Global Warming Increasing Faster Than Predicted

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Global Warming Increasing Faster Than Predicted stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

RANDOLPH E. SCHMID | February 14, 2009 08:57 PM EST | AP

Compare other versions »
I Like ItI Don’t Like It

CHICAGO — Despite widespread concern over global warming, humans are adding carbon to the atmosphere even faster than in the 1990s, researchers warned Saturday.

Carbon dioxide and other gases added to the air by industrial and other activities have been blamed for rising temperatures, increasing worries about possible major changes in weather and climate.

Carbon emissions have been growing at 3.5 percent per year since 2000, up sharply from the 0.9 percent per year in the 1990s, Christopher Field of the Carnegie Institution for Science told the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

"It is now outside the entire envelope of possibilities" considered in the 2007 report of the International Panel on Climate Change, he said. The IPCC and former vice president Al Gore received the Nobel Prize for drawing attention to the dangers of climate change.

The largest factor in this increase is the widespread adoption of coal as an energy source, Field said, "and without aggressive attention societies will continue to focus on the energy sources that are cheapest, and that means coal."

Past projections for declines in the emissions of greenhouse gases were too optimistic, he added. No part of the world had a decline in emissions from 2000 to 2008.

Anny Cazenave of France's National Center for Space Studies told the meeting that improved satellite measurements show that sea levels are rising faster than had been expected.

Rising oceans can pose a threat to low level areas such as South Florida, New York and other coastal areas as the ocean warms and expands and as water is added from melting ice sheets.

Story continues below
advertisement

And the rise is uneven, with the fastest rising areas at about 1 centimeter _ 0.39 inch _ per year in parts of the North Atlantic, western Pacific and the Southern Ocean surrounding Antarctica, she said.

Also, highly promoted efforts to curb carbon emissions through the use of biofuels may even backfire, other researchers said.

Demand for biologically based fuels has led to the growing of more corn in the United States, but that means fields were switched from soybeans to corn, explained Michael Coe of the Woods Hole Research Center.

But there was no decline in the demand for soy, he said, meaning other countries, such as Brazil, increased their soy crops to make up for the deficit.

In turn, Brazil created more soy fields by destroying tropical forests, which tend to soak up carbon dioxide. Instead the forests were burned, releasing the gasses into the air.

The increased emissions from Brazil swamp any declines recorded by the United States, he said.

Holly Gibbs of Stanford University said that if crops like sugar and oil palm are planted after tropical forests are burned, the extra carbon released may be balanced by lower emissions from biofuel in 40 to 120 years, but for crops such as corn and cassava it can take hundreds of years to break equal.

"If we run our cars on biofuels produced in the tropics, chances will be good that we are effectively burning rainforests in our gas tanks," she said.

However, there could be benefits from planting crops for biofuels on degraded land, such as fields that are not offering low productivity due to salinity, soil erosion or nutrient leaching.

"In a sense that would be restoring land to a higher potential," she said. But there would be costs in fertilizer and improved farming practices.

In some cases simply allowing the degraded land to return to forest might be the best answer, she said.

___

On the Net:

AAAS: http://www.aaas.org

CHICAGO — Despite widespread concern over global warming, humans are adding carbon to the atmosphere even faster than in the 1990s, researchers warned Saturday. Carbon dioxide and other gases a...
CHICAGO — Despite widespread concern over global warming, humans are adding carbon to the atmosphere even faster than in the 1990s, researchers warned Saturday. Carbon dioxide and other gases a...
Filed by Nick Graham
 
Comments
1110
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next › Last » (14 pages total)
- SFTor I'm a Fan of SFTor 11 fans permalink

These figures are for the U.S. by the way, not for the world.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:36 PM on 02/16/2009
- SFTor I'm a Fan of SFTor 11 fans permalink

As several posters are making statements about the relative warmth of the 1990s etc. I have taken the trouble of finding the relevant data on the GISS web site.

the 10 warmest (year/temp anomaly)

1934 1.25
1998 1.23
1921 1.15
2006 1.13
1931 1.08
1999 0.93
1953 0.90
1990 0.87
1938 0.86
1939 0.85

Please take note. Also notice the lack of any clustering towards the end of the 20th century.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:34 PM on 02/16/2009
- Pharos I'm a Fan of Pharos 9 fans permalink

What data set are you talking about? It does not match what I have for global temperatures.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:27 AM on 02/17/2009

Follow the link and look at the chart. Sure looks like a steady increase to me....

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:26 PM on 02/17/2009

If you compare this graph to CO2 levels over the same time period, you'll have a tough time finding a linear relationship between CO2 and Temp. If it's not linear, what is it? Why were temps flat in the 1940 to 1970 period? Wasn't CO2 increasing in that time frame? I've never seen this discrepancy addressed.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:58 PM on 02/17/2009
- rshrink I'm a Fan of rshrink 58 fans permalink

The identification of humans as the main driver of global warming helps us understand how and why our climate is changing, and it clearly defines the problem as one that is within our power to address. Because of past emissions, we cannot avoid some level of warming from the heat-trapping emissions already present in the atmosphere, some of which (such as carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide) last for 100 years or more. However, with aggressive emission reductions as well as flexibility in adapting to those changes we cannot avoid, we have a small window in which to avoid truly dangerous warming and provide future generations with a sustainable world. This will require immediate and sustained action to reduce our heat-trapping emissions through increased energy efficiency, expanding our use of renewable energy, and slowing deforestation (among other solutions).

Melanie Fitzpatrick (Earth and Space Sciences and Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Washington and UCS consultant) prepared this summary with input from Brenda Ekwurzel (Union of Concerned Scientists) and reviews by Philip Mote (Climate Impacts Group at the University of Washington and Washington's state climatologist), Richard Gammon (Chemistry, Oceanography, and Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Washington) and Peter Frumhoff (Union of Concerned Scientists). (c)2006 Union of Concerned Scientists

References
1. U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Goddard Institute for Space Studies. 2006. Global temperature trends: 2005 summation. New York, NY. Online at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:03 PM on 02/16/2009
- rshrink I'm a Fan of rshrink 58 fans permalink

Fingerprint 2: "In their search for clues, scientists compared two natural drivers of climate (solar changes and volcanic aerosols) and three human drivers of climate (heat-trapping emissions, aerosol pollution, and ozone depletion), altering these one at a time in their sophisticated models. Changes in the sun during the twentieth century have warmed both the troposphere and stratosphere. But human activities have increased heat-trapping emissions and decreased stratospheric ozone. This has led to the troposphere warming more because the increase in heat-trapping emissions is trapping more of Earth's outgoing heat. The stratosphere has cooled more because there is less ozone to absorb incoming sunlight to heat up the stratosphere. Both these effects combine to shift the boundary upward. Over the period 1979-1999, a study shows that human-induced changes in heat-trapping emissions and ozone account for more than 80 percent of the rise in tropopause height. [10] This is yet another example of how science detectives are quantifying the impact of human activities on climate." (From the Union of Concerned Scientists)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:54 PM on 02/16/2009
- rshrink I'm a Fan of rshrink 58 fans permalink

Much as the Air Force develops computer programs to simulate aircraft flight under different conditions, climate scientists develop computer programs to simulate global climate changes under different conditions. These programs use our knowledge of physical, chemical, and biological processes that occur within Earth's atmosphere and oceans and on its land surfaces. Mathematical models allow scientists to simulate the behavior of complex systems such as climate and explore how these systems respond to natural and human factors.

Fingerprint 1: The Ocean Layers Warm

The world's oceans have absorbed about 20 times as much heat as the atmosphere over the past half-century, leading to higher temperatures not only in surface waters but also in water 1,500 feet below the surface. [8,9] The measured increases in water temperature lie well outside the bounds of natural climate variation. (From the Union of Concerned Scientists)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:47 PM on 02/16/2009
- SFTor I'm a Fan of SFTor 11 fans permalink

rshine:

your description of computer climate models grossly overstate their ability to handle the factors at work in the world's climate, and further gives the impression that they have successfully modeled climate in the future.

The fact is that the models fail even backtesting, i.e. predicting the climate in say, 1988 based on preceding climate data.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:23 PM on 02/16/2009
- rshrink I'm a Fan of rshrink 58 fans permalink

Now look who is calling names. Again, you cite my model. It is not my model. The posts are labeled. If you have arguments with them, then go to the people who provided this information and see what you can learn. If you prove them wrong, then come back with the hard evidence that you came up with that proved them wrong. It is as simple as that.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:09 PM on 02/16/2009
- Pharos I'm a Fan of Pharos 9 fans permalink

Would you please define climate. I ask because I don't think you are using the same definition as the one used by climate scientists.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:30 AM on 02/17/2009
- rshrink I'm a Fan of rshrink 58 fans permalink

"Earth's surface has undergone unprecedented warming over the last century, particularly over the last two decades. Astonishingly, every single year since 1992 is in the current list of the 20 warmest years on record.[1,2] The natural patterns of climate have been altered. Like detectives, science sleuths seek the answer to "Whodunnit?" — are humans part of the cause? To answer this question, patterns observed by meteorologists and oceanographers are compared with patterns developed using sophisticated models of Earth's atmosphere and ocean. By matching the observed and modeled patterns, scientists can now positively identify the "human fingerprints" associated with the changes. The fingerprints that humans have left on Earth's climate are turning up in a diverse range of records and can be seen in the ocean, in the atmosphere, and at the surface." (From the Union of Concerned Scientists.)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:42 PM on 02/16/2009
- SFTor I'm a Fan of SFTor 11 fans permalink

Anyone heard of the Year Without A Summer? That was 1816.

The reconstructed temperature for that year shows that it was about 0.8 °C colder than where we are today, roughly. Snowstorms in the Northeast in May and June wiped out crops and lead to famine and much misery. That 0.8 degrees is pretty much the entire "warming" we are debating in this forum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

The Little Ice Age was a about two tenths of a degree colder still on average.

Perhaps things aren't so bad after all.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:13 PM on 02/16/2009
photo

I have seen radical climatic changes in my short lifetime of 57 years. Your figures just indicate how little temperature variance it takes to make a very noticeable difference. The cool periods you mention were largely, if not entirely due to volcanic eruptions causing the blocking of solar rays. It has been noted that were it not for contrails from commercial airlines, we would more readily notice the overall rise in global temperatures. Although skeptics state a recent drop in temperatures, that does not hold up against the evidence of a steady rise in global ocean temperatures; and I am sure you are aware that oceans cover the vast majority of the world's total surface.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:27 PM on 02/16/2009
- SFTor I'm a Fan of SFTor 11 fans permalink

You are right about the Year Without a Summer being at least partially caused by the eruption of Mount Pinatubo. Not so for the Little Ice Age.

Oceans do indeed cover most of the Earth, and they contain vast quantities of dissolved CO2. De-gassing is a consequence of rising temperatures, hence he 800-year lag between temperature and CO2.

I must admit that contrails have not been mentioned in many places I have looked. I intuitively doubt that they play much of a role in climate compared to low clouds for instance.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:51 PM on 02/16/2009
- Pharos I'm a Fan of Pharos 9 fans permalink

What does any of that have to do with AGW which is the topic here?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:33 AM on 02/17/2009
- rshrink I'm a Fan of rshrink 58 fans permalink

More than 800 million to clean up Roane County, just one spill of coal ash and likely much of the damage consequences will continue for many, many years to come. That beautiful land is a wasteland now. How is that for "cheap coal."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:34 PM on 02/16/2009
- rshrink I'm a Fan of rshrink 58 fans permalink

From the Union of Concerned Scientists: "Global Warming Skeptic Organizations
Global Climate Coalition

Founded in 1989 by 46 corporations and trade associations representing all major elements of US industry, the GCC presents itself as a "voice for business in the global warming debate." The group funded several flawed studies on the economics of the cost of mitigating climate change, which formed the basis of their 1997/1998 multi-million dollar advertising campaign against the Kyoto Protocol. The GCC began to unravel in 1997 when British Petroleum withdrew its membership. Since then many other corporations have followed BP s lead and left the coalition. This exodus reached a fevered pitch in the early months of 2000 when DaimlerChrysler, Texaco and General Motors all announced their exodus from the GCC. Since these desertions, the GCC restructured and remains a powerful and well-funded force focused on obstructing meaningful efforts to mitigate climate change."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:27 PM on 02/16/2009
- UbiVeritas I'm a Fan of UbiVeritas 3 fans permalink

Great, so now we have flawed studies by the GCC and the IPCC. When will someone produce some valid science on climate change?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:35 PM on 02/16/2009
- rshrink I'm a Fan of rshrink 58 fans permalink

Prove that it is flawed and don't bring your sorry debate skills here. Go to the source and prove to them that there science is flawed. There, I have challenged you, so accept the challenge. If you are smarter and know more than most all groups of scientists that have positive reputations, then bring it on. I am waiting to hear back, but not until you have hard evidence.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:40 PM on 02/16/2009

Global Warming: Five Facts and a Corollary

THE FACTS: (1) Growing concern about global warming has reduced public attention to the many different threats against the health of our planet and the lives of its inhabitants.

(2) Even if greenhouse gas emissions could be reduced enough so that the gas concentrations in the atmosphere stop increasing, the heating would continue until a new equilibrium is established. This would take at least several decades. The consequence would be degradation or ruin of many habitats and environments worldwide. Adaptation would be difficult.

(3) But, something different will happen. Only a few of the goals for combating global warming contemplate such emission limits. All the others call for future reduction by some percentage. Therefore, the concentrations will continue to rise. There will be no equilibrium. Heating will increase without limit. There will be devastation to all habitats. Adaptation will be impossible.

(4) An example? Venus is enveloped by a 96% carbon dioxide atmosphere, which has caused a runaway greenhouse effect. Venus’ surface temperature is about 900° F, hotter than Mercury, hot enough to melt lead.

(5) Fossil fuel producers are increasing their outputs to meet demands. Given the power of greed and stupidity to overwhelm ingenuity, reason and foresight, even those proposed goals for reducing emissions will not be realized.

THE COROLLARY: Habitat destruction and species extinctions, due to planetary heating and other causes, will be virtually completed by the end of the century. One of the terminated species will be Homo sapiens.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:20 PM on 02/16/2009
- SFTor I'm a Fan of SFTor 11 fans permalink

This is wrong in so many ways that it's difficult to know where to begin.

1) makes no sense whatsoever.
2) there is no climate equilibrium. Heard of ice ages and warm periods? We're headed towards one or the other, constantly and unstoppably.
3) See 2)
4) Are you for real? Venus? Find yourself an orrery and check their proximity to THE SUN.
5) Awwww. You're not being very charitable to your fellow human beings, now are you?
Corollary) to all doomsayers: take a number, have a seat.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:37 PM on 02/16/2009
- SFTor I'm a Fan of SFTor 11 fans permalink

not their, but its. Sorry.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:46 PM on 02/16/2009

Thank you for your fine reply. You are an excellent example the fifth fact.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:28 PM on 02/16/2009
- Nooooorm I'm a Fan of Nooooorm 3 fans permalink

"One of the terminated species will be Homo sapiens"

Notice how fear-mongering is an integral part of the global warming cult.

Like many cults in the past, the "end of the world" scenario is needed to encourage the flock to do their leader's bidding.

When did they start driving SUVs on Venus?

Is that what caused the atmospheric increase is CO2?

Did you know that Venus is in a different orbital pattern and is closer to the sun?

So 900F is hotter than Mercury and will melt lead? So the implication is that the same will happen on earth if we don't follow the cult leaders?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:47 AM on 02/18/2009
- jz56 I'm a Fan of jz56 permalink

The headline on this article is misleading and an example of the shoddy journalism that makes climate change easy to attack. When I read "GLOBAL WARMING INCREASING FASTER THAN PREDICTED" I expected to learn about new data on temperature increases. I was also surprised that this data existed because the Goddard data released last month http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008//) showed 2008 to be cooler than 2007 - and cooler than most climate change models predicted. Of course, the headline was wrong and unsupported by any of the scientists quoted in the article.

Greenhouse gasses increasing faster than predicted by current computer models may or may not mean that global warming will accelerate faster than predicted by current computer models. Of course, it absolutely means that current computer models are wrong .... or at least incapable of making short-range predictions.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:16 PM on 02/16/2009
- SFTor I'm a Fan of SFTor 11 fans permalink

Now we're talking.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:29 PM on 02/16/2009
- fumes I'm a Fan of fumes 88 fans permalink
photo

lol.. i know!

it just means that the models are wrong!

and the models are based on CO2... hmm

couldn't be that the CO2 angle is wrong.. could it?

nah..

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:30 PM on 02/16/2009
- Pharos I'm a Fan of Pharos 9 fans permalink

"current computer models are wrong .... or at least incapable of making short-range predictions."
The computer models you are talking about are designed to model climate so why would you expect them to make "short range predictions"?

I also believe computer models of climate take the concentration of greenhouse gases as input. Data goes in, results come out. CO2 concentration is not a result of computer models.

When talking about climate, one year is irrelevant..

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:46 AM on 02/17/2009
- jz56 I'm a Fan of jz56 permalink

I am glad that we both agree that posts like the one above are irrelevant and should not be published (note title: GLOBAL WARMING INCREASING FASTER THAN PREDICTED).

With regard to computer models, not only do models exist to predict CO2 output, they the MOST important models. These are the ones that will be driving policy decisions - should we support corn and/or sugarcane based ethanol? It depends on which CO2 emission model you believe. Biodiesel from palm oil? - good question. How should cap and trade legislation be structured - hopefully decisions will be based on some really good, scientifically valid, models of how the various options will impact CO2 emissions. Unfortunately, if I believe this post, current models can't even predict current state accurately, much less analyze what-if policy questions.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:00 PM on 02/17/2009

Yes, and let's not forget the anti environmental/pro polluter policies of the bush administration.
Bushies "turning back the clock" of environmental policy was a "sleeper" or non issue for most Americans during his administration and particularly during the election.

His harm to this planet cannot be overstated.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:03 PM on 02/16/2009
- ibsteve2u I'm a Fan of ibsteve2u 146 fans permalink
photo

Meanwhile, the Republicans yearn to say "If America didn't have so many environmental laws that add to the cost of production here, we could bring jobs back from...".

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:56 PM on 02/16/2009

When I don't like something I don't use it. So boycot the electric thats being produced by coal.
That probably isnt going to happen because we would'nt be able to use our toys and write these comments.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:41 PM on 02/16/2009
- SFTor I'm a Fan of SFTor 11 fans permalink

Science is at the core of liberal advocacy on many issues, education being the obvious one, followed by the environment, social policy etc. It is therefore imperative to defend sound science.

We must come to terms with AGW science not being settled. An example: the Mann hockey stick, now discredited to the extent that it did not appear in the 2007 IPCC report.

We do ourselves a grave disservice by holding out AGW as a holy cow that can not be touched by discussion or scrutiny. Our imagined peril is not borne out by the facts. There is nothing extraordinary about global temperatures, hurricane cycles, etc. CO2 concentration is at one of its lowest points in Earth's history. We have experienced some warming in the 20th century, with the 30s being the warmest decade—after coming out of the Little Ice Age. We have climate models that are unable to perform even when backtested against known data. Sorry, but these are the facts.

I am not suggesting that we should not be concerned. But let's stick to the scientific method. Let's stop talking about "settled science" and demonizing skeptics—they are not all in the keep of oil companies. Let's acknowledge that the hypothesis has failed on its own premises, as can be seen by temperature trends not aligning with CO2 emissions. The hypothesis is not dead, but it needs to be re-examined, and alternate hypotheses must be considered.

We must maintain intellectual honesty. Defend science, not AGW.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:34 PM on 02/16/2009
- rshrink I'm a Fan of rshrink 58 fans permalink

The problem with your idea is that whether you accept gw or not, there is no question that we are polluting and making people ill and destroying species. There is no reason to not clean up our environment. To not take steps to clean up is simply self-destructive, no matter. So defending science honestly would mean to switch to clean sustainable energy and taking other measures to conserve and preserve nature to the best of our ability.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:57 PM on 02/16/2009
- SFTor I'm a Fan of SFTor 11 fans permalink

Air pollution is a major issue. Fisheries management and pollution of the oceans are major issues. Water use and management are major issues. I am 100% behind you on this.

I support Forests Forever and the Sierra Club with money. And I work in the solar industry, by the way. I practice what I preach.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:10 PM on 02/16/2009
- UbiVeritas I'm a Fan of UbiVeritas 3 fans permalink

Finally, a reasonable post! Congratulations SFTor, although I think you will be flamed by the high priests of the AGW faith.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:33 PM on 02/16/2009
- Raco I'm a Fan of Raco 2 fans permalink
photo

Thank you. Great post

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:09 PM on 02/16/2009
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next › Last » (14 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect