News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Climate warming in line with worst case scenario 

Climate warming in line with worst case scenario

25 Nov, 2009 06:46 AM
KEY climate change measures are tracking near or beyond worse-case scenarios predicted just two years ago, according to a science update drawing on more than 200 recently published studies.

Co-authored by 26 climate scientists, The Copenhagen Diagnosis reports that melting of summer Arctic sea ice, loss of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, and projections of the rise in sea levels have accelerated dramatically since 2007.

It finds the statistical global warming trend has continued over the past decade, contradicting assessments by some scientists - including Copenhagen Climate Council chairman Tim Flannery - that there has been a recent cooling.

The review cites NASA data that shows a trend of a 0.19-degree increase over the past decade despite short-term fluctuations due to El Nino, solar variability and volcanic eruptions.

Matthew England, co-director of the University of NSW Climate Change Research Centre, said the world's three leading climate data series showed claims of temperatures cooling were "patently untrue".

"These are the data set even the sceptics go to, and they show that the last 10 years has been one of warming even if you start in [the particularly hot] 1998," Professor England said.

"Since 2001, every year has been among the top-10 warmest on record. I don't think that is cooling."

The diagnosis is billed as a supplement to the 2007 report by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and aimed at influencing debate at next month's Copenhagen climate summit. Most of the scientists behind it are intergovernmental panel authors.

Its major findings include:

■ Greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement production were nearly 40 per cent higher in 2008 than in 1990.

■ Global air temperature, humidity and rainfall patterns cannot be explained without factoring in greenhouse gas emissions.

■ Satellite and ice measurements show the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are increasingly losing mass. Each adds up to 0.7 millimetres a year to sea level rise.

■ The recent rate of summer Arctic see ice melting is unprecedented in at least 2000 years and about 40 per cent greater than average IPCC predictions.

■ Sea-level rise by 2100 is likely to be much greater than the 18-59 centimetres predicted by the UN panel. Failure to cut emissions could lead to a rise of more than a metre. The worse-case scenario is roughly two metres (though unlikely).

■ Localised tipping points, where changes happen abruptly, are possible this century at some sites. But despite talk of "runaway climate change", there is no strong evidence that the entire planet is near that threshold.

The report estimates global temperatures could rise by seven degrees by 2100. Emissions would need to peak in the next five to 10 years to limit warming to two degrees.

It comes at a charged time in the climate debate. Emails stolen from a leading climate research centre have prompted claims its scientists tried to massage unfavourable data and destroy scientific material sought under Freedom of Information. Professor England said the scandal was a diversion:

"A few loose email comments by a couple of researchers does not bring down the central science of climate change."

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Same old fear mongering lies.
Posted by glen, 25/11/2009 8:01:00 AM
Don't worry, now that Malcolm has hopped into bed with Kevie and Penny and we will have the Rudd TAX, the ice will build up, there will be no droughts, the days will be cooler and we can again build near the sea. The world will be perfect!
Posted by jerangle, 25/11/2009 8:19:28 AM
Glen, for the benefit of the authors and those of us a little slower of reading, you might care to point out in the report released today which parts are the deliberate mistruths (lies) as distinct from the parts you just don't like.
Posted by KD Atkins, 25/11/2009 10:00:49 AM
As Will Steffen pointed out on ABC Radio this morning there is a lot of talk and evidence floating around saying there is no human induced climate change and it is all a hoax but not one of the scientists have published their findings in peer review journals. Why is that? If they have a strong case why not have this evidence peer reviewed?
Posted by Mike Parish, 25/11/2009 11:56:31 AM
Mike Parish, it is evident from the leaked e-mails written by so-called scientists that as far as their work on global warming is concerned, 'peer review' is nothing more than peer collusion, so spare us the morally superior tone, please.
Posted by Arden, 25/11/2009 12:35:16 PM
Try to understand how science works. Individual scientists, or more often teams of them, carry out research often for years. When they think they have a water-tight theory, they publish a paper in a journal, and invite other scientists, or anyone else, to pick holes in their theory. There's nothing secret. It's out there in the open. As for the CRU emails, they were personal correspondence, containing nothing which refutes global warming. The intellectual property was stolen, by a thief, and published on the web in defiance of ethics or legality.
Posted by nico, 25/11/2009 2:10:28 PM
For the past seven (7) years we (my family farm) have had below average rainfall and on average higher than average mean temperatures. I'm not sure this is due to global warming caused by human activity but there has been a climatic change which is adversly effecting my ability to be sustainable. Of this I have no doubt. If, and there is reasonable scientific theory, we continue to increase the proportion of CO2 in our atmosphere (and the sceptics are wrong)we can expect these conditions to continue and deteriorate further. Precautionary action to change the proportion of CO2 in our atmosphere back to lower levels is only common sense if the majority of scientists and rational thinkers believe this is necessary. I would rather be wrong and have made an effort, than be wrong and have prevented an effort from being made thus making the problem even bigger.
Posted by Bazza, 25/11/2009 2:44:00 PM
And you spare us the brain-dead drivel, Arden.
Posted by Bushie Bill, 25/11/2009 4:55:20 PM
Bazza why don't you educate yourself a little and stop drinking the koolaid. You sound like a typical indocrinated disciple of the loony green left, not a thinking man on the land. For some good reading I highly sugest Ian Plimers book "Heavan and Earth the missing science".
Posted by hey loc, 25/11/2009 6:05:01 PM
Expect many more reports like this in the lead up to Copenhagen. And expect our ego driven leader to have briefcases full of them. Go Kevin! Save the world! We know you can do it. Don't worry about Australia because you are a world leader.
Posted by farmerpete, 25/11/2009 9:32:29 PM
1 | 2 | 3 | 4  |  next >

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
24 November, 2009
POLL
Q: How has the deregulation of export wheat marketing affected your farm's profits this harvest?

Increased profits
(22.1%)

Decreased profits
(56.2%)

No change
(21.7%)

Total Votes: 258
Poll Date: 23 November, 2009
BLOGS
19 November, 2009
SPECIAL FEATURES

Most popular articles

ELDERS NEWS MREC SJ



The Land







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...