Among scientists speaking off the record, disgusted candor is the rule. One senior scientist told me, you know those new cigarette packs, where governments make them put a picture of someone with a hole in their throats? Gas pumps should have something like that. The Third Number: 2,795 Gigatons, this number is the scariest of all one that, for the first time, meshes the political and scientific dimensions of our dilemma. It was highlighted last summer by the carbon Tracker Initiative, a team of London financial analysts and environmentalists who published a report in an effort to help educate investors about the possible risks that climate change poses to their stock portfolios. The number describes the amount of carbon already contained in the proven coal and oil and gas reserves of the fossil-fuel companies, and the countries (think venezuela or Kuwait) that act like fossil-fuel companies. In short, its the fossil fuel were currently planning to burn. And the key point is that this new number 2,795 is higher than 565. The carbon Tracker Initiative led by james leaton, an environmentalist who served as an adviser at the accounting giant Pricewaterhousecoopers combed through proprietary databases to figure out how much oil, gas and coal the worlds major energy companies hold in reserve.
Even scientists, who are notoriously reluctant to speak out, are slowly overcoming their natural preference to simply provide data. The message has been consistent for close to 30 years now, collins says with a wry laugh, and we have the instrumentation and the computer power required to present the evidence in detail. If we choose to continue on our present course of action, it should be done with a full evaluation of the evidence the scientific community has presented. He pauses, suddenly conscious of being on the record. I should say, a fuller evaluation of the evidence. So far, though, such calls have had little effect. Were in the same position weve been in for a quarter-century: scientific warning followed by political inaction.
But what this shows is that so far the effects have been marginal. In fact, study after study predicts that carbon emissions will keep growing by roughly three percent a year and at that rate, well blow through our 565-gigaton allowance in 16 years, around the time todays preschoolers will be graduating from high school. The new data provide further evidence that the door to a two-degree trajectory is about to close, said Fatih Birol, the ieas chief economist. In fact, he continued, When I look at this data, the trend is perfectly in line with a temperature increase of about six degrees. Thats almost 11 degrees Fahrenheit, which would create a planet straight out of science fiction. So, new data in hand, everyone at the rio conference renewed their ritual calls for serious international action to move us back to a two-degree trajectory. The charade will continue in november, when the next Conference of the parties (COP) of the. Framework convention on Climate Change convenes in Qatar. This will be cop 18 cop 1 was held in Berlin in 1995, and since then the process has accomplished essentially nothing.
To, lida world War ii told through the eyes, heart and
Theres maybe 40 models in the online data set now, compared with 20 before. But so far obesity the numbers are pretty much the same. Were just fine-tuning things. I dont think much has changed over the last decade. William Collins, a senior climate scientist at the lawrence berkeley national Laboratory, agrees. I think the results of this round of simulations will be quite similar, he says. Were not getting any free lunch from additional understanding of the climate system.
Were not getting any free lunch from the worlds economies, either. With only a single years lull in 2009 at the height of the financial crisis, weve continued to pour record amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, year after year. In late may, the International Energy Agency published its latest figures co2 emissions last year rose.6 gigatons,.2 percent from the year before. America had a warm winter and converted more coal-fired power plants to natural gas, so its emissions fell slightly; China kept booming, so its carbon output (which recently surpassed the. S.) rose.3 percent; the japanese shut down their fleet of nukes post-fukushima, so their emissions edged.4 percent. There have been efforts to use more renewable energy and improve energy efficiency, said Corinne le quéré, who runs Englands Tyndall Centre for Climate Change research.
The official position of planet Earth at the moment is that we cant raise the temperature more than two degrees Celsius its become the bottomest of bottom lines. The second Number: 565 Gigatons, scientists estimate that humans can pour roughly 565 more gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by midcentury and still have some reasonable hope of staying below two degrees. (Reasonable, in this case, means four chances in five, or somewhat worse odds than playing Russian roulette with a six-shooter.). This idea of a global carbon budget emerged about a decade ago, as scientists began to calculate how much oil, coal and gas could still safely be burned. Since weve increased the earths temperature.8 degrees so far, were currently less than halfway to the target.
But, in fact, computer models calculate that even if we stopped increasing CO2 now, the temperature would likely still rise another.8 degrees, as previously released carbon continues to overheat the atmosphere. That means were already three-quarters of the way to the two-degree target. How good are these numbers? No one is insisting that theyre exact, but few dispute that theyre generally right. The 565-gigaton figure was derived from one of the most sophisticated computer-simulation models that have been built by climate scientists around the world over the past few decades. And the number is being further confirmed by the latest climate-simulation models currently being finalized in advance of the next report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Looking at them as they come in, they hardly differ at all, says Tom Wigley, an Australian climatologist at the national Center for Atmospheric Research.
Virginia woolf - wikipedia
Nasa scientist James Hansen, the planets most prominent climatologist, is even blunter: The target that has been talked about in international negotiations for two degrees of warming is actually a prescription for long-term disaster. At the copenhagen summit, a spokesman for small island nations warned that many would not survive a two-degree rise: Some countries will flat-out disappear. When delegates from developing nations were warned that two degrees would represent a suicide pact for drought-stricken Africa, many of them started chanting, One degree, one Africa. Despite such well-founded misgivings, political realism bested scientific data, and the world settled on the two-degree target indeed, its fair to say that its the only thing about climate change the world has settled. All told, 167 countries responsible for more than 87 percent of the worlds carbon emissions have signed on to the copenhagen Accord, endorsing the two-degree target. Only a few dozen countries have rejected it, including Kuwait, nicaragua and Venezuela. Even the United Arab Emirates, which dissertation makes most of its money exporting oil and gas, signed.
And in the very next paragraph, it declared that we agree that deep cuts in global emissions are required so as to hold the increase in global temperature below two degrees Celsius. By insisting on two degrees about.6 degrees Fahrenheit the accord ratified positions taken earlier in 2009 by the G8, and the so-called Major Economies Forum. It was as conventional as conventional wisdom gets. The number first gained prominence, in fact, at a 1995 climate conference chaired by Angela merkel, then the german minister of the environment and now the center-right chancellor of the nation. Some context: so far, weve raised the average temperature of the planet just under.8 degrees Celsius, and that has caused far more damage than most scientists expected. (A third of summer sea ice in the Arctic is gone, the oceans are 30 percent more acidic, and since warm air holds more water vapor book than cold, the atmosphere over the oceans is a shocking five percent wetter, loading the dice for devastating floods.). Any number much above one degree involves a gamble, writes Kerry Emanuel of mit, a leading authority on hurricanes, and the odds become less and less favorable as the temperature goes. Thomas lovejoy, once the world Banks chief biodiversity adviser, puts it like this: If were seeing what were seeing today.8 degrees Celsius, two degrees is simply too much.
we missed. Neither China nor the United States, which between them are responsible for 40 percent of global carbon emissions, was prepared to offer dramatic concessions, and so the conference drifted aimlessly for two weeks until world leaders jetted in for the final day. Amid considerable chaos, President Obama took the lead in drafting a face-saving Copenhagen Accord that fooled very few. Its purely voluntary agreements committed no one to anything, and even if countries signaled their intentions to cut carbon emissions, there was no enforcement mechanism. Copenhagen is a crime scene tonight, an angry Greenpeace official declared, with the guilty men and women fleeing to the airport. Headline writers were equally brutal: copenhagen: the munich of our times? The accord did contain one important number, however. In Paragraph 1, it formally recognized the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be below two degrees Celsius.
When we think about global warming at all, the arguments tend to be ideological, theological and economic. But to grasp the seriousness of our predicament, you just need to do a little math. For the past year, an easy and powerful bit of arithmetical analysis first published by financial analysts in the. Has been making the rounds of environmental conferences and journals, but it hasnt yet broken through to the larger public. This analysis upends most of the conventional political thinking about climate change. And it allows us to understand our precarious our almost-but-not-quite-finally hopeless position with three simple numbers. The first Number: 2 Celsius, if the movie had ended in Hollywood fashion, the copenhagen climate conference in 2009 would have marked the culmination of the global fight to slow a changing climate. The worlds nations had gathered in the december gloom of the danish capital for what a leading climate economist, sir Nicholas Stern of Britain, will called the most important gathering since the second World War, given what is at stake.
Top 10, presentation, remotes of 2018 video review
If the pictures of those towering wildfires in Colorado havent convinced you, or the size of your ac bill this summer, here are some hard numbers about climate change : June broke or tied 3,215 high-temperature records across the United States. That followed the warmest may on record for the northern Hemisphere the 327th consecutive month essay in which the temperature of the entire globe exceeded the 20th-century average, the odds of which occurring by simple chance were.7 x 10-99, a number considerably larger than the. Meteorologists reported that this spring was the warmest ever recorded for our nation in fact, it crushed the old record by so much that it represented the largest temperature departure from average of any season on record. The same week, saudi authorities reported that it had rained in Mecca despite a temperature of 109 degrees, the hottest downpour in the planets history. Not that our leaders seemed to notice. Last month the worlds nations, meeting in rio for the 20th-anniversary reprise of a massive 1992 environmental summit, accomplished nothing. Bush, who flew in for the first conclave, barack Obama didnt even attend. It was a ghost of the glad, confident meeting 20 years ago, the British journalist george monbiot wrote; no one paid it much attention, footsteps echoing through the halls once thronged by multitudes. Since i wrote one of the first books for a general audience about global warming way back in 1989, and since ive spent the intervening decades working ineffectively to slow that warming, i can say with some confidence that were losing the fight, badly and.