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 11 12 Next › Last » (14 pages total)
- Pharos I'm a Fan of Pharos 9 fans permalink

The other comment that is being held up is:
You didn't answer my question.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:56 AM on 02/16/2009
- NL207 I'm a Fan of NL207 9 fans permalink

Welcome to liberal open mindedness.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:01 AM on 02/16/2009
- realpolitic I'm a Fan of realpolitic 157 fans permalink

Are you conservatives palling around again?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:18 AM on 02/16/2009
- Cowboylove I'm a Fan of Cowboylove 45 fans permalink

One has to hope Obama will make an Renewable Energy Independence speech soon akin to the man on the moon speech. We can do this, Yes we can!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:54 AM on 02/16/2009

Renewable energy is a Dem pipe dream, but now they can spend a trillion bucks on it and pass it off as stimulus. Renewable energy is woefully inneficient. I keep hearing they want flex fuels cars what they don't tell us is it takes more money to produce 1 gallon of corn based ethanol than you get out of it. Solar energy is to inneficient to be a viable source of energy at this point, but what do we have in this very country that is readily available and cheap. Coal and oil. Tap our own recourses and build new refineries. I'm not saying we shouldn't develope renewables, but the Dems act as if this stuff is ready to go and it is not.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:01 AM on 02/16/2009
- ac86 I'm a Fan of ac86 permalink

Do you even care about the future of mankind? First of all, we do know corn ethanol is a bad idea. solar energy has a long way to go. but the main thing from your statement is the fact that I don't think you realize that we live in a finite world. coal and oil are not going to be here forever. what happens when its no longer econonically viable. we've most likely already hit peak oil which means that every barrel of oil is going to be harder and harder to extract. at some point its going to cost more energy than we would get out of it. our whole economy and civilization is based on our energy consumption. if we don't begin to build up an infrastructure for the future, when these fossil fuels really run out, humans are screwed. so regardless if global warming is true, a mindset like that is going to really hamper any efforts to prolong our species.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:36 AM on 02/16/2009
- ac86 I'm a Fan of ac86 permalink

plus i can't believe you want obama to fail. bush haters never wanted bush to fail. he sucked but we didn't want him to pick every bad decision so he could screw our country and the world over.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:43 AM on 02/16/2009
- rshrink I'm a Fan of rshrink 58 fans permalink

Cheap coal eh? I have some land for sale for you in Roane County Tennessee, then. Call me soon before it gets snapped up. Have you heard of algae, something like 500 times more efficient. Get to work on it naysayer.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:21 PM on 02/16/2009
- Pharos I'm a Fan of Pharos 9 fans permalink

Surface tension?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:52 AM on 02/16/2009
- Pharos I'm a Fan of Pharos 9 fans permalink

OK let's try Vestal, Priest, grease, cured bucket,

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:51 AM on 02/16/2009
- Pharos I'm a Fan of Pharos 9 fans permalink

OK so that's not the word. Crusade?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:44 AM on 02/16/2009
- Pharos I'm a Fan of Pharos 9 fans permalink

OK why is my comment not posting? Is it the word virgin?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:43 AM on 02/16/2009
- UbiVeritas I'm a Fan of UbiVeritas 3 fans permalink

Pharos, you need to go to bed, man.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:31 AM on 02/16/2009
- MGhamma I'm a Fan of MGhamma 15 fans permalink

How many MMGW deniers does it take to change a light bulb?.... Well, it really only takes one, but since they arbitrarily decided to believe that they weren't sitting in the dark, the natural conclusion was that the light bulb didn't need to be changed...­..........­..So they're still sitting there.....­..........­...In the dark......­..........­.....It's really becoming quite messy.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:10 AM on 02/16/2009

What kind of light bulb are they changing?
Those fancy new ones that will save the planet despite being full of mercury?

Better read the clean up instructions in case you break one.

It's QUITE expensive.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:34 AM on 02/16/2009
- dandypuddin I'm a Fan of dandypuddin 183 fans permalink
photo

Pharos, kudos to you for continuing in the face of such overwhelming igno rance. We shall see if the economy trumps the planet. What these deniers don't realize is that a green revolution would make their economy very, very happy.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:16 AM on 02/16/2009
- Pharos I'm a Fan of Pharos 9 fans permalink

What's even more amazing is that I really don't see any downside to a green economy. Done correctly, would be better for everyone even if the planet were cooling.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:20 AM on 02/16/2009
photo

I'm overwhelmed with the number of posts by people searching for truth in this "ocean of chaos". It reaffirms my notion that Americans are innovative and looking for common sense solutions that we can implement in our own backyards to make a difference in our lives and society as a whole. We don't need the heavy hand of gov't forcing unreasonable demands on us in the name of a "crisis".
The "sheeple" must have turned in early tonight.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:27 AM on 02/16/2009
- Pharos I'm a Fan of Pharos 9 fans permalink

Still here. Does that make me Sheeple-in-Chief? I guess I need a song and since Hail to the Chief is taken, do you have any suggestions?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:45 AM on 02/16/2009
photo

"My Bucket's Got a Hole In It"

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:26 AM on 02/16/2009
- MGhamma I'm a Fan of MGhamma 15 fans permalink

ConservitiveHippie, your right, we don't need the 'heavy hand of gubmit forcing unreasonable demands on us in the name of crisis'. But ironically, the efforts of people like you to try to convince everyone that there wasn't a problem may have brought about that very outcome. Good job.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:50 AM on 02/16/2009
- fumes I'm a Fan of fumes 87 fans permalink
photo

CO2 is a fire retardant used in fire extinguishers and at only .038% of the atmosphere is capable of warming the whole earth!! AND IT IS CHEAP TO PRODUCE!! shouldn't we be using it at full strength to insulate our walls and double pane windows and AS A BONUS provide a measure of fire safety as well? it's a magic gas!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:42 PM on 02/15/2009
- Pharos I'm a Fan of Pharos 9 fans permalink

Where did you ever get the idea that CO2 warms the earth? I'd like to see the reference for that.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:48 AM on 02/16/2009
- fumes I'm a Fan of fumes 87 fans permalink
photo

lol..

you're new here!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:10 AM on 02/16/2009
- mamacat I'm a Fan of mamacat 148 fans permalink

Scientists have more than doubled the human lifespan, have enabled us to put men on the moon, have harnessed the atom and there are any number of other achievements in our daily lives that we owe to science. Today, scientists are warning us that global warming, coal burning, and deforestation are soon to be threats to our very existence. Why would we believe them when they say that they can figure out how to put men on the moon, but not believe them when they warn us of threats to our very survival? While we may not all be scientists, we should be able to think logically enough to give respect to the scientific method and to those who specialise in its use. When 99+% of scientists are in agreement about something, maybe the rest of us should pay attention.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:54 PM on 02/15/2009

Not all scientists subscribe to the climate change theories. Many of those who do believe in climate change have done so for convenience and expediency. Multi-thou­sand-dolla­r grants and financial endowments are more widely available to those scientists whose objective is to corroborate climate change.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:01 PM on 02/15/2009
- wdw505 I'm a Fan of wdw505 72 fans permalink

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:11 PM on 02/15/2009
- Pharos I'm a Fan of Pharos 9 fans permalink

"Not all scientists subscribe to the climate change theories."

Would you care to tell us how many support it and how many do not?

"Many of those who do believe in climate change have done so for convenience and expediency­."

Do you have any evidence for that statement?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:15 PM on 02/15/2009
- mamacat I'm a Fan of mamacat 148 fans permalink

At this point, global warming is an observation, not a theory. We need to refine the theories that explain it, not come up with theories that deny the observations.

Researchers who seek to prove that the observations are inaccureate, like researchers who seek to disprove the theory of evolution, or who seek to prove that the world is flat, are fighting an uphill battle for funding, but that is the way of science. Unless someone can come up with a very compelling reason to spend money on proving that world-wide observations spanning decades are wrong, why waste the money?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:18 PM on 02/15/2009
- RTIII I'm a Fan of RTIII 90 fans permalink

As a researcher working in the field for the better part of two decades; the premise you propose is wrong.

I have _never_met_ a researcher in Earth Science who doesn't work for a firm that has business interests in attempting to discredit Global Climate Change who thinks the consensus is wrong.

If there are any, they are _exceedingly_ rare - a VERY tiny fraction of working scientists.

I _have_ met a good handful who have individual problems with some aspect of the work and they ARE funded fairly regularly. This is an important part of science and the community pushes quality questions about the work forward regarding funding priorities. We want to know when there's either something wrong with source data, methodology, etc.
.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:58 PM on 02/15/2009

99+% of scientists don't agree with AGW. The number is far far lower than that.

And Eugenics was a widely accepted theory but you don't see anyone pushing it now.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:38 AM on 02/16/2009
- isis I'm a Fan of isis 17 fans permalink
photo

You are wrong on both counts. Most scientists do accept global warming. Show me one traditional scientific organization that doesn't. I say traditional because no doubt there are fake organizations that have been created recently to deny it. Eugenics was a fad embraced by some but many scientists opposed it, seeing it as being conservative and cruel and along the same lines as letting the poor starve and supporting slavery. Just read some H.G. Wells if you want to see the controversy as it was presented in popular novels.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:55 AM on 02/16/2009

Poison: Too much heat
Remedy: Pretend you just landed, and you do not know what snow is.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:51 PM on 02/15/2009

I'm sick of this demonization of carbon dioxide, a gas which we exhale and which plants and trees breath. It is not a noxious or poisonous gas. It is not a catalyst or cause of this so-called climate change crisis.

Why are we begging monster-sized governments to regulate and tax our carbon emissions? We do we want to live in a nanny state where every facet of your consumption is subject to scrutiny? What do we want monitors attached to our thermostats, our odometers, our electrical meters and our flyer miles? Why do we want to tighten the noose on our already-diminished industrial base so American factories are forced to move overseas where there are no carbon emissions restrictions? Why do we think we can save the planet by forcing developing countries to develop their infrastructures around experimental solar and wind energy sources? Why are we trying to save the planet by demonizing the same industrialization which provides us with the goods and services we enjoy?

Climate change is a fraud. The power elite are hijacking and manipulating the environmental movement as a pretext to impose global carbon taxes and further suppress the human race.

There are real enemies and villains at work here. Carbon is not one of them.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:30 PM on 02/15/2009
photo

I almost fell for it.

Sarcasm, right? or........­??????

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:47 PM on 02/15/2009
- ac86 I'm a Fan of ac86 permalink

"Climate change is a fraud. The power elite are hijacking and manipulating the environmental movement as a pretext to impose global carbon taxes and further suppress the human race."

Haha you are so paranoid..­.and misinformed.

the "power elite" are just concerned for the well-being of our planet and its inhabitants.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:59 PM on 02/15/2009

"the "power elite" are just concerned for the well-being of our planet and its inhabitant­s."

Do you believe the private, central bankers really love you and care about you? If so, you are very deceived and I recommend you visit the nonpartisan news site INFOWARS.com and learn the truth about the forthcoming global government and their nefarious, anti-human agenda.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:05 PM on 02/15/2009
photo

HaHa you need to pull your head out of your @ss far enough that you can breathe because your brain is starving for oxygen. The "power elite" are only concerned for themselves and their control of power. The rest of us are "useful idiots". The planet is just for them to rape and pillage to gain more wealth and power. They don't want us to have a chance to to get a larger piece of the pie.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:14 PM on 02/15/2009
- Pharos I'm a Fan of Pharos 9 fans permalink

One single citation please that claims carbon dioxide is poisonous or noxious.

Oxygen is needed for human life, Would you breath 100% pure oxygen. Vitamins are required and yet some can be dangerous in high concentrations. I don't get your point.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:10 PM on 02/15/2009
- fumes I'm a Fan of fumes 87 fans permalink
photo

agreed! we should be celebrating co2.. as an insulator!!

if .038% can warm the earth..

just imagine what 100% could do for our green houses!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:19 PM on 02/15/2009

Climate change is a fraud?

Hmmm..

Methinks you need to go back to school.

What's the matter? Did you flunk science?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:01 AM on 02/16/2009

I am hearing about all this scientific consensus stuff. In the 1900's the scientific
consensus was that heavier-than-air aircraft was impossible. António Egas Moniz
was awarded the Nobel Medicine prize in 1949 for his work on lobotomies.
Lobotomies anyone?

What I am hearing is a lot of panic related to what are water-related events.
The focus should not be so much on carbon dioxide but on human water use. There is some
correlation between carbon dioxide and water but this correlation is tenuous. The
temperature of mount Kilimanjaro has decreased for the past 5 years and yet the snowcap
has diminished. Clue: urbanisation at the foothills of Kilimanjaro. AGW activists
make a big deal about disappearing glaciers in the Rocky Mountains but the glaciers of
the Himalayas are growing faster than ever. Clue: formation of cloud, rain, snow is
increased by cosmic rays, dust, and soot. For the past 50 years, the US has greatly
decreased the number of forests fires whereas India has increased its use of coal and
oil powerplants. What has been the cosmic ray intensity in the past 50 years?

There has been some fuss about rising sealevels. I have yet to see an accurate model
of underwater techtonics and volcanic activity. About 10% of the ocean's water seep
deep into the Earth's mantle and a fraction of this water comes out through above-sea
volcanic activity. What has been the time-behavior of oceanwater­-Earth_Man­tle dynamics
for past 50 years?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:50 PM on 02/15/2009
photo

Where did you receive your training in the Scientific Method again?

Science is a self-correcting enterprise, citizen.

Leland R. Erickson

Citizen

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:03 PM on 02/15/2009
- wdw505 I'm a Fan of wdw505 72 fans permalink

yep ........no­thing has changed on all those.....­..you forgot wdw103....­.....i don't even attempt to hide

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:42 PM on 02/15/2009

A very interesting analysis. Thank you for your thought-provoking conclusions.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:19 PM on 02/15/2009
- Pharos I'm a Fan of Pharos 9 fans permalink

Do you have a reference for this statement? "In the 1900's the scientific
consensus was that heavier-than-air aircraft was impossible­."Lord Kelvin was of that opinion but at the same time others were experimenting with flight so just who do you include in your consensus.

I don't understand the rest of your comment enough to be able to respond.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:01 PM on 02/15/2009
photo

Guess the lobotomy worked?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:16 PM on 02/15/2009
- RTIII I'm a Fan of RTIII 90 fans permalink

All you've accomplished by your post is prove that you don't understand what GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE is about.

Global Climate Change is _driven_ by Global Warming, but Global Warming does NOT mean that the whole planet warms. Some parts warm more than others and while the total heat budget (the scientific term for the balance of incoming vs outgoing heat) in increasing, some places are not experiencing the heating. Either way, the patterns of heating having changed changes the convection currents of air and water and that drives climate change over most all the globe. Some places will thus become hotter, others cooler, some dryer, others wetter, as the air currents and ocean currents shift.

This really isn't that hard if you _want_ to become educated..­. You do, however, have to give up political dogma.
.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:07 AM on 02/16/2009
- sloreader I'm a Fan of sloreader 17 fans permalink

Je$u$ H

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:18 PM on 02/15/2009
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next › Last » (14 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

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

Connect