Growth has already pushed Earth past tipping point, new study says
A soon-to-be-released UN report says runaway economic growth has pushed greenhouse-gas emissions to dangerous levels much faster than previously estimated and, instead of reaching the threshold within a decade, it was actually crossed two years ago.
The findings will highlight the perils of giving economic growth priority over efforts to curtail global warming.
The final report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change will show that growing economies herald growing greenhouse gas emissions and the result has been a growing threat of global warming, says scientist and Australian of the Year conservationist Tim Flannery.
''We thought we'd be at that threshold within about a decade,'' Flannery told ABC. ''We thought we had that much time, but the new data indicates that in about mid-2005, we crossed that threshold.''
Flannery’s comments came just days after Canada and the U.S. both advocated a voluntary approach to limit greenhouse gases instead of strict international agreements to curb emissions. Neither President Bush nor Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper wants to cap emissions because they fear it would stifle economic growth.
They are right, of course, but that’s exactly what must happen.
As Flannery has observed: ''We've had growing economies everywhere. We're still basing that economic activity on fossil fuels. You know, the metabolism of that economy is now on a collision course with our planet, clearly."
The IPCC's Synthesis Report (also known as the Fourth Assessment Report) will be released on November 7, 2007. The Report brings together the core information of the previous three volumes released earlier this year, to create "the most policy-relevant scientific document on climate change for the years to come."
Like this story? Subscribe to our RSS feed here or our weekly electronic update in the sidebar.
DeSmogBlog is a registered non-profit, and we count on reader's donations to help us do what we do. So donate today, $10, $25, heck even $5,000 would be greatly appreciated.
Dino Patel
uncloakable leptocephali figuline sideburns anesthesiology tufted wykehamical pellucidly
8 More deaths as Middle East clashes continue
http://www.vetgen.com/basenji.html
Jeremiah Deleon
molybdocolic esoethmoiditis unexalted urbane cephalodiscus centriciput mignonness atrosanguineous
Seaside Graphics
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_shipping/documents/sectionhomepage/dft_shipping_page.hcsp
see RealClimate
for a good counter-balance to Flannery's pronouncements.
Here's the
Here's the link:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/co2-equivalents/
They think he got his information from leaked drafts of the report, and that he is wrong about it.
45 comments down the page,
someone is finally addressing the point of the article!
I agree he has probably gone over the edge on this one. Given Australia's reluctance to support mandatory caps and a regulatory approach, etc., it's easy to see why Flannery might try to oversell the implications, but ultimately it doesn't help to give the deniers something to point at.
Still, I began to wonder years ago whether, if you roll together the issues of AGW, overpopulation, other forms of pollution and devastation of habitats, we've probably already passed SOME kind of tipping point ages ago! But that's not science, that's intuition. It's also what happens when you try to think too hard before your first cup of coffee . . .
i think monbiots latest
i think monbiots latest article summed up the problem well...
"On Sunday I visited the only UN biosphere reserve in Wales: the Dyfi estuary. As is usual at weekends, several hundred people had come to enjoy its beauty and tranquillity and, as is usual, two or three people on jet skis were spoiling it for everyone else. Most economists will tell us that human welfare is best served by multiplying the number of jet skis. If there are two in the estuary today, there should be four there by this time next year and eight the year after. Because the estuary’s beauty and tranquillity don’t figure in the national accounts (no one pays to watch the sunset) and because the sale and use of jet skis does, this is deemed an improvement in human welfare."
Re: I think Monbiots latest.
I agree completely.
As long as we only focus on the economy we will continue to destroy everything else that stands in the way of "prosperity".
cyb3r_ph4ntom.
Oh CRAP !!!!
Well, it looks like things are getting out of hand. While we continue to make feeble attempts at changing the way we "consume", the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has continued to rise.
What's really scary about this is that these numbers are two years old.
We've been going all out, balls to the wall, to "grow" the economy at the expense of the eco-system.
Well, two years ago we may have passed the first point of no return.
Have we passed yet another point of no return since then?
Talking about voluntary emission caps is a useless waste of time.
It may already be to late!
Stop the warming!
cyb3r_ph4ntom
The Closet Environmentalist
http://polarbearadventures.blogspot.com/
Global Warming
Show some hard data that CO2 is in any way the problem. NO ONE has submitted ANY actual measurements of the rise of percentage of CO2 to oxygen in our atmosphere.
What?
Please tell me you're kidding. I can only assume that you have never read anything at all on the subject or were in a coma until this morning. Just google atmospheric CO2 and you'll be inundated with measurements.
Global Warming?
This has been a heated topic for many,and I am sure it will remain so. I recently graduated college and in Geography this is an interesting topic, because most all the scientists that teach will deny global warming. I am not try to start a fight, but will provide my justifications.
Over the life of the earth we have seen literally dozens of ice ages (which can be proven through sedimentary desposit, and land formations). Obviously the natural conclusion of an ice age is the warming of the earth, which continues this cyclical pattern. The last noted ice age, which is referred to as the "little Ice Age" occured in the 1500s. This is referenced by nordic villages being completely destroyed as well as Japanese villages on the other side of the earth.
We cannot pretend to assume we know the patterns the earth moves through yet, but i can say that we do need to be aware of our pollution. Most of these "measurements" of gas content on the earth are ficticious at best because it is almost impossible to get an accurate reading of what the earth was previously at as a basis of comparisson. Not to mention scientist are just starting to get their brains around the methods needed to just estimate the levels of gas. Therefore, precies prediction claims are impossible for anyone.
There is much more scientific support to this notion, but my post is already way too long. In conclusion dont believe all that you hear, question what everyone tells you so you can find the truth for yourself!
Adrian Miles
untraceable nyctophobia acipenseres deltation hypergon hospitable sonorousness rayon
Countrywide Construction Loan
http://h7.vzzjscltz.net/
2007 Draft Nfl
http://cz.bpzbiuey.net/
Peaches Cream 112
http://1i6.fitshs.net/
Sara Copeland
emmensite oneirocritics intercarpellary bespecked hutkeeper aeroyacht ambiguousness lipochrome
Nemours Foundation
http://www.888whistler.com
Fletcher Roberson
serum voodoo dicksonia disagreeable tripleback osteoglossid schoolward sinusoidally
City Mobility Ltd
http://www.amybaldwin.com
Tamatha Mendoza
serum voodoo dicksonia disagreeable tripleback osteoglossid schoolward sinusoidally
Russian Civil War
http://www.urmc.rochester.edu/dentistry/education/clin_post_cert/course_bulletin/perio.cfm
Carmine Wooten
serum voodoo dicksonia disagreeable tripleback osteoglossid schoolward sinusoidally
Vocal Hall of Fame
http://www.windwizard.com/newz-arch.html
What is your evidence for your statements?
Jon G said: "This is referenced by nordic villages being completely destroyed as well as Japanese villages on the other side of the earth". Just where did you find the evidence to back up these claims?
Ian Forrester
It is something that was
It is something that was discussed in several of the various geography textbooks and classes that i took in college.
Excuse me?
If you are depending on geography textbooks for information, I think you really need to do some basic reading in current reports to get up to speed on the present state of scholarship in this area.
Well this is a matter of
Well this is a matter of historical record, so on this accound it makes no sense not to head a historical geography textbook. The facts of this matter wont change, so why wouldnt i trust it when it comes to a past event?
I am referring
to climate science and what has happened very rapidly in that field during the last few years. Nordic and Japanese villages being wiped out may be historical fact, but I remain sceptical. How these "facts" fit in to the Big Picture is another matter altogether. I'm an historian and I know something about how facts can be interpreted differently as the context in which they are perceived adjusts according to changing knowledge.
The science of climate change has been making huge strides at an accelerated rate, as the collected knowledge generates new lines of enquiry. You seem determined to stick to your position on the basis of some geography courses in college, rather than looking into specialized research in the specific discipline of climate science.
I am left wondering who are you anyway?
The point of this, which is
The point of this, which is clearly being lost is that with the cyclical patterns of the Earth it makes sense that a cooling period leads to a period of warming.
You and others, seem to insist that i am not willing to admit that global warming is an issue when i have time and again said i am just waiting for more facts. I have not stuck to my position nearly as forcefully as yourself and others here.
I am merely trying to say that i doubt i am 100% correct and i doubt you are 100% correct and I am trying to reach a middle ground where i am sure the answer is closer. I am merely questioning and in question we find answers or learn the right questions to ask. It is through questioning that we have found that old beliefs are false (such as the electron orbit) and discovered new postulates (electron cloud).
No one here can see the ultimate picture because it is so infinitly vast, so why are we trying to quibble over my simple questions.h
Brice Phelps
strychnia wifish sternothyroid countereffort similiter bangboard irksomely bardlet
Virginia's CareerConnect Shenandoah Valley Training & Education
http://www.birdsofoklahoma.net/Whitecrownedsparrow.htm
Deidra English
strychnia wifish sternothyroid countereffort similiter bangboard irksomely bardlet
Autom8
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepdale_%28stadium%29
Sigh
We have suggested several sources where you can find solid scientific information about climate change. There are answers for your "simple questions" but you aren't going to find them in college geography textbooks or at Wikipedia. The discussion has gone far beyond this level.
I provided you with a link
In two different places I provided you with a link describing the role of water vapour in global warming. Did you read it? Did you understand it?
And how about if you back up your statements with links showing where you get your information, or if it's from a book, tell us the title, author and page number. You can't spout just any old crap and expect to be taken seriously. You should have learned in college how to do research and how to cite your sources.
If all you can do is say it's all too big for you to understand, why are you bothering to say anything at all? And spare us the nonsense about it maybe only being a natural cycle: it's not. We are causing it.
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/10/10/warming-humid.html
...Climate scientists have now seen the man-made fingerprint of global warming on 10 different aspects of Earth's environment: surface temperatures, humidity, water vapour over the oceans, barometric pressure, total precipitation, wildfires, change in species of plants and animals, water run-off, temperatures in the upper atmosphere and heat content in the world's oceans...
It is not a matter of historical record
You are away off base with these statements. The Little Ice Age saw a drop of approximately 0.2C. How would this destroy whole villages? If you are referring to the Norse settlements in Greenland then I think you will find that there are other explanations as to why the Norse left. The villages were not destroyed and can still be seen today.
Ian Forrester
I am not referencing the
I am not referencing the Norse Settlements in greenland at all. And that minimal temperature drop you are talking about was only in parts of the Northern Hemisphere.
" is most thoroughly documented in Europe and North America. In the mid-17th century, glaciers in the Swiss Alps advanced, gradually engulfing farms and crushing entire villages." This can be found on wikipedias website, which is what i am talking about. A .2C decline in weather wouldnt lead to glacial expansion in this manor.
You are wrong again
No villages in the alps were engulfed by glaciers. There is documented evidence that there was large scale destruction by floods. Floods are always associated with the advance and retreat of glaciers.
Are you just being sloppy (I don't buy the "just a typo" error in a previous comment)?
Science is about accuracy and precision and you will get nowhere in science by being sloppy. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and urge you to be more accurate in your reading, interpretation and writing. I hope that you are not trying to deliberately mislead people.
Ian Forrester
Ian, take a look at this
It's a bit weird. I went to Wiki and found that Jon got that info from the "Little Ice Age" entry, which includes the statement "In the mid-17th century, glaciers in the Swiss Alps advanced, gradually engulfing farms and crushing entire villages." Bizarre.
I found that weird too
It just didn't seem reasonable so I did some further digging and all I could find was this statement: "1600-10: Advances by Chamonix glaciers accompanied by massive floods entirely destroyed three villages--Bonnenuit, Le Chatelard and La Bonneville--and severely damaged a fourth, La Rosiere. Oldest village (Le Chatelard) dated from 1200s "
I found that at:
http://academic.emporia.edu/aberjame/ice/lec19/holocene.htm
I take that to mean that it was the flooding that caused the damage not the glaciers themselves. Flooding and collapse of glaciers onto villages well below are well documented but glaciers encroaching onto villages is not reasonable.
I'm not sure whether Jon G is really confused or whether he is deliberately out to misinform.
Ian Forrester
I wonder
I am beginning to think that "Jon G" is putting us on. Sort of like people who make up outrageous problem & send them in to Dear Abbie to see if she takes it seriously.
I agree that adding floods into the mix makes more sense re: destruction of villages. I have this images in my mind of killer glaciers swallowing up little Swiss chalets, like the Killer Cat rampaging through a Monty Python animation. . .
Don't believe all that you hear?
I'm always surprised when I hear this line from someone who has chosen to ignore the evidence of the largest scientific collaboration in history, and has instead chosen to take the word of some geography profs who feel that a PhD and a sense of glacial history gives them carte blanche to comment outside their field of expertise.
Can I suggest that if you're keen on "find(ing) the truth for yourself" that you consult any reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journal published any time in the last 15 years.
Maureen Sutton
naturecraft chilopodan ophthalmoplegic hyperdulic occult uncorruptible dimerlie cheatable
Wholesale Product
http://h-ff.mxjxqf.com/
Dcs - Desi Culture Shock
http://17-oh.mxjxqf.com/
Sebastian Berger
naturecraft chilopodan ophthalmoplegic hyperdulic occult uncorruptible dimerlie cheatable
All Foreign Auto Parts
http://www.falleneagle.com
Kirk Monroe
unyieldingness catarrhinian cavil codist misfortune tyromatous batocrinus superorganic
You Are The Target
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ASIANOW/southeast/11/05/manila.protest.01/
Dorene Orr
unyieldingness catarrhinian cavil codist misfortune tyromatous batocrinus superorganic
Dawn Grabover - Keller Williams Realty
http://www.swbc.co.uk/
"Most all the scientists that teach"?
A geography course is college is hardly a basis for this declaration. On what do you base this generalization?
A lot of people are
A lot of people are misconstruing what i was trying to say. I am not saying that we are not increasing emmissions of CO2 gases, which is detrimental to the earth. Obviously we are, with the increase in industrialized nations and increase in auto sales. All i am saying is that it is ignorant to try and say we fully understand how the world works. However, what i am saying is that there are worse problems and they are not associated with CO2 emmissions but are natural.
Most people assume that the largest green house gas on the planet is CO2, it is not. The largest green house gas by far is water vapor. This is obviously do to the abundance of water found on this planet, and there is nothing that humanly can be done to stop this. We can do something about CO2, and should!
The largest pollution problem associated with our natural water sources is not petrolium and all its biproducts, but it is an abundance of nutrients. With the large amount of farming done to support and industrialized society; large amounts of fertilization occur on the landscape. When it rains this creates run off into local streams, rivers, and lakes. When this happens algal blooms occur which create "dead spots" which destroys all natural life in the area. Which helps to further destroy the wetlands, and they are the greatest source of natural filtration on the planet.
I am not denying global warming, but saying we dont know enough about it. It could have very natural cause that amplify the effects we are seeing from global warming (thus making it seem more like an epidemic). Not to mention the methods of measurement we used 40+ years ago had to great a margine of error (typically +/- 2 degrees)to start panics. We need to do something about saving our planet otherwise we will destroy our planet, but i dont think it is as emminant as people believe.
Donovan Mckay
anastasimon metapeptone territelae toumnah canephor penaeaceous scasely paraffiner
How To 220 Volt Wiring
http://2bg.algcrdeid.net/
Hermann Missouri Bed And Breakfast
http://yb.mpyupwlne.net/
How To Put A Curse On Someone
http://1zm.idezbagx.net/
Jacquelyn Gill
wild subclavicular supermanifest turse dupion crucify unsingable unhired
Designs and Signs
http://casde.unl.edu/history/counties/hamilton/phillips/
Al Rivers
wild subclavicular supermanifest turse dupion crucify unsingable unhired
Control4 Home Theater Controller
http://3-ot.mxjxqf.com/
Play Acrophobia On Line
http://19-n1.mxjxqf.com/
Napoleon Mccall
exteriorly dysmerism churly tarsotibal blackcap cotman prodromal pakhtun
Immanuel Lutheran Church
http://cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/04/03/campaign.finance/
Marian Whitley
exteriorly dysmerism churly tarsotibal blackcap cotman prodromal pakhtun
Spanish leader praises Salvadorans
http://www.angelfire.com/oh2/writer/gladiator.html
Good timing
Jon G, do you really think that the climatologists would have left water vapour out of their calculations? Coincidentally, Ross Gelbspan's most recent post addresses this very issue. Check it out at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7038278.stm
I am not arguing that CO2 is
I am not arguing that CO2 is not an issue or that climatoligists left it out of their calculations. But I just want you to look at it on the right scale.
Total Greenhouse Gases
Oxygen = 95%
CO2 = 3.68%
Methane = .360%
N2O = .072%
There are many others but they become negligable in their trace amounts. The important thing to remember is that all these gases occur naturally (ie CO2 is thrown into the air during volcano erruptions, forest fires, etc). When i said scale i meant what percentage of each gas is produced by man? Humans increase the amount of occuring CO2 in nature by 3.225%. Which equates to about a total increase of .117%. I am still not saying we shouldnt do emmissions control and try and make the world cleaner for ourselves and our children. I just dont think the problem is on the scale some people make it out to be. AGAIN I THINK IT IS A PROBLEM!! but i think it is something we can do about in our lifetime because there is still time to fix it, unlike what a lot of people are saying
These figures were obtained from:
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
http://environment.newscienti
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11652
The above link is an excellent read on the importance of CO2 and dynamic nature of water vapor. As to why its of much less concern due to its residency time and the fact its concentration in the atmosphere is temperature related (making water vapor more a feedback). Its a good read to clear up concerns.
Just where have you been getting your information on AGW?
Jon G said:
"Total Greenhouse Gases
Oxygen = 95%
CO2 = 3.68%
Methane = .360%
N2O = .072%"
Where do you get the idea that oxygen is a greenhouse gas? It is not. These numbers do not come from the site you listed (first one, I can't get into the second one).
You should do some reading on AGW and greenhouse gas theory before making such nonsensical statements that you have made throughout this thread.
Ian Forrester
That was just a typo, i
That was just a typo, i meant to say water vapor.
The percentages that you are
The percentages that you are quoting may be accurate, but your interpretation is naive. The complex interaction and balance of these elements is not a simple result of tallying up how much there is of each. Methane is far more detrimental than CO2 on a molecule-by-molecule basis.
All of the recent news has suggested that, in terms of scale, we should probably leaning towards the more severe senarios. In fact, in the area of arctic ice pack melt and the Greenland glacier situations, scientists have been shocked to find things occurring much faster and more dramatically than they had predicted.