EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- 'The Gilded Age' Statistics Corporations Don't Want Workers, or Anyone, to See
- As Death Toll Rises Beyond 500, Garment Factory Disaster 'Worst in World History'
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- Move Over, Koch Brothers: A Bigger, Darker Rightwing Funder Is Out to Destroy Public Education
- After Boston, Eyes-Wide Open Hope?
- 'The Gilded Age' Statistics Corporations Don't Want Workers, or Anyone, to See
- Time for Big Green to Go Fossil Free
Popular content
Today's Top News
Driving Straight Into Catastrophe
PARIS - Despite repeated warnings by environmental and climate experts that reduction of fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions is fundamental to forestalling global warming, disaster appears imminent. According to the latest statistics, unprecedented climate change has Earth hurtling down a path of catastrophic proportions.
The Paris-based International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that the global consumption of primary energy in 2010 reached some 500 exajoules (EJ), a number just under the worst-case scenario formulated ten years ago by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC's Special Report on Emissions Scenarios, published in 2000, calculated the worst-case scenario as 525 EJ consumed in one calendar year.
The IEA found that coal was one of the largest sources of energy consumed in 2010, comprising approximately 27 percent of the total energy consumption. Coal, one of the cheapest sources of energy, is considered the filthiest of all, as far as greenhouse gases emissions (GHGE) are concerned.
Correspondingly, the global GHGE, measured as equivalent to carbon dioxide, reached at least 32 billion tonnes last year, only one step below the most pessimistic scenario imagined by the IPCC in 2000: 33 billion tonnes of CO2.
The results for 2010 were conditioned by the present global economic crisis - meaning that under normal economic circumstances, the numbers would have been higher. In other words, total consumption of energy in 2010 would have been worse than the most pessimistic scenario the IPCC formulated ten years ago had the global economy been in better shape.
These findings have prompted leading environmental experts to warn that humankind is racing towards destruction.
"The year 2010 was the hottest ever measured since the beginning of the recordings, 130 years ago," Anders Levermann, professor of climate system dynamics at the Physics Institute of the Potsdam University told IPS.
Levermann referred to the newest global temperature measurements carried out by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in 2010.
According to the NOAA, "For the 2010 year (January-November), the combined global land and ocean surface temperature was 0.64 degrees Celsius above the 20th century average - the warmest such period since records began in 1880."
Levermann explained that, contrary to appearance, the arctic winter in Western Europe is just another negative consequence of climate change.
"Global warming is melting the ice in the Kara Sea, in the Arctic Ocean," he explained. "This leads to a high pressure area above Siberia, which drives extremely cold winds towards Europe."
Levermann pointed out that the extreme global weather conditions experienced in 2010 - very cold weather in Western Europe during the winter, massive floods in Pakistan and Australia, extremely hot summers in Russia and Western Europe - illustrate the limits of even the most expert climate predictions.
"The more greenhouse gases we emit, the more the global climate gets out of control," Levermann said. "But the weather extremes that we cannot predict, such as the floods in Pakistan and Australia and the fires in Russia, are the ones that set the limits to human life."
According to the newest IPCC estimations, global temperatures may rise as much as eight degrees Celsius by the year 2200.
Levermann explained that the temperature difference within an interglacial period, such as the one we are living now, have historically reached about five Celsius degrees.
"The transition between these temperature extremes lasted some 50,000 years in the past," Levermann said. "But at the present rate of GHGE we are reducing such a transition by 50 times."
He added that the rapid rising of global temperatures could provoke extreme weather catastrophes that humankind won't be able to survive.
"The rising frequency of weather extremes, with their enormous social and economic consequences, would not allow public budgets to recuperate, nor give societies the time to breathe again," Levermann said. "Nor would insurance companies be able to compensate for the damages."
Levermann echoed earlier warnings that climate change could destroy countries such as Bangladesh, cities situated near the oceans, such as New York and Amsterdam, and make large parts of Africa uninhabitable.
"Climate change would destroy drinking water supplies, agriculture, habitats, and provoke giant waves of migration and mass mortality," he explained.
Levermann compared the consequences of global warming to a wall hidden in fog. "We cannot see the wall, but it is there. And we are driving at the highest possible speed towards it."
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

322 Comments so far
Show Allis that a serious question?.................
I totally agree. What is the point of throwing around predictions 189 years out when the simple fact is that if we continue as we are doing we are going to be in serious trouble long, long long before that.
What is wrong with predictions that 189 years out? The really catastrophic consequences will take at least that that long or longer. As a geologist, I alway find it hilarious what uninformed USAns consider a "long time". Heck, even a human historian would not consider a couple centuries a long time. There are pubs in Europe that have been in business 6 times that long.
If we know that our actions now will casue catastrophe 10,000 years from now, it would be no less important to act than if the catastrophe was only 50 years away.
It is not wrong it is just less compelling and vital for life today.
Short term calculation of the environment is far more important to life on earth than long term because the evidence it is using is more immediate and provable.
The more long term the prediction the more you have to speculate on the changes which may or may not happen or been calculated accurately or may become moot a few years later.
A geologist's information like you think is the most important over all would be useless to a contemporary murder trial as you could give thousands of statistics about how murder has been happening for billions of years, with survival of the fittest and evolution. You could testify for the defense and make a jury feel guilty for thinking tomorrow was important in the vast scheme of things..
Even on the environment you could talk endlessly about how many Ice ages we have been through as though you actually lived through them yourself.
Your argument takes the tone that time is not important unless it is longer than your life.
But you are right that long term prediction is also important but for moving people to action it is not.
I see science programs that invite me to worry now about their prediction that the universe will freeze 10 billion years from now.
Reminds me of the argument that if nobody hears a tree fall it doesn't make a sound.
But that is your privilege.
"Your argument takes the tone that time is not important unless it is longer than your life."
So are you suggesting that we lie and exxagerate the short-term consequences - which as the extreme weather events of this summer showed, are already here and it is too late to change them at this point. The fight now is to save humans from the really extreming human-extinction events and that requires long-term thinking.
Boy! I sure was misunderstood.
I was simply saying that whether the consequences of our actions _right now_ affect humanity next year, or 10,000 years from now (as increasingly powerful sicence is able to predicting) should make no difference whatsoever in the urgency of changing our behavior. The facts are, that the really bad end-of-humanity consequences of our current-day behavior is probably still a few centuries out, but we must care about those humans hndreds of years from now anyway. If we inply that the really bad, non-adaptable consequences of GHG emissions are coming in only a few yearts, we will merely set ourselves up accusaitons of crying wolf by the denialists.
In other words "think futurely, act presently."
FOX: Sabor Cat is playing down the methane part, just as he does his utmost to cloud the reputations of those who don't buy the 911 official storylines. What I find intriguing is that now he says he's a geologist, as I am fairly certain he recently defined himself as a civil engineer. To my knowledge, these are NOT the same thing, nor do they require the same courses of study.
So which is it Sabo? And as I've pointed out before: if you were employed by the state in a typical civil engineering job, it would be virtually impossible to post as often as you do here in the forum during the 9-5 time sequence.
I never commented on those two people here.
I am a geotechnical Engineeer - which required training in both fields. I am glad someone already flagged your inappropriate vindictive post, becasue I was going to.
I believe that AGW entails a small but very serious risk of the end of all life on earth - Venusification. And what maked it so deadly is that it this danger is sufficiently remote in probability, and in time, that it is very difficult to get homo Economicus to care about future generations of human and non human life.
I AM saying that we must ACT NOW!!! Can you READ???
But, we must be prepared to convince people ACT NOW on things that will not benefit them in their lifetimes, but rather is for the benefit of future generations after we are dead. Get it?
Ever hear the slogan "think globally, act locally? Well, all I was arguing is that we need to think the same way, but in the temporal dimension too.
So, we are in agreement, and I consider this discussion concluded.
SaboCat, I followed you all along and agree with your points. I'd like to take a bit of an excursion on this, and try to explain how a belief in reincarnation might serve as a path to green democratic socialism.
Okay, let's admit that currently the corporate greedheads control the decision-making apparatus. What would it take to get through to those who have stolen wealth and power that after their bodies die they might well return as beings on this planet. Even if they give less than one shit about all of the rest of the people and other beings, including their great grandchildren, they might ponder the conditions their own asses might face should they make a bodily reentry to our currently still beautiful planet.
And, while they're at it, they might surmise what it would be like to return as a poverty-stricken oppressed human or a maltreated animal.
But, should it be too much to ask greedheads to consider more than their quarterly profits, what would it take for the majority of us to seize power by the most peaceful methods possible?
These are the most serious questions that I can come up with.
No, I dont buy any sort of reincarnation except in the "soft" sense that Alan Watts once expounded on - that ego, and self-awareness is an illuson - like a the illusory circle of light one can make at night from the glowing end of a stick from a campfire. Only the point of light exists. Similarly, there is no "my consciousness", just "consciousness" and that will continue throughout the universe for many billions of years to come.
I was thinking about this very thing the other day. What is it in our makeup that sees 100 years from now as a date that will never happen?
This after watching some shows on Ancient Astronomers and how they built various temples and stone circles many thousands of years ago (such as at Carnac) that would measure events that happened once in 22 years or once in 76 years.
People would exert time and energy and invest resources in building these devices for an event most of them would never see in their lifetimes.
The Mayans as example would measure the movement of a Star in the heavans and note that it would take 76 years to move 1/2 a degree thus calculating it would make a circle in some 25800 years . This arrived at by a lifetime of observing the heavans and passing the information down to the people after them.
It was not long ago that many of the tools we used were the same used by our grandfathers and thier fathers before them. Now a tool is obsolete and disposed of in the span of a few short years.
We live longer and longer lifetimes yet have less and less time and can not be bothered with events more then ten days old or consequences that are a few short years away.
GW NORTH:
It's called no respect for life, nor any sentiment of GENUINE reverence. Many find it difficult to link this absence of sentience with the Judeo-Christian ethic and its focus on separating man from nature, demonizing natural impulses (like sex), and seeing the woodlands as "God forsaken" places, and persons who live in such environs, "savages."
This hatred of all things that express and reflect the Divine Feminine goes back a long way, and has become an invisible staple of key religions and the traditions passed onto their flocks, generation after generation. What is termed civilization is based on many wondrous technologies, but which of these attracts more funds than those dedicated to ways to murder more and more persons, lay more and more of nature's kingdoms to waste?
The shamans of Peru spoke about this lack of love for the great Mother, and they said that the mountain chains are now waking up, a sort of geological version of Kundalini rising. MANY powerful earth changes will occur. Human beings have gone through other periods of major, massive upheaval. Even Plato understood that a great flood had taken place before his time. Many see in that story, the evidence of the lost continent of Atlantis. Other civilizations were sunken under the sands of the Gobi desert.
Human beings hold written records that only go back a relatively short time given the fossil remains of human-like creatures go back thousands of years.
Homo Sapiens, the shamans believe, are to be replaced by the next evolution of humanity, Homo Luminous.
Check out Dr. Alberto Viloldo and "The Four Winds Society." Good stuff, yet inordinately threatening to those who have mistaken what's on television for their personal reality.
Hi Sabocat. You may be interested in this link:-
http://fora.tv/2010/02/01/Long-Term_Thinking_in_the_Next_10000_Years#fullprogram
The carbon cycle is too huge and too complex to fully understand. Every year, billions of tons of carbon dioxide are absorbed into the oceans, feeding photosynthetic organisms in the top few hundred feet of water. As they die, the fixed carbon trickles to the ocean floor, becoming sediments and then, perhaps, methanehyrdrates, and then, perhaps, in a few million years, oil and maybe coal. Who knows? This part of the carbon cycle, while probably "natural," is much too long to mitigate human activity that, in two centuries, is undoing nature's work of perhaps a billion years. Similarly, the methane contained in permafrozen tundra was laid down over eons and is now ready to add, as you say, to the methane level in the atmosphere. The ocean is the only force removing carbon in significant amounts from the atmosphere and storing it once again outside the cycle. Farmers help a little by growing crops in a manner that in fact sequesters carbon for a long time, but most of that carbon cycles and is not stored. The real solutions lie in using energy from sources outside the carbon-hydrogen-bond storage system--solar, tide, wind, geothermal, and nuclear.
Two things. CO₂ forms carbonic acid in water, making it much harder for plankton to survive. [http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0701-05.htm]
Also, the net effect of global agriculture is to degrade soils, releasing soil carbon into the atmosphere.
Also, due to fear of looking "alarmist" or "eco-extremist", and well as simply being good scienetific practice, the scientists are being conservative in their predictions. This means that they only make predictions that they have a high degree of certainty.
The trouble is, this is exactly the opposite of how an engineer does things. Being conservative means planning on the more unlikely forces or conditions being imposed on a building, dam, aircraft, etc, because even if they are unlikely, the consequences are deadly if the structure can't resist them. Some the engineer applies a safety factor, to the loads and resisting forces in the design, or does a probabalistic design analysis.
If an engineer designed a dam like the scientists predict climate, it would be designed only for the flood or earthquake that the designer can be certain will occur. Such a dam would have a 50% or higher chance of catastrophic failure over its lifetime - not acceptable!
Or more simply, The IPCC has completely failed to explain that their predictions DO NOT have a safety factor! This has lead policymakers to think that, at worst, AGW under business as usual will be bearable, when they should be applying a safety factor (3 would probably be appropriate) and planning as if the 5C temperature rise would be actually be a world-ending 15C rise.
helluva point here, sabo. thanks.
SILVER/FRUIT: Left out of your equations is the fact that lots of these phytoplanktons are dying. What BP did to the Gulf of Mexico is the tip of the iceberg. Deadzones surround continents, and since industrial effluents keep surging into waterways, more and more areas are joining the ranks of these dead sea zones.
Steven King ought to be able to come up with quite a sci-fi thriller based on what's brewing in the Gulf of Mexico now. Imagine if any genetic engineering lab was compromised in the New Orleans/Louisiana area after Katrina, and that crap got out to feed on the new oil-Cor-exit cocktail? Yep. Truth often tends to be weirder than the best sci-fi depictions. What nightmares may come... out of this muck, are yet to be seen.
Um No. The climate scientists have done a range of predictions,from least catastrophic to major catastrophic, based on variables such as rate of use of fossil fuels...which is clearly stated in the article. There is no one prediction.
Have you used statistics? Significance and confidence levels are NOT certainties, just calculated likelihoods of some occurance. At any rate, I recommend you pick up a good book on environmental science and check out the charts in the global warming section.
I'm a "deterministic" kind of thinker, so I'm pretty rusty on statistics, but in enginering, probabalistic design is coming to the fore.
What is the standard deviation of those various climate predictions? Would going 3 standard deviations out to the tail entail consequences sufficintly dire that vigorous action is warranted - even though the probability is remote?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I beleive the the climate predictions are deterministic based on a range of scenarios, but are not probabilistic, with sensitivity studies using the range of uncertainty in the parameters.
What I was trying to explain is that an engineer of a long lived critical structure designs using the far upper tail of the distribution of the predicted loads - becasue the public insists that risk of people dying from a failure be kept very low. For example, a large dam is designed to withstand a maximum credible earthquake and a probable maximum precipitation event. These are deterministic events, but they are checled with a probabalistic analyses to be sure they are sufficiently remote for public acceptance of the risk, acceptable risk typically being one-in 2500 year to one-in 10,000 year probability. In other words, to be safe, we assume fairly remote probability events WILL happen. I think climate policy needs to be approached the same way, becasue the consequences of comparably remote-probability climate change is far, far more dire that those of a dam, or even a nuclear power plant failing catastrophically.
Perhaps the climate scientists don't consider such probabalistic risk analysis to be "in their department", and leave it to engineers and policymakers to do the risk analyses. But they shouldn't be doing this. They have to be putting a designer's hat on too.
"Hi Coco,,,, good to see you here... K/P"
Klem (Kem Patrick),
It's a good thing you exposed yourself to Coco (if not to the rest of your "Watermelons). She might have been confused (as on Mother Jones) and thought that you were just some dirty old man. Keep slithering on through the weeds, if I were you I wouldn't admit to being Kem Patrick either. Fortunately, I'm not you, so why don't you just come out of the closet, you old wanker?
tt
You are being unnecessarily rude, N.C.
K/P...Oops! I spoke too soon, I see that you are finally "coming out" to some of your "old friends" here at CD. Really kind of chokes me up to see the long-delayed reunion. After a few years of "retirement" spewing your lies and slanders elsewhere I guess (as Sue Rose might say after a long day with her crystal ball: "The Circle is now Unbroken!")
It is more like "two steps forward, one step back" , Bucky Fuller's take on human evolution.It is all a dance...
After reading some of the following and scrolling through the rest I find that a lot of folks much more knowledgeable than I, have concluded that the kim chee is gettin deep and they have no clue as to what to do. Try this. Drive no more than you must. Recycle everything. If you can find a product you need and it is made in your country buy it over an import that is half the price. Pray a lot. We all know that a bunch of dead canaries aren't gonna convince the mine owners that they should spend their money. PS, I'm broke.
It must be a purely rhetorical question, since here in the good ol' U. S. of A. we've pledged to continue our ever-accelerating rate of binging on everything from Big Macs to I-phones.
Yes, the only way Obama is going to come anywhere close to meeting his goal of doubling exports is to sell many more boatloads of US coal to China, thereby pushing global greenhouse gas emissions to new highs.
Ever increasing demands that everyone acknowledege as fact matters that are not settled, the arrogant insistence that Climate Change, Global Warming and AGM are all one and the same is killing us.
Insisting that no matter what the weather does it supports the argument of Global Warming, arranging facts to fit your theory, policy or prejudice is just plain stupid.
Insisting on using sources that have been discredited, exposed as "cooking the numbers" is fool's gold.
The trouble with expecting outcomes to fit your ideology or preconceived results or insisting that they do is that it stops rational discussion.
You will have to face it some day, mightymite. I'd advise getting your world view in order so that it can accommodate the facts of what we are facing. Otherwise, you will appear to be (and will be) more foolish year by year.
I was told extreme weather fluctuations would result from global warming in the early seventies by environmental science professors. So far, the outcomes have matched the predictions to an appalling tee. The matter is long settled.
Your motivation is suspect.
Not a single one of your assertions is true. You cling to looney consspiracy theories of "cooked numbers" in order to support you destructive suburban lifestyle.
And from what deep well of stupendous fucking arrogance do you, a probable scientific and mathematical illiterate, draw from when you criticise the rigorous work of dedicated scientists?
It's okay Mighty Might.Malcomb Muggeridge said years ago that he wasn't worried about mankind's ability to destroy itself, because eventually, after the mass die-off, there will be two black people in Africa left, and then we'll start all over.
You lost me with the reference to "Lucifer."
Really, he lost me after "Silver Fox".
Get lost easily, eh?
Invest in a GPS.
Malcomb was exagerating for effect, and taking a swing at racists. He was a funny man, yet deadly serious at the same time.
Malcomb was exagerating for effect, and taking a swing at racists. He was a funny man, yet deadly serious at the same time.
You know, I never before thought of that serious flaw with the adam and eve story. But it is pretty obvious really. So ... Lucifer provided the goods that allowed man to proliferate. That pretty much explains why mankind is so "hell bent" on destroying our "garden of eden" the. Which all ties in pretty tightly with this GW stuff.
Except this time around there'll no fossil fuel to burn.
Oh, I don't think rational discussion is in imminent danger here. It seems to me that the tension is between those who want to see climate change fully manifest and duly labeled (i.e. "settled") before they will concede that the verdict's in (a safe, rational position if you don't imagine yourself or any of your loved ones to be potential victims) and those who believe that there is sufficient observable change and scientific consensus about the reality of massive transition, if not all specifics (which, let's be fair, would seem to be beyond the scope of any living being's direct experience), to warrant turning our attention to how we might ameliorate the damage and possibly survive to rebuild on a more sustainable basis. What we all know, even deniers if they're honest with themselves, is that we will not be able to sustain civilization as it is currently conceived. This observation is unavoidable by merely looking at the world around us and does not require simulators or extreme models or projections or scientific argument.
can you tell me what it is like to carry water for the Ruling Class?
'cause that is what you are doing.
MIGHTY: Almost all of your posts sound like regurgitations of right wing talking points taken straight from the MSM like undigested pabulum. Yet you call yourself a liberal? Regardless of the facts and intelligent arguments you come up against in this forum, you revert back to your knee jerk preferred notions, the vast majority based on convenient LIES. Are you here just to hear yourself talk?
Mighty is here, just as others of his ilk are (e.g. Jake Newton), to get us all worked up and waste our time responding to his provocative pronouncements (which are often replete with bad syntax).
Please do not feed the troll. There is not one peer reviewed study to support the deniers among the hundreds saying human caused climate change is here.
Yes, yes-feed the trolls.They grow big and explode.
If that's so then I hope they don't expel harmful greenhouse gasses when they do. ;-)
My bets are on the Steelers!