Institute. The leaked memo described a plan "to recruit a cadre of scientists who share the industry's views of climate science and to train them in public relations so they can help convince journalists, politicians and the public that the risk of global warming is too uncertain to justify controls on greenhouse gases." As part of a US$ 5,000,000 strategy to "maximize the impact of scientific views consistent with ours on Congress, the media and other key audiences," the document mentioned:
A proposed media-relations budget of US $600,000, not counting any money for advertising, would be directed at science writers, editors, columnists and television network correspondents, using as many as 20 "respected climate scientists" recruited expressly "to inject credible science and scientific accountability into the global climate debate, thereby raising questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom.'"
Several journalists have argued that the strategy resembles the one adopted by tobacco lobbyists after being confronted with new data linking cigarettes to cancer — to shift public perception of the discoveries toward that of a myth, unwarranted claim, or exaggeration rather than mainstream scientific theory. In 2006, The Guardian reported:
There are clear similarities between the language used and the approaches adopted by Philip Morris and by the organisations funded by Exxon. The two lobbies use the same terms, which appear to have been invented by Philip Morris's consultants. "Junk science" meant peer-reviewed studies showing that smoking was linked to cancer and other diseases. "Sound science" meant studies sponsored by the tobacco industry suggesting that the link was inconclusive. Both lobbies recognised that their best chance of avoiding regulation was to challenge the scientific consensus. As a memo from the tobacco company Brown and Williamson noted, "Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy."
Former National Academy of Sciences president Dr.Frederick Seitz earned "approximately US$ 585,000" in the 70s and 80s as a consultant to R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company while continuing "to draw a salary as 'president emeritus' at Rockefeller University". R.J. Reynolds contributed $45 million to the medical research co-ordinated by Seitz and others. Although the research did not touch upon the health effects of tobacco smoking, "the industry frequently ran ads in newspapers and magazines citing its multi-million-dollar research program as proof of its commitment to science—and arguing that the evidence on the health effects of smoking was mixed."
Seitz went on to chair groups such as the Science and Environmental Policy Project and the George C. Marshall Institute alleged to have made efforts to "downplay" global warming. Seitz stated in the 1980s that "Global warming is far more a matter of politics than of climate." He stated in an April 2006 interview that he believes "we're having a natural change, whatever that means, due to natural causes as yet unexplored." He elaborated by saying that "I would say it's unlikely that we face serious danger from global warming" and "Any good scientist would recognize that it cannot be ignored, but I think, under present circumstances, the only thing we can do is proceed as we are and wait to see what the result is." Seitz authored the Oregon Petition, a document published jointly by the Marshall and Oregon Institutes in opposition to the Kyoto protocol. The petition and accompanying "Research Review of Global Warming Evidence" claimed:
The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. … We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the carbon dioxide increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life than that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution.
The Guardian has reported that, in 1993, Philip Morris established the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC) in conjunction with the APCO public relations firm as part of a plan to combat proposed regulation of secondhand smoke: "Philip Morris, APCO said, needed to create the impression of a 'grassroots' movement—one that had been formed spontaneously by concerned citizens to fight 'overregulation'. It should portray the danger of tobacco smoke as just one 'unfounded fear' among others, such as concerns about pesticides and cellphones." Within ten years, the group was also receiving funds from Exxon:
TASSC, the ‘coalition’ created by Philip Morris, was the first and most important of the corporate-funded organisations denying that climate change is taking place. It has done more damage to the campaign to halt it than any other body.
Several think tanks funded by Exxon or, later, ExxonMobil, to contest climate change have also reputedly received funding from Philip Morris such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Hudson Institute, the Frontiers of Freedom Institute, the Reason Foundation, George Mason University's Law and Economics Center, and the Independent Institute.
A survey carried out by the Royal Society found that in 2005 ExxonMobil distributed $2.9m to 39 groups that the society said "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence".
Instances of climate change denial
Public sector
A report by NASA's Office of the Inspector General has revealed that personnel in the agency's public affairs office were guilty of "inappropriate political interference" in their attempts to play down climate change findings.
In 1994, according to a leaked memo, the influential Republican strategist Frank Luntz advised members of the GOP, with regard to climate change, that "you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue" and "challenge the science" by "recruiting experts who are sympathetic to your view." In 2006, Luntz stated that he still believes "back '97, '98, the science was uncertain", but he currently agrees with the scientific consensus.
In 2005, the New York Times reported that Philip Cooney, a former lobbyist and "climate team leader" at the American Petroleum Institute, had "repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents." The George W. Bush administration had hired Cooney in 2001 as chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, "the office that helps devise and promote administration policies on environmental issues." The New York Times reported:
Climate experts and representatives of environmental groups, when shown examples of the revisions, said they illustrated the significant if largely invisible influence of Mr. Cooney and other White House officials with ties to energy industries that have long fought greenhouse-gas restrictions.
The newspaper also claimed that "fforts by the Bush administration to highlight uncertainties in science pointing to human-caused warming have put the United States at odds with other nations and with scientific groups at home." Cooney reportedly removed an entire section on climate in one report, whereupon an oil lobbyist sent him a fax saying "You are doing a great job."
Cooney announced his resignation two days after the story of his tampering with scientific reports broke. A few days later it was announced that Cooney would take up a position with ExxonMobil.
The Washington Post reported:
n April, the Supreme Court ... rebuked the administration for not regulating greenhouse gases associated with global warming, issuing its ruling less than two months after Cheney declared that 'conflicting viewpoints' remain about the extent of the human contribution to the problem.
Then-Vice President Dick Cheney's connections to the Energy Lobby, and to ExxonMobil in particular, have fueled speculation that his characterization of climate change science is linked to the "denial industry." In 2000, Cheney’s Energy Task Force, officially known as the National Energy Policy Development Group, invited the executives of various major oil companies, including Exxon, Conoco, BP, and Royal Dutch Shell, to consult with the White House regarding the development of a national energy policy, although this was initially denied by the participating companies. An Exxon lobbyist - among others - was thanked by the U.S. Undersecretary of Global Affairs for Exxon's role in convincing President Bush to reject the Kyoto accords. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists:
In her talking points for a 2001 meeting with a group that included ExxonMobil lobbyist Randy Randol (uncovered through a Freedom of Information Act request), U.S. Undersecretary for Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky thanked the group for their input on global warming policy, noting, ‘POTUS rejected Kyoto, in part, based on input from you.’
The Government Accountability Project's "Climate Science Watch" has questioned the administration's appointment of officials with private-sector ties to climate change denial:
Jeffrey Salmon is the Associate Under Secretary for Science at the U.S. Department of Energy. Prior to moving to DOE, from 1991–2001 he was Executive Director of the George C. Marshall Institute, a key actor in the global warming disinformation campaign. In 1998 he participated in the development of a now-notorious oil industry-sponsored plan to wage a campaign against the mainstream science community on global warming. Before that, he was senior speechwriter for Dick Cheney, when Cheney was Secretary of Defense. The Office of Science oversees roughly $4 billion a year in DOE-supported research, including a roughly $140 million climate change research budget. What does Salmon do in this position—for example, on matters of climate change research, assessment, and communication?
Private Sector
After the IPCC released its February 2007 report, the American Enterprise Institute reportedly offered British, American, and other scientists $10,000, plus travel expenses, to publish articles critical of the assessment. The institute, which had received more than $US 1.6 million from Exxon and whose vice-chairman of trustees is Lee Raymond, former head of Exxon, sent letters that "attack the UN's panel as 'resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work' and ask for essays that 'thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs'." More than 20 AEI employees have worked as consultants to the George W. Bush administration. Despite her initial conviction that with "the overwhelming science out there, the deniers' days were numbered," Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer said that when she learned of the AEI's offer, "I realized there was a movement behind this that just wasn't giving up."
The British Royal Society conducted a survey that found ExxonMobil had given US$ 2.9 million to American groups that "misinformed the public about climate change," 39 of which "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence". In 2006, the British Royal Society issued a demand that ExxonMobil withdraw funding for climate change denial. The letter, which was leaked to the media, drew criticism, notably from Timothy Ball and others, who argued the society attempted to "politicize the private funding of science and to censor scientific debate."
ExxonMobil has denied the accusations that it has been trying to mislead the public about global warming:
"The recycling of this type of discredited conspiracy theory diverts attention from the real challenge at hand: how to provide the energy needed to improve global living standards while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions."
Kivalina v. ExxonMobil
On February 26, 2008, attorneys for the Native American Rights Fund and the Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment brought suit against ExxonMobil Corporation and two dozen other members of the energy lobby, including BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and Royal Dutch Shell. The complaint seeks to recover damages for the destruction of Kivalina, Alaska, a village which "is being forced to relocate because of flooding caused by the changing Arctic climate." (The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers determined in 2006 that Kivalina residents would be forced to relocate, at a minimum cost of US$95m, as soon as 2016.). According to Stephan Faris, a writer for The Atlantic, the Kivalina suit accuses ExxonMobil et al.
"of conspiring to cover up the threat of man-made climate change, in much the same way the tobacco industry tried to conceal the risks of smoking — by using a series of think tanks and other organizations to falsely sow public doubt in an emerging scientific consensus."
Kivalina v. ExxonMobil is reported to be the first climate-change lawsuit with "a discretely identifiable victim."
Possible effects of climate change denial
See also: Individual and political action on climate change
Former Democratic Senator Tim Wirth has claimed that the denial effort affected both the Congressional political climate as well as the general public opinion. "They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry. Both figured, sow enough doubt, call the science uncertain and in dispute. That's had a huge impact on both the public and Congress." In an interview with the journal Science, physicist and U.S. Representative Rush Holt called the opposition in the climate debate a "denial machine":
"...for more than two decades scientists have been issuing warnings that the release of greenhouse gases, principally carbon dioxide (CO2), is probably altering Earth's climate in ways that will be expensive and even deadly. The American public yawned and bought bigger cars. Statements by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and others underscored the warnings and called for new government policies to deal with climate change. Politicians, presented with noisy statistics, shrugged, said there is too much doubt among scientists, and did nothing."
A 2006 Newsweek poll reported that only one third of Americans believed climate change is "mainly caused by things people do" and 64 percent believed scientists disagree "a lot" about it. A 2007 Newsweek poll found 42 percent of the general public believed scientists disagree "a lot" that "human activities are a major cause of global warming." A May 2007 CNN poll, in contrast, found a 54 percent majority agree with the IPCC that "Global warming is a proven fact and is mostly caused by emissions from cars and industrial facilities such as power plants and factories." A 2007 CBS News poll found that 49 percent think "global warming is having a serious impact now" and 36 percent think it "will in the future". It also reported that 78 percent of Americans "think that it is necessary to take steps to counter global warming right away".
Robert J. Samuelson in Newsweek has argued that "Global warming has clearly occurred; the hard question is what to do about it."Former Australian Prime Minister John Howard has asserted that "human ingenuity, directed towards clean technology and wise institutional design, remains our best weapon against climate change." Alexander Cockburn of The Nation accused "climate spokesmen" such as Al Gore of being "shills" for nuclear energy, arguing that "the best documented conspiracy of interest is between the fearmongers and the nuclear industry" and "Hysteria rules the day, drowning useful initiatives such as environmental cleanup, while smoothing the way for the nuclear industry to reap its global rewards." Carbon taxes such as the one advocated by Al Gore as Vice President have faced bipartisan Congressional opposition. House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick J. Rahall II, Democrat, stated that "That's going to be passed on; the consumer would end up paying for that."
American public opinion is relatively split on possible measures to combat global warming. A March 2006 ABC News poll found that "Six in 10 think much can be done to reduce both the amount of global warming", but it also found that only 45 percent think that government should require "Cars that use less gasoline" and only 42 percent think it should require "Appliances that use less electricity". However, the poll's opinions regarding voluntary measures are far more positive, even though 56 percent "oppose giving companies tax breaks to build nuclear power plants". A CBS News poll reported that Americans support some compulsory regulations, for example, 64 percent would be willing to pay higher gasoline taxes if the money is used for renewable energy research. Peter Aldhous at New Scientist has argued that "policies to combat global warming can command majority public support in the US, as long as they don't hit people's pockets too hard."
From http://en.wikipedia.org/
Denial vs. skepticism
"Modern skepticism," according to Michael Shermer, editor of the scientific skepticism quarterly Skeptic, "is embodied in the scientific method, that involves gathering data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement." Terms such as "deny global warming" and "climate change denial" have been used since 2000 to describe business opposition to the current scientific consensus. Organizations such as the Global Climate Coalition, according to a leaked 1991 "strategy memo," set out not to gather data and test explanations, but to influence public perception of climate change science and "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact." The strategy was criticized as misrepresenting science in a 2006 Royal Society letter to ExxonMobil expressing disappointment that a recent industry publication "leaves readers with such an inaccurate and misleading impression of the evidence on the causes of climate change ... documented in the scientific literature."
The August 2007 Newsweek cover story "The Truth About Denial" reported that "this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks, and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change." Newsweek published a rebuttal piece by contributing editor Robert J. Samuelson, calling it "a vast oversimplification of a messy story" and "fundamentally misleading". He argues that "journalists should resist the temptation to portray global warming as a morality tale... in which anyone who questions its gravity or proposed solutions may be ridiculed".
Several commentators have compared climate change denial with Holocaust denial, whereas others have decried those comparisons as inappropriate.
Denial industry
"As soon as the scientific community began to come together on the science of climate change, the pushback began," according to University of California, San Diego historian Naomi Oreskes. Newsweek has reported that:
Individual companies and industry associations — representing petroleum, steel, autos and utilities, for instance — formed lobbying groups with names like the Global Climate Coalition and the Information Council on the Environment. ICE's game plan called for enlisting greenhouse doubters to "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact".
In 1998, John H. Cushman of the New York Times reported on a memorandum written by a public relations specialist for the American Petroleum Institute. The leaked memo described a plan "to recruit a cadre of scientists who share the industry's views of climate science and to train them in public relations so they can help convince journalists, politicians and the public that the risk of global warming is too uncertain to justify controls on greenhouse gases." As part of a US$ 5,000,000 strategy to "maximize the impact of scientific views consistent with ours on Congress, the media and other key audiences," the document mentioned:
A proposed media-relations budget of US $600,000, not counting any money for advertising, would be directed at science writers, editors, columnists and television network correspondents, using as many as 20 "respected climate scientists" recruited expressly "to inject credible science and scientific accountability into the global climate debate, thereby raising questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom.'"
Several journalists have argued that the strategy resembles the one adopted by tobacco lobbyists after being confronted with new data linking cigarettes to cancer — to shift public perception of the discoveries toward that of a myth, unwarranted claim, or exaggeration rather than mainstream scientific theory. In 2006, The Guardian reported:
There are clear similarities between the language used and the approaches adopted by Philip Morris and by the organisations funded by Exxon. The two lobbies use the same terms, which appear to have been invented by Philip Morris's consultants. "Junk science" meant peer-reviewed studies showing that smoking was linked to cancer and other diseases. "Sound science" meant studies sponsored by the tobacco industry suggesting that the link was inconclusive. Both lobbies recognised that their best chance of avoiding regulation was to challenge the scientific consensus. As a memo from the tobacco company Brown and Williamson noted, "Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy."
Former National Academy of Sciences president Dr.Frederick Seitz earned "approximately US$ 585,000" in the 70s and 80s as a consultant to R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company while continuing "to draw a salary as 'president emeritus' at Rockefeller University". R.J. Reynolds contributed $45 million to the medical research co-ordinated by Seitz and others. Although the research did not touch upon the health effects of tobacco smoking, "the industry frequently ran ads in newspapers and magazines citing its multi-million-dollar research program as proof of its commitment to science—and arguing that the evidence on the health effects of smoking was mixed."
Seitz went on to chair groups such as the Science and Environmental Policy Project and the George C. Marshall Institute alleged to have made efforts to "downplay" global warming. Seitz stated in the 1980s that "Global warming is far more a matter of politics than of climate." He stated in an April 2006 interview that he believes "we're having a natural change, whatever that means, due to natural causes as yet unexplored." He elaborated by saying that "I would say it's unlikely that we face serious danger from global warming" and "Any good scientist would recognize that it cannot be ignored, but I think, under present circumstances, the only thing we can do is proceed as we are and wait to see what the result is." Seitz authored the Oregon Petition, a document published jointly by the Marshall and Oregon Institutes in opposition to the Kyoto protocol. The petition and accompanying "Research Review of Global Warming Evidence" claimed:
The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. … We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the carbon dioxide increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life than that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution.
The Guardian has reported that, in 1993, Philip Morris established the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC) in conjunction with the APCO public relations firm as part of a plan to combat proposed regulation of secondhand smoke: "Philip Morris, APCO said, needed to create the impression of a 'grassroots' movement—one that had been formed spontaneously by concerned citizens to fight 'overregulation'. It should portray the danger of tobacco smoke as just one 'unfounded fear' among others, such as concerns about pesticides and cellphones." Within ten years, the group was also receiving funds from Exxon:
TASSC, the ‘coalition’ created by Philip Morris, was the first and most important of the corporate-funded organisations denying that climate change is taking place. It has done more damage to the campaign to halt it than any other body.
Several think tanks funded by Exxon or, later, ExxonMobil, to contest climate change have also reputedly received funding from Philip Morris such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Hudson Institute, the Frontiers of Freedom Institute, the Reason Foundation, George Mason University's Law and Economics Center, and the Independent Institute.
A survey carried out by the Royal Society found that in 2005 ExxonMobil distributed $2.9m to 39 groups that the society said "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence".
Instances of climate change denial
Public sector
A report by NASA's Office of the Inspector General has revealed that personnel in the agency's public affairs office were guilty of "inappropriate political interference" in their attempts to play down climate change findings.
In 1994, according to a leaked memo, the influential Republican strategist Frank Luntz advised members of the GOP, with regard to climate change, that "you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue" and "challenge the science" by "recruiting experts who are sympathetic to your view." In 2006, Luntz stated that he still believes "back '97, '98, the science was uncertain", but he currently agrees with the scientific consensus.
In 2005, the New York Times reported that Philip Cooney, a former lobbyist and "climate team leader" at the American Petroleum Institute, had "repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents." The George W. Bush administration had hired Cooney in 2001 as chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, "the office that helps devise and promote administration policies on environmental issues." The New York Times reported:
Climate experts and representatives of environmental groups, when shown examples of the revisions, said they illustrated the significant if largely invisible influence of Mr. Cooney and other White House officials with ties to energy industries that have long fought greenhouse-gas restrictions.
The newspaper also claimed that "fforts by the Bush administration to highlight uncertainties in science pointing to human-caused warming have put the United States at odds with other nations and with scientific groups at home." Cooney reportedly removed an entire section on climate in one report, whereupon an oil lobbyist sent him a fax saying "You are doing a great job."
Cooney announced his resignation two days after the story of his tampering with scientific reports broke. A few days later it was announced that Cooney would take up a position with ExxonMobil.
The Washington Post reported:
n April, the Supreme Court ... rebuked the administration for not regulating greenhouse gases associated with global warming, issuing its ruling less than two months after Cheney declared that 'conflicting viewpoints' remain about the extent of the human contribution to the problem.
Then-Vice President Dick Cheney's connections to the Energy Lobby, and to ExxonMobil in particular, have fueled speculation that his characterization of climate change science is linked to the "denial industry." In 2000, Cheney’s Energy Task Force, officially known as the National Energy Policy Development Group, invited the executives of various major oil companies, including Exxon, Conoco, BP, and Royal Dutch Shell, to consult with the White House regarding the development of a national energy policy, although this was initially denied by the participating companies. An Exxon lobbyist - among others - was thanked by the U.S. Undersecretary of Global Affairs for Exxon's role in convincing President Bush to reject the Kyoto accords. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists:
In her talking points for a 2001 meeting with a group that included ExxonMobil lobbyist Randy Randol (uncovered through a Freedom of Information Act request), U.S. Undersecretary for Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky thanked the group for their input on global warming policy, noting, ‘POTUS rejected Kyoto, in part, based on input from you.’
The Government Accountability Project's "Climate Science Watch" has questioned the administration's appointment of officials with private-sector ties to climate change denial:
Jeffrey Salmon is the Associate Under Secretary for Science at the U.S. Department of Energy. Prior to moving to DOE, from 1991–2001 he was Executive Director of the George C. Marshall Institute, a key actor in the global warming disinformation campaign. In 1998 he participated in the development of a now-notorious oil industry-sponsored plan to wage a campaign against the mainstream science community on global warming. Before that, he was senior speechwriter for Dick Cheney, when Cheney was Secretary of Defense. The Office of Science oversees roughly $4 billion a year in DOE-supported research, including a roughly $140 million climate change research budget. What does Salmon do in this position—for example, on matters of climate change research, assessment, and communication?
Private Sector
After the IPCC released its February 2007 report, the American Enterprise Institute reportedly offered British, American, and other scientists $10,000, plus travel expenses, to publish articles critical of the assessment. The institute, which had received more than $US 1.6 million from Exxon and whose vice-chairman of trustees is Lee Raymond, former head of Exxon, sent letters that "attack the UN's panel as 'resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work' and ask for essays that 'thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs'." More than 20 AEI employees have worked as consultants to the George W. Bush administration. Despite her initial conviction that with "the overwhelming science out there, the deniers' days were numbered," Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer said that when she learned of the AEI's offer, "I realized there was a movement behind this that just wasn't giving up."
The British Royal Society conducted a survey that found ExxonMobil had given US$ 2.9 million to American groups that "misinformed the public about climate change," 39 of which "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence". In 2006, the British Royal Society issued a demand that ExxonMobil withdraw funding for climate change denial. The letter, which was leaked to the media, drew criticism, notably from Timothy Ball and others, who argued the society attempted to "politicize the private funding of science and to censor scientific debate."
ExxonMobil has denied the accusations that it has been trying to mislead the public about global warming:
"The recycling of this type of discredited conspiracy theory diverts attention from the real challenge at hand: how to provide the energy needed to improve global living standards while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions."
Kivalina v. ExxonMobil
On February 26, 2008, attorneys for the Native American Rights Fund and the Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment brought suit against ExxonMobil Corporation and two dozen other members of the energy lobby, including BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and Royal Dutch Shell. The complaint seeks to recover damages for the destruction of Kivalina, Alaska, a village which "is being forced to relocate because of flooding caused by the changing Arctic climate." (The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers determined in 2006 that Kivalina residents would be forced to relocate, at a minimum cost of US$95m, as soon as 2016.). According to Stephan Faris, a writer for The Atlantic, the Kivalina suit accuses ExxonMobil et al.
"of conspiring to cover up the threat of man-made climate change, in much the same way the tobacco industry tried to conceal the risks of smoking — by using a series of think tanks and other organizations to falsely sow public doubt in an emerging scientific consensus."
Kivalina v. ExxonMobil is reported to be the first climate-change lawsuit with "a discretely identifiable victim."
Possible effects of climate change denial
See also: Individual and political action on climate change
Former Democratic Senator Tim Wirth has claimed that the denial effort affected both the Congressional political climate as well as the general public opinion. "They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry. Both figured, sow enough doubt, call the science uncertain and in dispute. That's had a huge impact on both the public and Congress." In an interview with the journal Science, physicist and U.S. Representative Rush Holt called the opposition in the climate debate a "denial machine":
"...for more than two decades scientists have been issuing warnings that the release of greenhouse gases, principally carbon dioxide (CO2), is probably altering Earth's climate in ways that will be expensive and even deadly. The American public yawned and bought bigger cars. Statements by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and others underscored the warnings and called for new government policies to deal with climate change. Politicians, presented with noisy statistics, shrugged, said there is too much doubt among scientists, and did nothing."
A 2006 Newsweek poll reported that only one third of Americans believed climate change is "mainly caused by things people do" and 64 percent believed scientists disagree "a lot" about it. A 2007 Newsweek poll found 42 percent of the general public believed scientists disagree "a lot" that "human activities are a major cause of global warming." A May 2007 CNN poll, in contrast, found a 54 percent majority agree with the IPCC that "Global warming is a proven fact and is mostly caused by emissions from cars and industrial facilities such as power plants and factories." A 2007 CBS News poll found that 49 percent think "global warming is having a serious impact now" and 36 percent think it "will in the future". It also reported that 78 percent of Americans "think that it is necessary to take steps to counter global warming right away".
Robert J. Samuelson in Newsweek has argued that "Global warming has clearly occurred; the hard question is what to do about it."Former Australian Prime Minister John Howard has asserted that "human ingenuity, directed towards clean technology and wise institutional design, remains our best weapon against climate change." Alexander Cockburn of The Nation accused "climate spokesmen" such as Al Gore of being "shills" for nuclear energy, arguing that "the best documented conspiracy of interest is between the fearmongers and the nuclear industry" and "Hysteria rules the day, drowning useful initiatives such as environmental cleanup, while smoothing the way for the nuclear industry to reap its global rewards." Carbon taxes such as the one advocated by Al Gore as Vice President have faced bipartisan Congressional opposition. House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick J. Rahall II, Democrat, stated that "That's going to be passed on; the consumer would end up paying for that."
American public opinion is relatively split on possible measures to combat global warming. A March 2006 ABC News poll found that "Six in 10 think much can be done to reduce both the amount of global warming", but it also found that only 45 percent think that government should require "Cars that use less gasoline" and only 42 percent think it should require "Appliances that use less electricity". However, the poll's opinions regarding voluntary measures are far more positive, even though 56 percent "oppose giving companies tax breaks to build nuclear power plants". A CBS News poll reported that Americans support some compulsory regulations, for example, 64 percent would be willing to pay higher gasoline taxes if the money is used for renewable energy research. Peter Aldhous at New Scientist has argued that "policies to combat global warming can command majority public support in the US, as long as they don't hit people's pockets too hard."
From http://en.wikipedia.org/
Climate change
Climate change is any long-term change in the statistics of weather over durations ranging from decades to millions of years. It can be manifest in changes to averages, extremes, or other statistical measures, and may occur in a specific region or for the Earth as a whole.
In recent usage, especially in the context of environmental policy, climate change usually refers to changes in modern climate (see global warming). For information on temperature measurements over various periods, and the data sources available, see temperature record. For attribution of climate change over the past century, see attribution of recent climate change.
Causes of climate change
Factors that can shape climate are often called climate forcings. These include such processes as variations in solar radiation, deviations in the Earth's orbit, and changes in greenhouse gas concentrations. There are a variety of climate change feedbacks that can either amplify or diminish the initial forcing. Some parts of the climate system, such as the oceans and ice caps, respond slowly in reaction to climate forcing because of their large mass. Therefore, the climate system can take centuries or longer to fully respond to new external forcings.
Plate tectonics
On the longest time scales, plate tectonics repositions continents, shapes oceans, builds and tear down mountains and generally defines the stage upon which climate exists. During the Carboniferous period, plate tectonics may have triggered the large-scale storage of carbon and increased glaciation. More recently, plate motions have been implicated in the intensification of the present ice age when, approximately 3 million years ago, the North and South American plates collided to form the Isthmus of Panama. This shut off direct mixing between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.
Solar output
Variations in solar activity during the last several centuries based on observations of sunspots and beryllium isotopes.
The sun is the source of the energy input to the climate system. Early in Earth's history, according to one theory, the sun was too cold to support liquid water at the Earth's surface, leading to what is known as the Faint young sun paradox. Over the coming millions of years, the sun will continue to brighten and produce a correspondingly higher energy output; as it continues through what is known as its "main sequence", and the Earth's atmosphere will be affected accordingly.
Solar output also varies on shorter time scales, including the 11-year solar cycle and longer-term modulations. The 11-year sunspot cycle produces only a small change in temperature near Earth's surface (on the order of a tenth of a degree) but has a greater influence in the atmosphere's upper layers. Solar intensity variations are considered to have been influential in triggering the Little Ice Age, and for some of the warming observed from 1900 to 1950. The cyclical nature of the sun's energy output is not yet fully understood; it differs from the very slow change that is happening within the sun as it ages and evolves, with some studies pointing toward solar radiation increases from cyclical sunspot activity affecting global warming
Orbital variations
In their effect on climate, orbital variations are in some sense an extension of solar variability, because slight variations in the Earth's orbit lead to changes in the distribution and abundance of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface. These orbital variations, known as Milankovitch cycles, directly affect glacial activity. Eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession comprise the three dominant cycles that make up the variations in Earth's orbit. The combined effect of the variations in these three cycles creates changes in the seasonal reception of solar radiation on the Earth's surface. As such, Milankovitch Cycles affecting the increase or decrease of received solar radiation directly influence the Earth's climate system, and influence the advance and retreat of Earth's glaciers. Subtler variations are also present, such as the repeated advance and retreat of the Sahara desert in response to orbital precession.
Volcanism
Volcanism is the process of conveying material from the depths of the Earth to the surface. Volcanic eruptions, geysers and hot springs are all part of the volcanic process and all release gases and particulates into the atmosphere.
Eruptions large enough to affect climate occur on average several times per century, and cause cooling for a period of a few years. The eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, the second largest terrestrial eruption of the 20th century (after the 1912 eruption of Novarupta) affected the climate substantially. Global temperatures decreased by about 0.5 °C (0.9 °F), and ozone depletion being temporarily substantially increased. Much larger eruptions, known as large igneous provinces, occur only a few times every hundred million years, but can reshape climate for millions of years and cause mass extinctions. Initially, it was thought that the dust ejected into the atmosphere from large volcanic eruptions was responsible for longer-term cooling by partially blocking the transmission of solar radiation to the Earth's surface. However, measurements indicate that most of the dust hurled into the atmosphere may return to the Earth's surface within as little as six months, given the right conditions.
Volcanoes are also part of the extended carbon cycle. Over very long (geological) time periods, they release carbon dioxide from the Earth's interior, counteracting the uptake by sedimentary rocks and other geological carbon dioxide sinks. According to the US Geological Survey, however, estimates are that human activities generate more than 130 times the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by volcanoes.
Ocean variability
The ocean is a fundamental part of the climate system. Short-term fluctuations (years to a few decades) such as the El Niño–Southern Oscillation, the Pacific decadal oscillation, the North Atlantic oscillation, and the Arctic oscillation, represent climate variability rather than climate change. On longer time scales, alterations to ocean processes such as thermohaline circulation play a key role in redistributing heat by carrying out a very slow and extremely deep movement of water, and the long-term redistribution of heat in the world's oceans.
Human influences
Anthropogenic factors are human activities that change the environment. In some cases the chain of causality of human influence on the climate is direct and unambiguous (for example, the effects of irrigation on local humidity), whilst in other instances it is less clear. Various hypotheses for human-induced climate change have been argued for many years though, generally, the scientific debate has moved on from scepticism to a scientific consensus on climate change that human activity is the probable cause for the rapid changes in world climate in the past several decades. Consequently, the debate has largely shifted onto ways to reduce further human impact and to find ways to adapt to change that has already occurred.
Of most concern in these anthropogenic factors is the increase in CO2 levels due to emissions from fossil fuel combustion, followed by aerosols (particulate matter in the atmosphere) and cement manufacture. Other factors, including land use, ozone depletion, animal agriculture[1and deforestation, are also of concern in the roles they play - both separately and in conjunction with other factors - in affecting climate.
Physical evidence for climatic change
Evidence for climatic change is taken from a variety of sources that can be used to reconstruct past climates. Reasonably complete global records of surface temperature are available beginning from the mid-late 1800s. For earlier periods, most of the evidence is indirect—climatic changes are inferred from changes in indicators that reflect climate, such as vegetation, ice cores, dendrochronology, sea level change, and glacial geology.
Glaciers
Glaciers are recognized as being among the most sensitive indicators of climate change,[1advancing during climate cooling (for example, during the period known as the Little Ice Age) and retreating during climate warming on moderate time scales. Glaciers grow and shrink, both contributing to natural variability and amplifying externally forced changes. A world glacier inventory has been compiled since the 1970s. Initially based mainly on aerial photographs and maps, this compilation has resulted in a detailed inventory of more than 100,000 glaciers covering a total area of approximately 240,000 km2 and, in preliminary estimates, for the recording of the remaining ice cover estimated to be around 445,000 km2. The World Glacier Monitoring Service collects data annually on glacier retreat and glacier mass balance From this data, glaciers worldwide have been shown to be shrinking significantly, with strong glacier retreats in the 1940s, stable or growing conditions during the 1920s and 1970s, and again increasing rates of ice loss from the mid 1980s to present. Mass balance data indicate 17 consecutive years of negative glacier mass balance.
The most significant climate processes of the last several million years are the glacial and interglacial cycles of the present age. The present interglaciation (often termed the Holocene) has lasted about 10,000 years. Shaped by orbital variations, earth-based responses such as the rise and fall of continental ice sheets and significant sea-level changes helped create the climate. Other changes, including Heinrich events, Dansgaard–Oeschger events and the Younger Dryas, however, illustrate how glacial variations may also influence climate without the forcing effect of orbital changes.
Advancing glaciers leave behind moraines that contain a wealth of material - including organic matter that may be accurately dated - recording the periods in which a glacier advanced and retreated. Similarly, by tephrochronological techniques, the lack of glacier cover can be identified by the presence of soil or volcanic tephra horizons whose date of deposit may also be precisely ascertained. Glaciers are considered one of the most sensitive climate indicators by the IPCC, and their recent observed variations are considered a prominent indicator of impending climate change. See also Retreat of glaciers since 1850.
Vegetation
A change in the type, distribution and coverage of vegetation may occur given a change in the climate; this much is obvious. In any given scenario, a mild change in climate may result in increased precipitation and warmth, resulting in improved plant growth and the subsequent sequestration of airborne CO2. Larger, faster or more radical changes, however, may well result in vegetation stress, rapid plant loss and desertification in certain circumstances.
Ice cores
Analysis of ice in a core drilled from a permafrost area, such as the Antarctic, can be used to show a link between temperature and global sea level variations. The air trapped in bubbles in the ice can also reveal the CO2 variations of the atmosphere from the distant past, well before modern environmental influences. The study of these ice cores has been a significant indicator of the changes in CO2 over many millennia, and continue to provide valuable information about the differences between ancient and modern atmospheric conditions.
Dendrochronology
Dendochronology is the analysis of tree ring growth patterns to determine the age of a tree. From a climate change viewpoint, however, Dendochronology can also indicate the climatic conditions for a given number of years. Wide and thick rings indicate a fertile, well-watered growing period, whilst thin, narrow rings indicate a time of lower rainfall and less-than-ideal growing conditions.
Pollen analysis
Palynology is the study of contemporary and fossil palynomorphs, including pollen. Palynology is used to infer the geographical distribution of plant species, which vary under different climate conditions. Different groups of plants have pollen with distinctive shapes and surface textures, and since the outer surface of pollen is composed of a very resilient material, they resist decay. Changes in the type of pollen found in different sedimentation levels in lakes, bogs or river deltas indicate changes in plant communities; which are dependent on climate conditions.
Insects
Remains of beetles are common in freshwater and land sediments. Different species of beetles tend to be found under different climatic conditions. Given the extensive lineage of beetles whose genetic makeup has not altered significantly over the millennia, knowledge of the present climatic range of the different species, and the age of the sediments in which remains are found, past climatic conditions may be inferred.
Sea level change
Global sea level change for much of the last century has generally been estimated using tide gauge measurements collated over long periods of time to give a long-term average. More recently, altimeter measurements — in combination with accurately determined satellite orbits — have provided an improved measurement of global sea level change.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/
Minggu, 21 Juni 2009
Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change
Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change: A Scientific Symposium on Stabilisation of Greenhouse Gases was a 2005 international conference that examined the link between atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration, and the 2 °C (3.6 °F) ceiling on global warming thought necessary to avoid the most serious effects of global warming. Previously this had generally been accepted as being 550 ppm.
The conference took place under the United Kingdom's presidency of the G8, with the participation of around 200 'internationally renowned' scientists from 30 countries. It was chaired by Dennis Tirpak and hosted by the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Exeter, from 1 February to 3 February.
Objectives
The conference was called to bring together the latest research into what would be necessary to achieve the objective of the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change:
to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.
It was also intended to encourage further research in the area. An initial assessment of the subject had been included in the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report; however, the topic had received relatively little international discussion.
Specifically, the conference explored three issues:
* For different levels of climate change what are the key impacts, for different regions and sectors and for the world as a whole?
* What would such levels of climate change imply in terms of greenhouse gas stabilisation concentrations and emission pathways required to achieve such levels?
* What options are there for achieving stabilisation of greenhouse gases at different stabilisation concentrations in the atmosphere, taking into account costs and uncertainties?
Conclusions
Among the conclusions reached, the most significant was a new assessment of the link between the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the increase in global temperature levels. Some researchers have argued that the most serious consequences of global warming might be avoided if global average temperatures rose by no more than 2 °C (3.6 °F) above pre-industrial levels (1.4 °C above present levels). It had generally been assumed that this would occur if greenhouse gas concentrations rose above 550 ppm carbon dioxide equivalent by volume. This concentration was, for example, informing government in certain countries, including the European Union.. Other research suggests, however, that 2 °C warming is unlikely to cause major economic problems.
The conference concluded that, at the level of 550 ppm, it was likely that 2 °C would be exceeded, according to the projections of more recent climate models. Stabilising greenhouse gas concentrations at 450 ppm would only result in a 50% likelihood of limiting global warming to 2 °C, and that it would be necessary to achieve stabilisation below 400 ppm to give a relatively high certainty of not exceeding 2 °C.
The conference also claimed that, if action to reduce emissions is delayed by 20 years, rates of emission reduction may need to be 3 to 7 times greater to meet the same temperature target.
Reaction
As a result of changing opinion on the 'safe' atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases, to which this conference contributed, the UK Government has now agreed to change the target in the forthcoming Climate Change Bill from 60% to 80% by 2050.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/
Jumat, 05 Juni 2009
Arctic geoengineering
Temperatures in the Arctic region have tended to increase more rapidly than the global average. Projections of sea ice loss that are adjusted to take account of recent rapid Arctic shrinkage suggest that the Arctic will likely be free of summer sea ice sometime between 2059 and 2078. Various geoengineering schemes have been suggested to reduce the chance of significant and irreversible effects such as Arctic methane release.
Several geoengineering proposals have been made which are specific to the Arctic. They are usually hydrological in nature, and principally centre upon measures to prevent Arctic Ice Loss. These are detailed below.
In addition, other solar radiation management geoengineering techniques, such as stratospheric sulfur aerosols have been proposed. These will cool the Arctic by adjusting the albedo of the atmosphere.
Background
The Arctic region plays an important role in the regulation of the Earth's climate. Conditions in the Arctic may suggest the existence of tipping points, including ice-albedo feedback from melting Arctic sea ice and Arctic methane release from melting permafrost and methane clathrat. The speed of future retreat of the Arctic sea ice is contentious. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report of 2007 states that "in some projections, Arctic late-summer sea ice disappears almost entirely by the latter part of the 21st century." However, the ice has since undergone unexpectedly significant retreat, reaching a record low area in summer 2007 before recovering somewhat in 2008.
A 'tipping' process could potentially commence as the Arctic region warms, if there is positive feedback with sufficient gain. Professor Tim Lenton suggests that the retreat of sea ice is such a process, and the tipping may have started already. Geoengineering has been proposed for preventing or reversing tipping point events in the Arctic, in particular to halt the retreat of the sea ice.
Preventing such ice loss is important for climate control, as the Arctic Ice regulates global temperatures by virtue of its albedo, and also by restraining methane emissions from permafrost near the shoreline in the Arctic region. Additionally, the sea ice has a wider regional climatic role, and acts to maintain permafrost more generally in the region, by insulating the cold winter winds from the warm sea.
Building thicker sea ice
It has been proposed to actively enhance the polar ice cap by spraying or pumping water onto the top of it which would build thicker sea ice. As ice is an insulator, water on the surface of the ice tends to freeze more quickly than that below. River water could be used for this purpose, as salt water tends to resist freezing, and may end up perforating the resulting ice sheet.
Thickening ice by spraying seawater onto existing ice has been proposed. Sea ice is an effective thermal insulator, and thus freezing takes place much more rapidly on the top surface of the ice sheet than on the bottom. Thicker sea ice is more structurally stable, and is more resistant to melting due to its increased mass. An additional benefit of this method is that the increased salt content of the melting ice will tend to strengthen downwelling currents when the ice re-melts.
Stratospheric sulfur aerosols
Ken Caldeira et al. analysed the effect of geoengineering in the Arctic using Stratospheric sulfur aerosols This technique is not specific to the Arctic region. He found that At high latitudes, there is less sunlight deflected per unit albedo change but climate system feedbacks operate more powerfully there. These two effects largely cancel each other, making the global mean temperature response per unit top-of-atmosphere albedo change relatively insensitive to latitude.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/
Several geoengineering proposals have been made which are specific to the Arctic. They are usually hydrological in nature, and principally centre upon measures to prevent Arctic Ice Loss. These are detailed below.
In addition, other solar radiation management geoengineering techniques, such as stratospheric sulfur aerosols have been proposed. These will cool the Arctic by adjusting the albedo of the atmosphere.
Background
The Arctic region plays an important role in the regulation of the Earth's climate. Conditions in the Arctic may suggest the existence of tipping points, including ice-albedo feedback from melting Arctic sea ice and Arctic methane release from melting permafrost and methane clathrat. The speed of future retreat of the Arctic sea ice is contentious. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report of 2007 states that "in some projections, Arctic late-summer sea ice disappears almost entirely by the latter part of the 21st century." However, the ice has since undergone unexpectedly significant retreat, reaching a record low area in summer 2007 before recovering somewhat in 2008.
A 'tipping' process could potentially commence as the Arctic region warms, if there is positive feedback with sufficient gain. Professor Tim Lenton suggests that the retreat of sea ice is such a process, and the tipping may have started already. Geoengineering has been proposed for preventing or reversing tipping point events in the Arctic, in particular to halt the retreat of the sea ice.
Preventing such ice loss is important for climate control, as the Arctic Ice regulates global temperatures by virtue of its albedo, and also by restraining methane emissions from permafrost near the shoreline in the Arctic region. Additionally, the sea ice has a wider regional climatic role, and acts to maintain permafrost more generally in the region, by insulating the cold winter winds from the warm sea.
Building thicker sea ice
It has been proposed to actively enhance the polar ice cap by spraying or pumping water onto the top of it which would build thicker sea ice. As ice is an insulator, water on the surface of the ice tends to freeze more quickly than that below. River water could be used for this purpose, as salt water tends to resist freezing, and may end up perforating the resulting ice sheet.
Thickening ice by spraying seawater onto existing ice has been proposed. Sea ice is an effective thermal insulator, and thus freezing takes place much more rapidly on the top surface of the ice sheet than on the bottom. Thicker sea ice is more structurally stable, and is more resistant to melting due to its increased mass. An additional benefit of this method is that the increased salt content of the melting ice will tend to strengthen downwelling currents when the ice re-melts.
Stratospheric sulfur aerosols
Ken Caldeira et al. analysed the effect of geoengineering in the Arctic using Stratospheric sulfur aerosols This technique is not specific to the Arctic region. He found that At high latitudes, there is less sunlight deflected per unit albedo change but climate system feedbacks operate more powerfully there. These two effects largely cancel each other, making the global mean temperature response per unit top-of-atmosphere albedo change relatively insensitive to latitude.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/
Rabu, 27 Mei 2009
Does the ethanol mandate increase CO2 emissions?
by Marlo Lewis
May 27, 2009 @ 5:42 pm
That may seem counter-intuitive, because burning ethanol merely puts back into the air the carbon dioxide (CO2) that corn crops recently pulled out of it, whereas burning gasoline liberates carbon that had been stored in geologic deposits for millions of years.
But other factors come into play, such as the fossil energy inputs required to produce the corn, turn it into ethanol, and deliver the ethanol to market.
In addition, as EPA argues in its proposed rule to implement the renewable fuel standard program established by the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), expanding corn production into forest and grass lands can release substantial amounts of carbon stored in soils and trees.
Similarly, when U.S. farmers grow corn in areas previously used to produce soy beans, for example, farmers in Brazil have an incentive to convert forest land into soy plantations.
As you might expect, EPA’s use of life-cycle analysis, although required by EISA, drives the ethanol lobby and its congressional allies up the wall. They claim it is ridiculous to link increased corn production here to increased CO2 emissions in developing countries.
But, as my colleague, agricultural commodity analyst Dave Juday, demonstrates, the numbers paint a very clear picture. With Dave’s permission, I reproduce below an email he sent around earlier today.
* * *
With regard to GHG and the EPA’s RFS [renewable fuel standard] 2 rule, … the concept of “indirect land use changes” (ILUC) get criticized for being faulty, but it actually is pretty sound.
Consider, if ethanol drives up US corn plantings (which it did) and drives down US soybean plantings and production (which it did, because the US – the largest producer and exporter – has only so much farm land and not much tillable acreage to expand) and thereby raises the world price of soybeans, it raises the incentives to grow soybeans elsewhere in the world. It just so happens Brazil – which is the world’s second largest producer and exporter – is the most likely place where additional soybeans will be grown on virgin land because that is where the virgin land is.
The real weak link in this GHG lifecycle emissions concept is the ability to measure and value the carbon emissions and sequestration and the process by which “value” gets assigned to practices and manufacturing processes. Yet, as might be expected from ethanol advocates, it is the simple, fundamental, and rational economic concept that is argued against. Consider the perspectives shared by a lobbyist and a US Senator on the issue of “indirect land use changes” driven by US biofuel policy:
* Basically, the EPA has determined that the production of ethanol in America is forcing land use changes in Brazil and other foreign countries to destroy their valuable rain forests to produce farm commodities to make up for reduced exports of these commodities from the United States. Mr. Chairman, I have been in Washington for a long time, but I have never heard of a more bizarre concept. – Tom Buis, CEO, Growth Energy
* Every chance I get, I’m going to bring this issue up. It’s so obvious that the EPA’s rationale doesn’t meet the common sense test. It’s ridiculous to think that Brazilian farmers are looking to see what Iowa farmers are doing to determine how they run their own business, and quite frankly it’s plain unfair to farmers. – Honorable Charles Grassley, US Senator (R-IA)
Addressing these comments above is one of those cases where a picture is indeed worth 1,000 words:
![]()
SOURCE: USDA, Foreign Agricultural Service: Production, Supply, and Distribution Online
From http://www.globalwarming.org/
May 27, 2009 @ 5:42 pm
That may seem counter-intuitive, because burning ethanol merely puts back into the air the carbon dioxide (CO2) that corn crops recently pulled out of it, whereas burning gasoline liberates carbon that had been stored in geologic deposits for millions of years.
But other factors come into play, such as the fossil energy inputs required to produce the corn, turn it into ethanol, and deliver the ethanol to market.
In addition, as EPA argues in its proposed rule to implement the renewable fuel standard program established by the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), expanding corn production into forest and grass lands can release substantial amounts of carbon stored in soils and trees.
Similarly, when U.S. farmers grow corn in areas previously used to produce soy beans, for example, farmers in Brazil have an incentive to convert forest land into soy plantations.
As you might expect, EPA’s use of life-cycle analysis, although required by EISA, drives the ethanol lobby and its congressional allies up the wall. They claim it is ridiculous to link increased corn production here to increased CO2 emissions in developing countries.
But, as my colleague, agricultural commodity analyst Dave Juday, demonstrates, the numbers paint a very clear picture. With Dave’s permission, I reproduce below an email he sent around earlier today.
* * *
With regard to GHG and the EPA’s RFS [renewable fuel standard] 2 rule, … the concept of “indirect land use changes” (ILUC) get criticized for being faulty, but it actually is pretty sound.
Consider, if ethanol drives up US corn plantings (which it did) and drives down US soybean plantings and production (which it did, because the US – the largest producer and exporter – has only so much farm land and not much tillable acreage to expand) and thereby raises the world price of soybeans, it raises the incentives to grow soybeans elsewhere in the world. It just so happens Brazil – which is the world’s second largest producer and exporter – is the most likely place where additional soybeans will be grown on virgin land because that is where the virgin land is.
The real weak link in this GHG lifecycle emissions concept is the ability to measure and value the carbon emissions and sequestration and the process by which “value” gets assigned to practices and manufacturing processes. Yet, as might be expected from ethanol advocates, it is the simple, fundamental, and rational economic concept that is argued against. Consider the perspectives shared by a lobbyist and a US Senator on the issue of “indirect land use changes” driven by US biofuel policy:
* Basically, the EPA has determined that the production of ethanol in America is forcing land use changes in Brazil and other foreign countries to destroy their valuable rain forests to produce farm commodities to make up for reduced exports of these commodities from the United States. Mr. Chairman, I have been in Washington for a long time, but I have never heard of a more bizarre concept. – Tom Buis, CEO, Growth Energy
* Every chance I get, I’m going to bring this issue up. It’s so obvious that the EPA’s rationale doesn’t meet the common sense test. It’s ridiculous to think that Brazilian farmers are looking to see what Iowa farmers are doing to determine how they run their own business, and quite frankly it’s plain unfair to farmers. – Honorable Charles Grassley, US Senator (R-IA)
Addressing these comments above is one of those cases where a picture is indeed worth 1,000 words:
SOURCE: USDA, Foreign Agricultural Service: Production, Supply, and Distribution Online
From http://www.globalwarming.org/
This is How Climate Research Works Too
by Paul Chesser, Heartland Institute Correspondent
May 22, 2009 @ 2:58 pm
With the EPA and Congress barreling towards greenhouse gas regulation, you might think that all the states and local governments putting together their own plans might declare victory and move on to more pressing matters like creating make-work with federal stimulus money. You’d be wrong.
The Almanac newspaper reports today that the Menlo Park (Calif.) City Council earlier this week approved a climate action plan created by its volunteer Green Ribbon Citizens’ Committee. As with TARP, however, it appears local leaders may only be willing to go as far as tax-grabbers from larger jurisdictions will pay for them to go:
The City Council approved the plan in a unanimous vote at its May 19 meeting. Prepared by a consultant that specializes in creating climate strategies for local jurisdictions and revised by city staff members, the plan expands upon and fleshes out a dense list of recommendations prepared by the volunteer Green Ribbon Citizens’ Committee in late 2007, council members say.
They acknowledge, however, that (the plan is) incomplete. The city exhausted the $38,000 it expects to receive in grant money to prepare the plan before it had a chance to fully revise the document, and council members look poised to allow a city commission to work on the plan — possibly in consultation with the Green Ribbon committee.
Undoubtedly it was the “consultant” who exhausted the $38k (which the city doesn’t even have yet!). Pretty good gig when these eco-consultants can drop their “climate plan” template on a municipality and collect a cool five-figure (plus?) sum for filling in the blanks. By the way, local watchbloggers, you might check how these consultants are working, lobbying, and wining and dining city officials to get these deals. Back to The Almanac:
Much of the discussion at the May 19 meeting centered on how the city could quantify its efforts to rein in the amount of greenhouse gases emitted into the Earth’s atmosphere. In an impassioned speech to the council, Mitch Slomiak, head of the Green Ribbon committee, urged the city to set measurable goals in reducing emissions, and to treat its “carbon budget” in the same way it regards its general operating fund budget.
You know, like their personal slush fund and favor factory. Like Waxman-Markey.
But council members struggled with how to make the issue tangible.
Easy — make it as tangible as CO2!
Unlike most of the line items in the city’s budget, a decreased carbon output won’t provide a direct benefit to the city.
Hmmm…truly a dilemma for politicians who expect something in exchange for wasting their constituents’ money.
“One might almost conclude that anything we do here is basically symbolic, and setting an example,” said Councilman Andy Cohen.
Money quote: About as close as you’ll get to hearing a global warming alarmist politician saying their climate plans are meaningless.
Councilman John Boyle said he was struggling with the idea of how the plan would fit in with the city’s budget. He noted that even actions that would pay for themselves, such as installing solar panels on city buildings, often take decades to recoup their costs.
But you’re forgetting all the green jobs!
The plan leaves much to be desired, but council members say that approving it is an important gesture — and that its existence may help the city in competing for grants, especially through the federal stimulus bill.
Aha, the real motive — meaningless gestures paid for by (not yet issued) grants, so you can get more grants!
From http://www.globalwarming.org/
May 22, 2009 @ 2:58 pm
With the EPA and Congress barreling towards greenhouse gas regulation, you might think that all the states and local governments putting together their own plans might declare victory and move on to more pressing matters like creating make-work with federal stimulus money. You’d be wrong.
The Almanac newspaper reports today that the Menlo Park (Calif.) City Council earlier this week approved a climate action plan created by its volunteer Green Ribbon Citizens’ Committee. As with TARP, however, it appears local leaders may only be willing to go as far as tax-grabbers from larger jurisdictions will pay for them to go:
The City Council approved the plan in a unanimous vote at its May 19 meeting. Prepared by a consultant that specializes in creating climate strategies for local jurisdictions and revised by city staff members, the plan expands upon and fleshes out a dense list of recommendations prepared by the volunteer Green Ribbon Citizens’ Committee in late 2007, council members say.
They acknowledge, however, that (the plan is) incomplete. The city exhausted the $38,000 it expects to receive in grant money to prepare the plan before it had a chance to fully revise the document, and council members look poised to allow a city commission to work on the plan — possibly in consultation with the Green Ribbon committee.
Undoubtedly it was the “consultant” who exhausted the $38k (which the city doesn’t even have yet!). Pretty good gig when these eco-consultants can drop their “climate plan” template on a municipality and collect a cool five-figure (plus?) sum for filling in the blanks. By the way, local watchbloggers, you might check how these consultants are working, lobbying, and wining and dining city officials to get these deals. Back to The Almanac:
Much of the discussion at the May 19 meeting centered on how the city could quantify its efforts to rein in the amount of greenhouse gases emitted into the Earth’s atmosphere. In an impassioned speech to the council, Mitch Slomiak, head of the Green Ribbon committee, urged the city to set measurable goals in reducing emissions, and to treat its “carbon budget” in the same way it regards its general operating fund budget.
You know, like their personal slush fund and favor factory. Like Waxman-Markey.
But council members struggled with how to make the issue tangible.
Easy — make it as tangible as CO2!
Unlike most of the line items in the city’s budget, a decreased carbon output won’t provide a direct benefit to the city.
Hmmm…truly a dilemma for politicians who expect something in exchange for wasting their constituents’ money.
“One might almost conclude that anything we do here is basically symbolic, and setting an example,” said Councilman Andy Cohen.
Money quote: About as close as you’ll get to hearing a global warming alarmist politician saying their climate plans are meaningless.
Councilman John Boyle said he was struggling with the idea of how the plan would fit in with the city’s budget. He noted that even actions that would pay for themselves, such as installing solar panels on city buildings, often take decades to recoup their costs.
But you’re forgetting all the green jobs!
The plan leaves much to be desired, but council members say that approving it is an important gesture — and that its existence may help the city in competing for grants, especially through the federal stimulus bill.
Aha, the real motive — meaningless gestures paid for by (not yet issued) grants, so you can get more grants!
From http://www.globalwarming.org/
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)