Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
No Slowdown of Global Warming, Agency Says
The announcement is likely to be viewed as a rejoinder to a renewed challenge from skeptics to the scientific evidence for global warming, as international negotiators here seek to devise a global response to climate change.
December 8, 2009 - Participants watch an animated projection, showing the effects of the climate change, inside the U.S. Center 09 during the second day of the United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 in Copenhagen, Denmark. Politicians and environmentalists meet for the United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 that runs until December 18. (Miguel Villagran/Getty Images) The period from 2000 through 2009 has been "warmer than the 1990s, which were warmer than the 1980s, and so on," Michel Jarraud, the secretary general of the international weather agency, said at a news conference here.
The unauthorized release last month of e-mail messages between climate scientists in Britain and the United States has provided new ammunition to global warming skeptics. Some of the messages seemed to suggest that some data be withheld from the public. Mr. Jarraud said the release of the climate analysis was moved up from year's end to coincide with the international conference on climate change.
The data also indicates that 2009 was also the fifth warmest year on record, he said, although he noted that the figures for the year were incomplete.
The international assessment on temperatures from 2000 to 2009 largely meshes with an interim analysis by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the United States, which independently estimates global and regional temperature and other weather trends.
Yet it was the gulf between rich and poor nations, not the science of global warming, that dominated talks here on Tuesday as delegates fretted about different pieces of draft language for a new climate treaty circulating in the halls. A 13-page document that was said to have been drafted by Denmark, the conference's host country, included language calling for mechanisms opposed by poor countries for delivering aid to them to help deal with the impact of climate change. The proposal includes more oversight by donor nations than the developing nations want.
Danish officials said in a statement that the document was in no way a draft for a new agreement and that many such papers were circulating as parties informally traded ideas.
Another document was said to be framed by Brazil, South Africa, India and China. It made no mention of specific commitments on their part and rejected outside auditing of projects to reduce emissions financed by those countries on their own.
A negotiator for a large bloc of developing countries meanwhile challenged rich countries to make far deeper cuts in emissions than they have proposed so far. The negotiator, Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping of Sudan, said President Obama should be willing to spend far more to limit climate dangers in the world's most vulnerable regions.
"We have to ask him, when he provided trillions of dollars to save Wall Street, are the children of the world not deserving help to save their lives?" he said.
Mr. Di-Aping spoke on behalf of more than 130 developing countries as well as China.
The European Commission meanwhile welcomed a decision by the United States Environmental Protection Agency to pave the way for imposing federal limits on emissions of carbon dioxide. The so-called endangerment finding by the E.P.A. was "an important signal by the Obama administration that they are serious about tackling climate change and are demonstrating leadership," a spokesman for the European Commission said.
Andreas Carlgren, the environment minister of Sweden, the country that currently holds the rotating presidency of the European Union, said in an e-mail message that the E.P.A. ruling "shows that the United States can do more than they have put on the table." So far Mr. Obama has proposed a 17 percent cut in emissions by 2020 from 2005 levels and deeper cuts in later years.
A major reason that hopes have risen in recent weeks is the expectation that Mr. Obama, who plans to attend the final day of the conference on Dec. 18, will commit the United States to making cuts in greenhouse gases. The United States declined to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, a 1997 agreement on curbing greenhouse gases, because of strong opposition in the Senate and from the Bush administration. The refusal to ratify the protocol has left a lingering mistrust of the United States on environmental issues in parts of the world.
The finding by the E.P.A. is expected to allow Mr. Obama to tell delegates in Copenhagen that the United States is moving aggressively to address the problem even while Congress remains stalled on broader legislation to curb global warming.
Tom Zeller Jr. contributed reporting from Copenhagen, and John M. Broder from Washington.
- Posted in

21 Comments so far
Show AllThe fact is that we do not know if the warming trend will naturally reverse itself (for example, melting glaciers will likely change the salinity content in the gulf, and thus affect the currents there). One wonders if there is 'feed back' mechanism that will precipitate global cooling:
"The possibility exists that 'Global Warming', by introducing fresh water into the North Atlantic, could affect the Atlantic Conveyer Belt, an ocean current which transports warm tropical water to the western coast of Europe. The water then sinks to the depths of the ocean as it cools, while the heat is released into the atmosphere, and it is this released heat that is responsible for the moderate winters in Europe as compared to the harsher winters in North America. Therefore, there is a possibility that Global Warming could temporarily create the conditions for much harsher winters, but not an 'ice age'."
Either way, it's likely to have a profound effect on the activities of humankind.
Speaking of melting ice and the Atlantic Conveyor Belt:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=41518&src=eoa-manews
Notice this sentence at the end of the article:
"Looking ahead to the future Patterson says there is no reason why a ‘Big Freeze’ shouldn’t happen again. “If the Greenland ice sheet melted suddenly it would be catastrophic,” he says."
Remember, what you are talking about here are localized, smaller scale effects. This has always been the case. Overall global temperatures will likely continue to rise regardless of localized climate effects, and the threat of run-away global warming is very real (regardless of whether or not Britain freezes).
Remember, London is at about the same latitude as Winnipeg. Even without global warming, if the warm ocean currents stopped providing Europe with warm air ya'll would be freezing anyway. It doesn't matter what effects you find in isolated locals, global warming is a "global" problem, hence the name - doesn't matter if it results in lower or higher temperatures in different locals (which is why many people have taken to using "climate change" instead).
The only thing that will truly stop global warming and the resulting effects is a reduction of atmospheric CO2, or else a dramatic decline in solar activity to balance it (which is highly unlikely - if anything the sun will get hotter). Cap and Trade isn't enough. We need to replace and shut down coal plants and we need to do it yesterday.
"Between the idea
And the reality
Between the motion
And the act
Falls the shadow"
Chessgame,
The global cooling wish is simply that imho. Previous reversals did not have a new Chinese Coal Plant coming on line each week. That's right, each week a new one pops up in China, the country with more automobile drivers than the USA.
We have an example, right next door to what can happen to our atmosphere: Planet Venus. Earth's sister planet Venus, is not much different in size or composition to Earth but has so many greenhouse gas concentrations that solid lead would melt at it's surface.
That beautiful blue "star" everybody sees in the evening is actually a smoldering hell. It is a harbinger of our future if we don't drastically control population and give up the auto.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
I don't deny that global warming is occurring, or that man-made greenhouse gases are contributing. However, the earth is more than 4 billion years old, and has been similarly warm during certain periods. My only point is that no scientist or group of scientists completely understands or can perfectly predict what will happen--there are simply too many variables, and it is my guess that there will be some surprises. With almost 7 billion people on this globe, ANY dramatic climate change will be catastrophic for SOMEONE, whether it be warming that eventually precipitates an ice age, or run-away warming that produces drought and famine. Either way, we are in for a rough ride.
Sorry Chess
I misread your post there. You're right. But the Hollywood "Day After Tomorrow" where the earth instantly cools by Michael Criton is shear fiction as far as I know. The Oceans are heat sinks and retain excess residual heat, whereas Mars has no oceans and the temp gets rapidly cold in the dark. On Earth it might take thirty years to bleed off this much trapped heat. And that's if every engine and slash and burn stopped now, which is impossible. Our climate, from what I've read, is remarkably stable this epoch, compared to the ice cores of previous epochs.
Of course, I hope I'm dead wrong, and we have us a miracle. But already people are losing their homes with just eight inches global sea rise from 100 years ago.
I just pray Greenland hangs in there, and I'm an atheist.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
Modern technology has thrived with its promise of an earthly heaven, though it is currently being represented in most media as bringing mankind closer to the hell of its central texts.
The hell of its central texts is often associated with mercenary self interest.
Live really does imitate art. Which means mankind ought to be more careful with the kind of art it allows its elites to create. Some pyramids are more toxic than others.
Does nobody know about the POLE SHIFT? This periodic event is also a part of the sun spot cycle and the whole game being played out.
The human drama is a big giggle, we need to learn to love eachother and be grateful for this amazing experience. When it's gone its' gone.
A pole shift is a natural occurrence, it will not occur because of or due to human activity. Anthropogenic CO2 releases are a completely different story, and we need to be responsible for them. The lack of accountability humans have for their actions will never fail to outrage and astound me.
You may as well say we shouldn't arrest and prosecute murderers because the people they killed would have died eventually anyway. There is little (if any) difference to me.
"Between the idea
And the reality
Between the motion
And the act
Falls the shadow"
are you referring to the polarity reversals earth has experienced over time?
Earth magnetic reversals and the solar cycle have nothing to do with each other.
I don't belive that there is any evidence of a connection between past magnetic reversals and significant climate change. There is likewise no connection between the 11-year solar cycle and significant climate, models show it would have no more than a 0.1C effect. Protracted solar minimums like Maunder minimum of the 1600's to 1700's might have an effect, but much more research will be needed.
Screw Congress.
President Obama can enforce emissions cuts using just Executive Orders and Regulatory powers.
If he can send you to War, he can also force you to fix your Clunker.
You are already run out of town.
George W. was run out of town, but his two Wars aren't exactly being "rolled back".
If Obama gets $100 billion/year poured into windpower farms, LED streetlighting, solarpower R&D, etc. these will not "disappear" when he finishes up in 2017, no matter who is the next President.
"Elections have consequences"
-- George W. Bush
The 'lingering mistrust' of the USA is in fact open rejection.
Seldom one can say everything but now almost everything points to the reality that the political construct called the USA is the world's biggest problem. A once useful construct is now the source of a terrible force for evil. USA'n patriotism is a cruelly embarrassing joke.
The recognition of Climate Change is the finest thing to happen in the history of the world. Now we can all see that the greed or selfishness defined above is a childish conceit. Remember that children each see their small reality as true for the Universe as in Dad and Mom are god.
The adult reality is we are one world, one people. Once Americans see this then we will be able to do something about the rampaging Godzilla, the USA, and work towards a reasonable development of the reality.
'The finding by the E.P.A. is expected to allow Mr. Obama to tell delegates in Copenhagen that the United States is moving aggressively to address the problem---'
This is US media rubbish of the kind that has built the mess currently called the USA. Why can't they tell it as it is? The findings allow any American to aggressively address the problem.
Now Americans must address it! Sue the bastards for damages.
This is the truth that Copenhagen must insist on. It is a lance lodged in the heart of the Godzilla USA.
"Yet it was the gulf between rich and poor nations, not the science of global warming, that dominated talks here on Tuesday..."
At least they started not pretending any more that it's about the climate. Good first step. The sooner everyone comes out of the closet the better.
Sir, I don't understand the gist of your comment. The above quote from the article implies, to me anyway, that the debate is over a just policy(such as climate debt that the rich, industrialized north may owe to the south)as humanity marches forward to bring carbon emissions down below 350. Unfortunate for members of the U.S. and other governments that refuse to recognize, but scientists are recommending more drastic cuts than they are prepared or can find the political courage to muster.
I guess you are more or less correct. The quoted paragraph ends like this: ", included language calling for mechanisms opposed by poor countries for delivering aid to them to help deal with the impact of climate change. The proposal includes more oversight by donor nations than the developing nations want"
What this tells me is that this conference is more about getting "rich" countries to export more "aid" to "poor" countries which should be able to use the "aid" as they see fit.
I can't believe most people don't see thru this charade. First it was "globalization", which worked out pretty well for China, India etc who now are poised to take the economic lead in the world. Next is this climate change issue and cap and trade which will not curb emissions but justt transfer funds from countries who actually have an industry to the one that don't. Don't get me wrong, the earth night be warming up (more or less depending on who you believe these days) and someone is taking advantage.
"First it was "globalization", which worked out pretty well for China, India etc who now are poised to take the economic lead in the world."
At what cost to their/our environment and the rest of the world?