Tag Archives: century

Climate change making emperor penguins’ feet a lot less happy

Climate change making emperor penguins’ feet a lot less happy

Shutterstock

As the largest living penguin species, the emperor penguin reaches four feet in height and 100 pounds in weight. In some ways, this iconic bird could be considered one of the most successful bird species in the world. While most birds spend half their lives flying south, emperors got as far south as you can get, put on a nice tuxedo, and then gave up flying all together.

Now the dapper dressers are in trouble — these emperors may have no clothes, but that doesn’t mean they’re looking forward to a warming world, according to a new study in Nature Climate Change:

The researchers’ analysis of the global, continent-wide Emperor penguin population incorporates current and projected future [sea ice concentration] declines, and determined that all of the colonies would be in decline — many by more than 50 percent — by the end of the century, due to future climate change.

“If sea ice declines at the rates projected by the IPCC climate models, and continues to influence Emperor penguins as it did in the second half of the 20th century in Terre Adélie, at least two-thirds of the colonies are projected to have declined by greater than 50 percent from their current size by 2100,” said Jenouvrier. “None of the colonies, even the southern-most locations in the Ross Sea, will provide a viable refuge by the end of 21st century.”

The authors of the study recommend not only adding emperor penguins to the endangered species list, but beginning the search now for possible refuges.

These estimates only go out to the end of the century. Perhaps climate change will be mindful of our Gregorian calendars, but if the world continues to warm past Dec. 31, 2100, the loss of sea ice will be even worse. In addition to the loss of ice, the penguins are up against declining food supplies. Antarctic krill, tiny shrimp-like animals, form the pillar of the Antarctic food chain. Climate change could reduce their range 20 percent over the coming century and in some areas their biomass could take a staggering 68 percent hit, affecting birds, fish, and whales that depend on them. Combined with the loss of sea ice, the loss of the krill would make for a devastating one-two punch to the emperor penguin.

The danger faced by emperor penguins is poignant. No animal stands as a greater symbol of the icy Antarctic than the emperors, and sadly, just as the equally imperiled polar bears, the face of climate change in the Arctic, they share the same fate as their increasingly less frozen home.

Jim Meyer is a Baltimore-based stand-up comedian, actor, retired roller derby announcer, and freelance writer. Follow his exploits at his website and on Twitter.Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Climate & Energy

Continued here:  

Climate change making emperor penguins’ feet a lot less happy

Posted in ALPHA, Anchor, FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Climate change making emperor penguins’ feet a lot less happy

Chris Giles Challenges Thomas Piketty’s Data Analysis

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Chris Giles of the Financial Times has been diving into the source data that underlies Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the 21st Century, and he says he’s found some problems. The details are here. Piketty’s response is here.

Is Giles right? Experts will have to weigh in on this. But Giles’ objections are mostly to the data regarding increases in wealth inequality over the past few decades, and the funny thing is that even Piketty never claims that this has changed dramatically. The end result of Giles’ re-analysis of Piketty’s data is on the right, with Piketty in blue and Giles in red. As you can see, Piketty estimates a very small increase since 1970.

Now, if Giles is right, and there’s been no increase at all, that’s important. But it’s still a surprisingly small correction. The fundamental problem here is that the difficulties of measuring wealth are profound enough that it’s always going to be possible to deploy different statistical treatments to come to slightly different conclusions. There’s just too much noise in the data.

In any case, I’m not taking any sides on this. The data analysis is too arcane for a layman to assess. But it’s worth keeping an eye on.

Taken from – 

Chris Giles Challenges Thomas Piketty’s Data Analysis

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Chris Giles Challenges Thomas Piketty’s Data Analysis

In "X-Men: Days of Future Past" This Real-Life US President Is (Probably) a Mutant

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

This post contains some spoilers.

The X-Men film series, about a class of mutant superheroes and villains, has always been about the persecution of minorities. The first installment, 2000’s X-Men, drew soft parallels between the US government hunting for mutants and past Nazi atrocities. The story for 2011’s X-Men: First Class, was directly influenced by the civil rights movement and the contrast between Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr.

In the latest installment, X-Men: Days of Future Past (directed by Bryan Singer, and starring Hugh Jackman, James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence, Peter Dinklage, and Ellen Page), this theme continues with a storyline surrounding a fictional program from the early 1970s, approved by President Richard Nixon, that involves sending killer robots after America’s closeted mutant population. The film’s political backdrop also features a mutant-ized take on the 1973 Paris Peace Accords, where the US agreed to end direct military involvement in the Vietnam War. On top of that, the new X-Men flick deepens the alternate history explored in the franchise by suggesting that this handsome devil was secretly a mutant:

NASA/Wikimedia Commons

Yep. That’s John F. Kennedy, the 35th president of the United States.

In the film, Erik Lehnsherr, a.k.a. Magneto, (played by Fassbender) is being held in a secret prison beneath the Pentagon for his alleged involvement in the JFK assassination. After his fellow X-Men break him out of prison, he claims that he was wrongly convicted and that he was actually trying to save the president from Lee Harvey Oswald’s bullet. His reason? “He was one of us,” Magneto says.

To be fair, this is a brief moment in the movie, and it is never clarified if “one of us” means JFK was a mutant or something along the lines of a friend of the oppressed mutant community. One plausible interpretation of Magneto’s claim here is that it pays homage to the aborted “Princess Diana is a zombie mutant superhero!” plot from the X-Statix spin-off.

We can only assume that JFK’s secret mutant powers consisted of killing Iraqi liberals and rampant lechery.

Now here’s a fake mini-documentary released in November that summarizes Magneto’s alleged involvement in the JFK assassination:

This article is from: 

In "X-Men: Days of Future Past" This Real-Life US President Is (Probably) a Mutant

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on In "X-Men: Days of Future Past" This Real-Life US President Is (Probably) a Mutant

Thomas Piketty Says That r > g. But Is It, Really?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

I’ve mentioned before that I have a few misgivings about Thomas Piketty’s thesis in Capital in the 21st Century. One of my misgivings is pretty basic: Piketty argues that r (the return on capital) is historically greater than g (the economic growth rate). Since the rich own most of the capital, this means that the rich accumulate wealth faster than everyone else, which in turn means that rising income inequality is inevitable. But as capital accumulates, surely the return on capital should decline? After all, that’s what happens in every other market when there’s a glut of supply.

Piketty briefly addresses this objection, and concludes that although r will indeed decrease as capital accumulates, it won’t decrease much. But is that true? Larry Summers doesn’t think so:

Piketty’s rather fatalistic and certainly dismal view of capitalism can be challenged on two levels. It presumes, first, that the return to capital diminishes slowly, if at all, as wealth is accumulated and, second, that the returns to wealth are all reinvested. Whatever may have been the case historically, neither of these premises is likely correct as a guide to thinking about the American economy today.

Economists universally believe in the law of diminishing returns. As capital accumulates, the incremental return on an additional unit of capital declines. The crucial question goes to what is technically referred to as the elasticity of substitution….Piketty argues that the economic literature supports his assumption that returns diminish slowly (in technical parlance, that the elasticity of substitution is greater than 1), and so capital’s share rises with capital accumulation. But I think he misreads the literature by conflating gross and net returns to capital. It is plausible that as the capital stock grows, the increment of output produced declines slowly, but there can be no question that depreciation increases proportionally. And it is the return net of depreciation that is relevant for capital accumulation. I know of no study suggesting that measuring output in net terms, the elasticity of substitution is greater than 1, and I know of quite a few suggesting the contrary.

There are other objections to Piketty’s thesis, but it seems to me that this is one of the key criticisms—perhaps the key criticism. If r > g isn’t inevitably true, or even if it’s only slightly true (that is, r is only slightly greater than g), then everything falls apart. I suspect that this is going to be one of the main technical battlegrounds in the macro literature as Piketty’s theory gets hashed out over the next few years.

View original article: 

Thomas Piketty Says That r > g. But Is It, Really?

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Thomas Piketty Says That r > g. But Is It, Really?

No, the IPCC climate report doesn’t call for a fracking boom

No, the IPCC climate report doesn’t call for a fracking boom

Shutterstock

You might have heard that the latest installment of the big new U.N. climate report endorses fracking, urging a “dash for gas” as a bridge fuel to put us on a path to a more renewable energy future. These interpretations of the report are exaggerated, lack context, and are just plain wrong. They appear to have been based on interviews and on a censored summary of the report, which was published two days before the full document became available.

The energy chapter from the full report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says “near‐term GHG emissions from energy supply can be reduced” by replacing coal-fired power plants with “highly efficient” natural gas–burning alternatives — a move that “may play a role as a transition fuel in combination with variable renewable sources.” But that’s only true, the report says, if fugitive emissions of climate-changing methane from drilling and distribution of the gas are “low” — which is far from the case today. Scientists reported Tuesday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that methane measurements taken near fracking sites in Pennsylvania suggest such operations leak 100 to 1,000 times more methane than the U.S. EPA has estimated. The IPCC’s energy chapter also notes that fracking for gas has “created concerns about potential risks to local water quality and public health.”

To protect the climate and save ourselves, the new IPCC report says we must quit fossil fuels. That doesn’t mean switching from coal to natural gas. It means switching from coal and gas to solar and wind, plugging electric vehicles into those renewable sources, and then metaphorically blowing up the fossil-fueled power plants that pock the planet.

Stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations at “low levels” requires a “fundamental transformation of the energy supply system,” the IPCC says. Overall, its latest report concludes that we must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40 to 70 percent by midcentury, and stop producing any such pollution by the turn of the century, if we’re to keeping warming to within 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.7 F. And nothing is more important in meeting those goals than revolutionizing the way we produce electricity. Humanity’s thirst for electricity is the biggest single cause of climate change, with the energy sector fueling a little more than a third of global warming.

Wind, solar, hydro, and other renewable forms of energy account for a little more than half of all new generating capacity being built around the world, the report says. But that is not enough. The report notes that renewable energy still requires government support, such as renewable portfolio standards and prices and caps on carbon emissions.

But, as desperately as we need to be curbing fossil-fuel burning, we just keep increasing it instead. Greenhouse gas emissions from the energy sector rose 3.1 percent every year from 2001 to 2010. In the 1990s, they rose just 1.7 percent annually. “The main contributors to this trend were a higher energy demand associated with rapid economic growth and an increase of the share of coal in the global fuel mix,” the report states.

Of course, slaking our thirst for electricity with renewables wouldn’t just be good for the climate. The energy chapter highlights “co-benefits” from the use of renewable energy, “such as a reduction of air pollution, local employment opportunities, few severe accidents compared to some other forms of energy supply, as well as improved energy access and security.”

A revolution doesn’t sound so scary when you put it that way.


Source
Chapter 7: Energy Systems, IPCC

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants: johnupton@gmail.com.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Climate & Energy

More here – 

No, the IPCC climate report doesn’t call for a fracking boom

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, Landmark, ONA, organic, PUR, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on No, the IPCC climate report doesn’t call for a fracking boom

An Economist Answers Some of My Questions About "Capital in the 21st Century"

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

On Thursday I posted a couple of very rudimentary comments regarding Thomas Piketty’s blockbuster new book, Capital in the 21st Century. I had questions about Piketty’s estimates of r (return on capital) and g (economic growth) in the past and—much more importantly—how they were likely to play out in the future. But all I had were amateur musings because I am, after all, only an amateur.

However, yesterday Brad DeLong tackled some of the questions I asked in a far more rigorous and disciplined way, teasing out a lot of unstated implications along the way—including the importance of various measures of r and how they relate to the probability of increasing future wealth concentration in the real world. It’s a long post, and complex in places, but highly recommended. If you’re willing to work your way through it, DeLong provides a framework for thinking about Piketty’s model that helps you start to make sense of both the book and its conclusions.

POSTSCRIPT: I’ve gotten a couple of questions about why I seem unduly skeptical, or even harsh, about Piketty’s book. It’s obviously a landmark work, I don’t really mean to be unfair. But it’s a book with innovative and untested ideas that has obvious appeal to anyone left of center, and I think this is precisely the time to avoid unquestioning hosannas. Affinity bias makes us all sympathetic to Piketty’s arguments, and that’s why we should instead question it carefully and thoroughly.

See more here – 

An Economist Answers Some of My Questions About "Capital in the 21st Century"

Posted in alo, FF, GE, Landmark, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on An Economist Answers Some of My Questions About "Capital in the 21st Century"

What These Historical Kings and Marauders Can Teach Our Leaders About Climate Change

Mother Jones

There are no two ways about it: Humankind is, for the first time in our recorded history, living through a massive global climate shift of our own making. Science paints today’s crisis as unprecedented in scope and consequence. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t historical cases of societies that have enjoyed the highs and endured the lows of natural climatic changes—from civilization-busting droughts to empire-building stretches of gorgeous sunshine.

Whether they’re commanding marauding armies or struggling with dramatic temperature shifts, today’s leaders have a variety of historical role models they can learn from:

Should Governor Jerry Brown—confronted by California’s 500-year drought—be mindful of the policy mistakes made by the last Ming Emperor?

Will President Obama learn lessons from Ponhea Yat, the last king of the sacred city of Angkor Wat, when planning how to safeguard America’s critical infrastructure against extreme weather?

Will Vladimir Putin channel his inner Genghis Khan as Russia seeks new territories in the melting Arctic? (He’s already got the horse-riding thing on lock down.)

Here are four historical figures whose triumphs and defeats were related, at least in part, to major changes in their climates.

A new study published this week argues that Genghis Khan, the massively successful Mongol overlord who stitched together the biggest contiguous land empire in world history, may have had a secret weapon: really nice weather.

The paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences presents evidence from tree ring data collected in present-day Mongolia. It shows that when Genghis Khan was building his empire, the usually frigid steppes of central Asia were at their mildest and wettest in more than 1,000 years. This potentially favored “the formation of Mongol political and military power,” the paper says.

The researchers, led by Neil Pederson, a tree-ring scientist at Columbia University, discovered 15 consecutive years of above-average moisture in Mongolia. This was great, politically speaking, for nomad types: “The warm and consistently wet conditions of the early 13th century would have led to high grassland productivity and allowed for increases in domesticated livestock, including horses,” the authors write. If you’ve seen any cheesy historical reenactments of Khan, you’ll know horses were key to expansion, in the same way that icebreakers are becoming all-important in today’s race for shipping routes—and geopolitical influence—in the melting Arctic.

Genghis Khan and his hoard may have had successful romps across the warm climes of Central Asia, but the scientists say the weather was temporary, and their analysis reveals worrying trends for the future. Tree rings show that the early 21st century drought that afflicted Central Asia was the worst in Mongolia in over 1000 years, and made harsher by the higher temperatures consistent with manmade global warming. As temperatures here rise more than the global mean in coming decades, the authors say we could witness repeated instances of mass migration and livestock die-off: “If future warming overwhelms increased precipitation, episodic heat droughts and their social, economic, and political consequences will likely become more common in Mongolia and Inner Asia.”

For three centuries, China’s Ming Dynasty was a superpower that, among other things, invented the bristle-headed toothbrush. But from around 1630, the country was ravaged by a record-breaking drought that was caused by some of the weakest monsoons of the last 2,000 years, which in turn sparked mass civil unrest. Anthropologist Brian Fagan writes in his book, The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History, 1300-1850, that these events in China were “far more threatening than any contemporary disorders in Europe.” By the time of the fall of the Ming Dynasty in the mid-1600s, Fagan writes, the usually fertile Yangtze Valley had suffered from catastrophic epidemics, floods and famine that drove political discord and left the state vulnerable to attack.

Temperatures were at an all-time low. In China, “it was colder in the mid-seventeenth century than at any other time from 1370 to the present,” writes Emory University historian Tonio Andrade in his 2011 book, Lost Colony. “It was also drier. 1640 was the driest year for north China recorded during the last five centuries.”

The Forbidden City is perhaps the most famous Ming Dynasty structure, and Chongzhen’s final fortress. kallgan/Wikimedia Commons

As Andrade writes, even “the best government would be tried by such conditions.” And Chongzhen’s government was hardly the best. As crop yields collapsed, the response from the emperor’s already fragile regime exacerbated the crisis. Zero tax relief meant starving farmers “now abandoned their land and joined the outlaws,” writes Geoffery Parker in Global Crisis: War, Climate Change and Catastrophe in the Seventeenth Century. The hermit-like emperor in Beijing walled himself off in the Forbidden City, the most famous Ming Dynasty symbol of power, distrustful of lawmakers and bureaucrats who were themselves absorbed in bitter factional disputes. (Sound familiar?) Instead of keeping law and order in the provinces, the emperor withdrew his troops to the capital, basically ceding his empire to the disaffected packs of bandits that were growing in number every day; and he shut down one-third of the “courier network” that he relied on for communications, leaving him blind to worsening developments.

â&#128;&#139;

Click to embiggen: Temperatures during the Ming Dynasty plummeted. Adapted from “Global Crisis: War, Climate Change and Catastrophe in the Seventeenth Century,” by Geoffrey Parker.

Meanwhile, the Manchus were ravaging the north, driven by their own drought. It all became too much for Chongzhen. “Under the cumulative pressure of so many catastrophes in so many areas,” writes Parker, “the social fabric of Ming China began to unravel.” Forced to choose between abandoning the north for the southern capital, Nanjing, or standing his ground, “on the morning of 25 April 1644, abandoned by his officials, the last Ming emperor climbed part-way up the hill behind the forbidden city and hanged himself,” writes the University of North Texas’s Harold Miles Tanner in China: A History.

The Manchus eventually sacked Beijing and started the Qing dynasty.

According to author and environmental commentator Fred Pearce, the balmy days of the 10th and 11th century favored the creation of Viking settlements in Greenland under Erik the Red. His son, Leif Erikson was the gallant Viking king credited with the first European discovery of North America, at Newfoundland, in the late 10th century. But the period of great adventure and productivity Erikson initiated in Greenland was soon under threat from increasingly cold weather.

“The settlement on the southern tip of the Arctic island thrived for 400 years, but by the mid-fifteenth century, crops were failing and sea ice cut off any chance of food aid from Europe,” writes Pearce in his book, With Speed and Violence: Why Scientists Fear Tipping Points in Climate Change. It was a failure of adaptation more than anything else, Pearce argues. The Vikings stubbornly continued to farm chickens and grains—warmer weather practices—instead of hunting seals and polar bears, and as a result, “creeping starvation had cut the average height of a Greenland Viking from a sturdy five feet nine inches to a stunted five feet.”

Continue Reading »

See original article here: 

What These Historical Kings and Marauders Can Teach Our Leaders About Climate Change

Posted in Anchor, ATTRA, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on What These Historical Kings and Marauders Can Teach Our Leaders About Climate Change

Check the climate forecast in your county

Check the climate forecast in your county

Shutterstock

The average maximum temperature in L.A. is forecast to increase to between 77 and 83 degrees by the end of this century, up from 73 degrees in the 1980s. Summertime average maximums in Boulder, Colo., have already increased to 75 degrees, up from the low 70s in the 1960s. Residents of Vermont can look forward to temperature rises of as much as 10 degrees this century.

That’s according to a new U.S. Geological Survey tool that lets you focus in on climate trends and forecasts for counties throughout the U.S.

The online tool draws on data being produced through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s efforts to produce its fifth assessment report. “The maps and summaries at the county level condense a huge volume of data,” said Matthew Larsen of the USGS Climate and Land Use Program.

To find out what the weather is going to be like in your home county, visit this USGS website.

As an example, here is how the temperature is forecast to change in Miami, Fla. Note that 35 degrees Celsius is hot — the same as 95 Fahrenheit:

USGSTemperature forecasts for Miami-Dade County in Florida.


Source
NEX-DCP30 Home, USGS

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants: johnupton@gmail.com.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Climate & Energy

Visit source:

Check the climate forecast in your county

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Check the climate forecast in your county

Dramatic charts reveal climate change’s effects on oceans

Dramatic charts reveal climate change’s effects on oceans

Shutterstock

What’s going on out there?

Climate change is scrambling the oceans. It’s raising water temperatures, lowering pH levels, reducing oxygen availability, and driving down the size of wildlife populations the oceans can sustain.

A study published Tuesday in the journal PLOS Biology painstakingly chronicles many of the consequences of marine changes that the researchers describe as “unprecedented” during the last 20 million years:

Our results suggest that the entire world’s ocean surface will be simultaneously impacted by varying intensities of ocean warming, acidification, oxygen depletion, or shortfalls in productivity. Only a very small fraction of the oceans, mostly in polar regions, will face the opposing effects of increases in oxygen or productivity, and almost nowhere will there be cooling or pH increase. …

The social ramifications are also likely to be massive and challenging as some 470 to 870 million people – who can least afford dramatic changes to their livelihoods – live in areas where ocean goods and services could be compromised by substantial changes in ocean biogeochemistry.

It’s not all bad, according to the international team of researchers. Take a look at this chart from the study revealing cumulative net benefits expected by the year 2100 from changes in oceanic temperature (oC), oxygen content (O2), acidity level (pH), and productivity (Pr):

PLOS BiologyCumulative benefits of biogeochemical changes in the oceans to the year 2100. Click to embiggen.

Ah, that was kinda nice, wasn’t it. But if you want to stay in that happy place be sure to not look at the next chart, which, for comparison, reveals the cumulative negative consequences of all those biogeochemical changes:

PLOS BiologyCumulative negative impacts of biogeochemical changes in the oceans to the year 2100. Click to embiggen.

Yikes, that thing has more warning colors than a poison dart frog.

We’ll leave the final word for the researchers: “These results underline the need for urgent mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions if degradation of marine ecosystems and associated human hardship are to be prevented.”


Source
Biotic and Human Vulnerability to Projected Changes in Ocean Biogeochemistry over the 21st Century, PLOS Biology

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants: johnupton@gmail.com.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Climate & Energy

,

Food

View post – 

Dramatic charts reveal climate change’s effects on oceans

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Dramatic charts reveal climate change’s effects on oceans

Climate scientists are 95 percent sure that humans are causing global warming

Climate scientists are 95 percent sure that humans are causing global warming

Shutterstock

When it comes to climate science, the writing is on the wall.

Climate hawks are buzzing over leaks from the fifth big climate report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, due to be officially released in September. Spoiler: Scientists are pretty damn confident that we’re screwing up the climate.

An earlier draft was leaked in December by climate deniers trying to undermine the case for anthropogenic climate change. News of more recent leaked drafts comes to us from Reuters, which has no such agenda. Reuters sums up the report this way:

Climate scientists are surer than ever that human activity is causing global warming, according to leaked drafts of a major U.N. report, but they are finding it harder than expected to predict the impact in specific regions in coming decades. …

Drafts seen by Reuters of the study by the U.N. panel of experts, due to be published next month, say it is at least 95 percent likely that human activities — chiefly the burning of fossil fuels — are the main cause of warming since the 1950s.

That is up from at least 90 percent in the last report in 2007, 66 percent in 2001, and just over 50 in 1995, steadily squeezing out the arguments by a small minority of scientists that natural variations in the climate might be to blame. …

Experts say that the big advance in the report, due for a final edit by governments and scientists in Stockholm from Sept. 23-26, is simply greater confidence about the science of global warming, rather than revolutionary new findings.

Joe Romm at Climate Progress reminds us that the IPCC reports are generally conservative:

[The forthcoming report] is just a (partial) review of the scientific literature … [L]ike every IPCC report, it is an instantly out-of-date snapshot that lowballs future warming because it continues to ignore large parts of the recent literature and omit what it can’t model. For instance, we have known for years that perhaps the single most important carbon-cycle feedback is the thawing of the northern permafrost. The IPCC’s Fifth Assessment climate models completely ignore it, thereby lowballing likely warming this century.

Here’s reaction from climate scientist Michael Mann, via Climate Progress:

The report is simply an exclamation mark on what we already knew: Climate change is real and it continues unabated, the primary cause is fossil fuel burning, and if we don’t do something to reduce carbon emissions we can expect far more dangerous and potentially irreversible impacts on us and our environment in the decades to come.

And, for entertainment value, here’s reaction from denier-ville, via the Hockey Schtick blog:

[A]ll of these fatuous figures [about likelihood of human causation] are pulled out of the air to support the IPCC ideologies and not based upon any statistical analysis or science.

Back in reality-ville, John Abraham at The Guardian thanks all the climate scientists who have donated time to produce the IPCC report and wonders whether we need them to keep spending their time this way:

[T]he IPCC has done its job. For this fifth report, they have synthesized the science and provided enough evidence that action is warranted. How many more reports of this type do we need? Will a sixth report that confirms what we already know make much of a difference? Will a seventh? …

Whatever the future holds for the IPCC, the history books will tell us we were warned. Time and time again, the world’s best scientists have sent us clear messages.

Lisa Hymas is senior editor at Grist. You can follow her on Twitter and Google+.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Climate & Energy

Jump to original: 

Climate scientists are 95 percent sure that humans are causing global warming

Posted in ALPHA, Anchor, Dolphin, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Climate scientists are 95 percent sure that humans are causing global warming