RSN June Fundraising
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Intro: "The world is close to reaching tipping points that will make it irreversibly hotter, making this decade critical in efforts to contain global warming, scientists warned on Monday."

'System Change Not Climate Change' banner at the United Nations Climate Change Conference, COP15, in Copenhagen, Denmark. (photo: kris krug/flickr)
'System Change Not Climate Change' banner at the United Nations Climate Change Conference, COP15, in Copenhagen, Denmark. (photo: kris krug/flickr)



Global Warming Close to Becoming Irreversible - Scientists

By Nina Chestney, Reuters

28 March 12

 

he world is close to reaching tipping points that will make it irreversibly hotter, making this decade critical in efforts to contain global warming, scientists warned on Monday.

Scientific estimates differ but the world's temperature looks set to rise by six degrees Celsius by 2100 if greenhouse gas emissions are allowed to rise uncontrollably.

As emissions grow, scientists say the world is close to reaching thresholds beyond which the effects on the global climate will be irreversible, such as the melting of polar ice sheets and loss of rainforests.

"This is the critical decade. If we don't get the curves turned around this decade we will cross those lines," said Will Steffen, executive director of the Australian National University's climate change institute, speaking at a conference in London.

Despite this sense of urgency, a new global climate treaty forcing the world's biggest polluters, such as the United States and China, to curb emissions will only be agreed on by 2015 - to enter into force in 2020.

" We are on the cusp of some big changes," said Steffen. "We can ... cap temperature rise at two degrees, or cross the threshold beyond which the system shifts to a much hotter state."

Tipping Points

For ice sheets - huge refrigerators that slow down the warming of the planet - the tipping point has probably already been passed, Steffen said. The West Antarctic ice sheet has shrunk over the last decade and the Greenland ice sheet has lost around 200 cubic km (48 cubic miles) a year since the 1990s.

Most climate estimates agree the Amazon rainforest will get drier as the planet warms. Mass tree deaths caused by drought have raised fears it is on the verge of a tipping point, when it will stop absorbing emissions and add to them instead.

Around 1.6 billion tonnes of carbon were lost in 2005 from the rainforest and 2.2 billion tonnes in 2010, which has undone about 10 years of carbon sink activity, Steffen said.

One of the most worrying and unknown thresholds is the Siberian permafrost, which stores frozen carbon in the soil away from the atmosphere.

"There is about 1,600 billion tonnes of carbon there - about twice the amount in the atmosphere today - and the northern high latitudes are experiencing the most severe temperature change of any part of the planet," he said.

In a worst case scenario, 30 to 63 billion tonnes of carbon a year could be released by 2040, rising to 232 to 380 billion tonnes by 2100. This compares to around 10 billion tonnes of CO2 released by fossil fuel use each year.

Increased CO2 in the atmosphere has also turned oceans more acidic as they absorb it. In the past 200 years, ocean acidification has happened at a speed not seen for around 60 million years, said Carol Turley at Plymouth Marine Laboratory.

This threatens coral reef development and could lead to the extinction of some species within decades, as well as to an increase in the number of predators.

As leading scientists, policy-makers and environment groups gathered at the "Planet Under Pressure" conference in London, opinions differed on what action to take this decade.

London School of Economics professor Anthony Giddens favours focusing on the fossil fuel industry, seeing as renewables only make up 1 percent of the global energy mix.

"We have enormous inertia within the world economy and should make much more effort to close down coal-fired power stations," he said.

Oil giant Royal Dutch Shell favours working on technologies leading to negative emissions in the long run, like carbon capture on biomass and in land use, said Jeremy Bentham, the firm's vice president of global business environment.

The conference runs through Thursday.

 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+20 # Capn Canard 2012-03-28 07:00
I believe it is already unstoppable. You can't un-ring a bell. I sure as he11 hope not, but we all might be circling the drain.
 
 
+3 # cordleycoit 2012-03-28 09:08
What interests me about the global warming is the insistence of the corporations on having this become unavoidable. The people who own the world are not all Bush stupid. A mad max world appeals to them it must they will lose a whole bunch of customers as the food shortages settle in. The awesome expansion of human numbers like just before the population collapse arrives and we get top of the endangered species list.
 
 
+10 # rsb1 2012-03-28 09:11
"Oil giant Royal Dutch Shell favours working on technologies leading to negative emissions" - what a crock ! On one hand, SHELL is doing everything possible to protect it's monopoly and continue to rape and pillage the planet; while on the other hand continuing to push the carbon-tax agenda for self-enrichment resulting from a problem they create. What gives SHELL (a group of greedy old men) the right to 'own' and profit from natural resources that are the birthright of every human-being on the planet ? The axiom about controlling both sides of the debate is well represented in the 'global warming' discussion. We're supposed to BELIEVE that SHELL is "working on technologies leading to negative emissions" ? The technologies already exist ! What is not spoken about are the thousands of proven and patented alternative energy inventions that have been sequestered by Oil Companies including SHELL to protect their monopolies ? Why aren't these inventions released into the public domain for development and use by mankind ? These undeveloped inventions by geniuses of our past should 'belong' to everyone. The carbon tax is a scam designed and developed by the Elite-few for self-enrichment . Believing that oil companies have any altruistic motive is a fantasy equal to that of 'honest' politicians and unmanipulated voting. Why no mention of cyclic/historic al polar-shift in the global warming debate - because TRUTH cannot be manipulated ?
 
 
+3 # tclose 2012-03-28 10:57
rsb1 - you need to notice that the article says that Shell "FAVOURS working on technologies leading to negative emissions", which is not to say that they would actually be working on these technologies. What they apparently want is for someone else to be working on "carbon capture on biomass and in land use", which obviates the need for oil companies to be supporting alternate energy solutions. Instead, miracle solutions involving carbon capture or sequestration will allow us to continue business as usual on the energy usage front, it seems.
 
 
+10 # angelfish 2012-03-28 10:10
There are NONE so blind as those who WILL not see. I will not live to see it but, when the end comes, it's NOT going to be pretty. So sad for all the Naysayers who have their heads up their Arses, as well as for those who have had NO VOICE or CHOICE in stopping the insanity!
 
 
+4 # Ray Kondrasuk 2012-03-28 10:51
James Hansen at GISS painted well the likely response of an uninformed skeptic:

"What's two degrees?

Look, the daily temperature swings twenty, even thirty degrees. From coldest Midwest day in February to hottest day in August, the temperature swings a HUNDRED-twenty, even a HUNDRED-thirty degrees!

And you're worried about JUST TWO?"

We still have a lot of educating to do.
 
 
+8 # Regina 2012-03-28 11:19
There's no satisfaction in saying "We told you so." What is it going to take to get inescapable science through to the doctrinaire deniers? They think they have a vote on the behavior of atoms.
 
 
+3 # angelfish 2012-03-28 12:06
There's an old saying I used to hear quite frequently as a child that you don't hear of much any more, and that is, "DON'T mess with Mother Nature"! She will have the last laugh and bite everyone on the Butt, and if all these Naysayers are wrong, and we KNOW they are, then, oops, too late, the World is Screwed! Sorry. Cold comfort, indeed.
 
 
-16 # nickherbert 2012-03-28 12:36
"Global Warming" has been happening naturally since the last Ice Age. Man-made CO2 is contributing to this natural (and unavoidable) warming. What climate alarmists fail to tell us is WHAT PROPORTION of global warming is due to human activity. If this number is 5%, then no amount of carbon trading will changes things except by benefitting parasitic carbon traders.

Any scientist who does not distinguish between natural warming and anthropic warming--and FAILS TO ESTIMATE THE RELATIVE PROPORTION--is an irresponsible scientist.

For me the greatest anthropic danger is elimination of the habitats of millions of beautiful species with whom we share this planet.
 
 
+12 # DNathan 2012-03-28 15:57
A good point, nickherbert, but also one to which there is a clear answer. The contribution to the global heat budget is usually quantified in units of W/m2 (watts per square meter of Earth's surface). According to the best estimate (IPCC 2007 AR4, Working Group I, Chapter 2, page 136), the contribution of increasing greenhouse gasses (CO2 mostly, but also methane, nitrous oxide, CFCs and ground-level ozone) since about 1750 is about 3.0 W/m2. Over the same time, the contribution of changes in solar radiation reaching Earth is about 0.12 W/m2. Therefore, about 95% of the "positive radiative forcing" since 1750 is due to greenhouse gasses humans have added to the atmosphere. If you subtract out the "negative radiative forcing" of aerosols (small particles that stay airborne and reflect sunlight back to space, thereby cooling Earth), the net human-caused (anthropogenic) change is about 1.5 W/m2. Using that number, humans are responsible for about 92% of global warming.
If you also consider the other "natural factor" that can cause Earth's temperature to change substantially, volcanoes, then the net effect of "natural factors" since 1900 or so would have been a slight cooling of Earth.
Finally, since 1979, when Earth has been warming the most rapidly, energy from the sun has actually decreased.
All of these facts add up, in my mind at least, to the conclusion that humans are the overriding cause of current climate change.
 
 
+3 # brianf 2012-03-28 21:23
Global warming happened at the end of the last ice age, but then for a much longer time there was a very gradual global cooling. It didn't cool very much, but it definitely cooled. Until the industrial revolution. Then it suddenly changed into a (relatively) extremely rapid warming.

So if you want the relative proportion of warming since the peak, after it started to cool again, it's a little more than 100%. Because if the trend had continued, it would have been a little cooler now instead of hotter.

The last ice age was about 6 degrees cooler than in preindustrial times, and by 2100 we are supposed to be about 6 degrees hotter. So the world will be roughly just as different as an ice age, except in the other direction. That estimate does not include several positive feedbacks that are already happening, so most likely it will get a lot hotter.

Unless we make some huge changes very quickly. That won't happen unless more people start learning about the science. I'm glad you show some curiosity. I hope everyone puts in some effort to learn more about climate science, before it is too late to stop this trainwreck.
 
 
+3 # ericlipps 2012-03-28 14:51
Bear in mind that even a 5% increase could be significant if the earth is near a "tipping point" beyond which warmng could become self-reinforcin g. Imagine the following: increased CO2 due to human activities raises the temperature just enough to release a flood of new greenhouse gases (such as methane trapped in Arctic permafrost, leading to more warming, leading to . . . !

Just such a vicious cycle (absent human actvity, of course) is believed to account for the hellish conditions on Venus, whose surface temperature is high enough to melt lead.
 
 
+6 # sharag 2012-03-28 15:49
SHELL produces oil, environmental and social destruction and a lot of green wash propaganda. Don't believe for a second they (SHELL) take global warming seriously. They will do whatever it takes to stomp on any moves that affect their bottom line. Appearing concerned is just one of those tactics. It's easy to do and doesn't cost them much.
 
 
+2 # corals33 2012-03-30 17:52
scientists are telling us that science is destroying all our lives. religion is telling us that Jesus will save us when he comes back after we killed him.bankers are telling us that killing ourselves to make money they conjure up out of nothing is a worthwhile experience.Dr seuss and a hot cup of cocoa and pray the lord my soul to keep.
Good night.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN