UN Climate Report Charts Ways to Halt Global Warming

[Ace Nova]

Greenhouse gas emissions need sharp cuts by mid-century to dodge dangerous global warming.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/14/140413-ipcc-climate-change-report-un-science/

More green roofs, like this on Chicago's City Hall, are among the many measures recommended in the IPCC report.

Dan Vergano

National Geographic News

PUBLISHED APRIL 13, 2014

Just a few decades remain to halt global warming and head off its most catastrophic effects, says a new United Nations report that offers a sweeping menu of climate change fixes that would require global cooperation to implement.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) mitigation report, released Sunday in Berlin, explores some 1,200 steps to avert the worsening effects of global warming by 2100. The proposals range from planting more trees to relying much more on nuclear power. (Related: "Global Warming 101.")

"This report is a wake-up call about global economic opportunity we can seize today as we lead on climate change," said U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in a statement. "This report makes very clear we face an issue of global willpower, not capacity."

Sunday’s report is the third in a series of UN reports on climate change released in the past year that paint a picture of "virtually certain" climate change, driven by increasing emissions—80 percent of them from the burning of fossil fuels—which is already melting the Arctic, acidifying oceans and harming crops. (See also: "New Climate Change Report Warns of Dire Consequences.")

The report urges global action before 2020. The alternative, it says, is paying more later when temperatures rise to dangerous levels, and running more severe risks of climate change, which include rising seas, acidified oceans, longer heat waves, and severe crop failures.

"The longer we wait, the more costly things will be," said Stanford University economist Charles Kolstad, a lead author of the IPCC report. "It is possible to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions, that's clear. But it will be a challenge."

Overall, global greenhouse gas emissions—largely caused by burning coal, oil and natural gas—need to be cut 40 to 70 percent by mid-century, the report says, for humanity to face better than 50-50 odds of dodging the worst effects of global warming. (Related: "Clean Coal Test: Power Plants Prepare to Capture Carbon.")

To hit those emission reduction goals, the report calls for a tripling or quadrupling of "low carbon" power sources such as nuclear, solar, or renewable energy around the world.

Many of the report's proposals involve "overshooting" emissions targets in early decades and turning to technologies that effectively remove carbon dioxide, the most significant greenhouse gas, from the atmosphere in later decades to have any realistic chances of working.

"One of the most important contributions of the report is simply in laying out a road map," said Kelly Levin of the World Resources Institute in Washington, D.C., a longtime IPCC report observer. "There are a ton of solutions."

Global Road Map

Since everyone shares the air and because everyone can pollute it, the report says that emissions policies need to involve the entire international community to be effective. But efforts in global cooperation on climate change, like the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, have produced mixed results at best.

"None of that is going to happen on its own," said Harvard University's Robert Stavins, another IPCC report lead author, "so public policy is required at the international level."

A 1992 United Nations agreement broadly obligated the world to keep global warming temperature increases below "dangerous" levels, usually seen as 3.6°F (2°C), the point at which costly climate effects kick in.

The toll would be felt largely by poor farmers who live in dry and monsoon-dependent regions around the world that look to be hardest hit by warmer temperatures, and who have the fewest resources to deal with crop losses.

"The report makes clear a transition to clean energy and different behavior in how we use energy is needed to stay below that 2-degree [Celsius] increase," said Levin.

Climate Containment

Without new power technologies spreading worldwide, avoiding the 3.6°F increase in temperatures over pre-industrial levels looks "very challenging," said report author Leon Clarke of the the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory's Joint Global Change Research Institute.

Two technologies in particular look promising. One is growing forests expressly to pull carbon out of the air, an idea known as afforestation.

The other idea is to generate electricity from burning renewable energy sources, such as sawgrass or genetically engineered algal fuels, and stuffing their greenhouse gas emissions underground, a technique known as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage.

Both technologies exist, but scaling them up for worldwide use looks daunting, Clarke said.

Even if the world aims for less ambitious emissions cuts and allows more global warming, Clarke added, people will have to turn to such technologies. Otherwise, temperatures will keep rising.

In any case, the world will have to shoot for zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2100, the report's analysis suggests.

The report also points to energy efficiency and changes in how cities are built and managed as ways to limit emissions. For instance, roofs could be painted to absorb less heat, and more mass transit systems could reduce the need for emissions-spewing vehicles.

International Cooperation

Sponsored by the World Meteorological Organization and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), the report comes amid a long-lasting slowdown in economic growth after 2008's recession that has raised questions about how the world might come together to tackle climate change.

In coming decades, China will overtake the United States, the biggest emitter historically, in total greenhouse gas emissions, said Harvard's Stavins.

That might create an opening for international agreements to go forward on limiting climate change, he suggested, as developing nations see they are bearing more responsibility for global warming.

Otherwise, Stavins sees small agreements on regional levels, among different cities, states, or provinces pursuing steps to cut emissions as the "de facto" world response to climate change. "There really is a lot of skepticism about a big world agreement," he said.

MIT economist John Reilly, who was not an author of the climate report, agreed: "It is too easy to wait and let someone else hurt their economy by going first."

The report is aimed largely at world leaders attending next year's international climate summit in Paris, which is expected to pick up the problems left unresolved at the last such global summit, in 2008 in Denmark, in particular, making climate mitigation plans for after 2030.

Written by more than 400 experts and reviewers from 57 nations over the past four years, the IPCC reports are essentially vast reviews of the latest climate research.

The last round of such reports, released in 2007, won a Nobel Peace Prize, which was shared by former U.S. Vice President Al Gore.

I'm glad the U.N. is finally speaking out on the issue and giving clear steps on the minimum that needs to be done in order to avoid the "worst"possible scenarios....(which would be catastrophic). I think this is a non-confrontational way for them to slowly start appeasing to those that don't necessarily believe this is a problem. If they can see that we can steadily change over to zero emissions, maybe it won't be met with resistance .

Edited April 13, 2014 by Kasanova King

[Ace Nova]

It all depends on which scientists you believe.

Me personally? If forced to choose, I will side with the ones that don't have anything to gain financially ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10294082/Global-warming-No-actually-were-cooling-claim-scientists.html

Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists

A cold Arctic summer has led to a record increase in the ice cap, leading experts to predict a period of global cooling.

There has been a 29 per cent increase in the amount of ocean covered with ice compared to this time last year, the equivalent of 533,000 square miles.

In a rebound from 2012's record low, an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia's northern shores, days before the annual re-freeze is even set to begin.

The Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific had remained blocked by pack-ice all year, forcing some ships to change their routes.

One ship has now managed to pass through, completing its journey on September 27.

A leaked report to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) seen by the Mail on Sunday, has led some scientists to claim that the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century.

If correct, it would contradict computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming. The news comes several years after predictions that the arctic would be ice-free by 2013.

Despite the original forecasts, major climate research centres now accept that there has been a “pause” in global warming since 1997.

The original predictions led to billions being invested in green measures to combat the effects of climate change.

The changing predictions have led to the UN's climate change's body holding a crisis meeting, it was reported, and the IPCC is due to report on the situation in October. A pre-summit meeting will be held later this month.

But the leaked documents are said to show that the governments who fund the IPCC are demanding 1,500 changes to the Fifth Assessment Report - a three-volume study issued every six or seven years – as they claim its current draft does not properly explain the pause.

The extent to which temperatures will rise with carbon dioxide levels and how much of the warming over the past 150 years, a total of 0.8C, is down to human greenhouse gas emissions are key issues in the debate.

The IPCC says it is “95 per cent confident” that global warming has been caused by humans - up from 90 per cent in 2007 – according to the draft report.

However, US climate expert Professor Judith Curry has questioned how this can be true as that rather than increasing in confidence, “uncertainty is getting bigger” within the academic community.

Long-term cycles in ocean temperature, she said, suggest the world may be approaching a period similar to that from 1965 to 1975, when there was a clear cooling trend.

At the time some scientists forecast an imminent ice age.

Professor Anastasios Tsonis, of the University of Wisconsin, said: "We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped.”

They use the phrase "Global Warming" so people can relate....it's really "climate change" and it's one in the same....both have potentially catastrophic effects....and about 98% of the scientific community agrees.

The 2%-3% that disagree are the ones that have something to gain from it....

http://www.salon.com/2014/01/09/9135_out_of_9136_scientists_believe_climate_change_is_happening/

Edited April 13, 2014 by Kasanova King

[Lio]

I'm quite pessimistic as to this kind of thing. It requires measures that will not go down smoothly, and every climate conference ends in a huge disappointment, as politicians don't seem to be able to act firmly. Lobbyers seem to have a firm grasp on our politicians and there are far too few idealists, that's how I see it, anyway. It's like everyone's passing on the task to the following generation(s).

As for the general public: it's easier not to believe it, or to believe the few scientists that don't believe in climate change, or our impact on the climate. No one wants to give up part of their freedom, wealth...

The world seems to be too selfish to try and protect the Earth. My fear is that we'll only get the courage to change something when it's too late, when we're with our backs against the wall. I'm no environmentalist, but I think it's clear that it's not going well and it will not end well the way we are carrying on right now.

But let's hope the climate summit in Paris proves me wrong.

[SoulMonster]

It all depends on which scientists you believe.

More than 95 % of climate scientists agree that human activity is a significant cause to the observed climate changes. So yeah, you could choose to only talk to the small minority, but that wouldn't be right of you.

[ShadowOfTheWave]

Liberal conspiracy.

[SoulMonster]

It all depends on which scientists you believe.

More than 95 % of climate scientists agree that human activity is a significant cause to the observed climate changes. So yeah, you could choose to only talk to the small minority, but that wouldn't be right of you.

And those are the same scientists that claimed the Arctic would be ice-free by 2013.

No.

But hey, if you insist that human activity is a significant cause of a 29% increase in the amount of ocean covered in ice then who I am to disagree with you?

It doesn't matter what I insist on, what matters is what the huge majority of scientists insist on. And they say that human activity is one of the reasons for the observed climate changes.

[bran]

climates change it has happened before, it will happen again.

[SoulMonster]

climates change it has happened before, it will happen again.

But humans have never before been a component and what we are observing now is alarming.

This notion that the climate will change regardless of our actions and therefore it doesn't matter whether we contribute to the natural climate changes and cause even worse fluctuations, baffles me.

[Thin White Duke]

The UN, one of the causes why the world is unpleasant.

A new ice age is coming. Brace yourselves and let's stop considering us special and able to control the Universe. We are too dumb for this.

[OmarBradley]

The UN, one of the causes why the world is unpleasant.

Nope.

[Thin White Duke]

"The war can't take place".

"I'm the United States of America, you can suck my dick"

"War"

----------

"Good morning Syria!!"

[bran]

climates change it has happened before, it will happen again.

But humans have never before been a component and what we are observing now is alarming.

This notion that the climate will change regardless of our actions and therefore it doesn't matter whether we contribute to the natural climate changes and cause even worse fluctuations, baffles me.

humans have been on this planet a fraction of a second compared to the overall time this planet has been here. long before humans were on this planet the climate swung erratically from one extreme to the other. im not saying humans do not contribute to global warming,pumping shit into the atmosphere is going to have ramifications one way or another.

i think right now no one is really sure what is going to happen. i think scientists have a difficult job to do since their is no real guideline to this. what is a normal/abnormal? it is hard enough to predict the weather for a week, trying to predict what the weather will be over a stretch of 50-100 years and beyond is near impossible.

[Thin White Duke]

climates change it has happened before, it will happen again.

But humans have never before been a component and what we are observing now is alarming.

This notion that the climate will change regardless of our actions and therefore it doesn't matter whether we contribute to the natural climate changes and cause even worse fluctuations, baffles me.

humans have been on this planet a fraction of a second compared to the overall time this planet has been here. long before humans were on this planet the climate swung erratically from one extreme to the other. im not saying humans do not contribute to global warming,pumping shit into the atmosphere is going to have ramifications one way or another.

i think right now no one is really sure what is going to happen. i think scientists have a difficult job to do since their is no real guideline to this. what is a normal/abnormal? it is hard enough to predict the weather for a week, trying to predict what the weather will be over a stretch of 50-100 years and beyond is near impossible.

I wanted to like your post but I ran out of likes. I owe you one.

The thing is, only a fool would deny the impact of human beings and our activities on the environment. We know it's causing a big damage and some things are already fucked up forever. But extreme changes on Earth have happened in the past and will continue to happen in the future. The world as we know it is meant to disappear, not next year nor in 50 years but it will eventually do. And before that point, the Earth will keep on evolving day by day. Surely we can make many things to slow down the process and, at least, not being us who pulls the trigger.

But, I have a hard time dealing with people who pretend to care about it. However, they've bought the most updated smartphone when their old one still worked perfectly, have 2 or 3 TV at home, have more clothes than they really need... well, I think you get my point. Yes, better to do something than anything but still. And, some of the most vocal people about this issue, especially on TV and papers, tend to be like this.

Edited April 13, 2014 by Thin White Duke

[Ace Nova]

They use the phrase "Global Warming" so people can relate....it's really "climate change" and it's one in the same....both have potentially catastrophic effects....and about 98% of the scientific community agrees.

The 2%-3% that disagree are the ones that have something to gain from it....

http://www.salon.com/2014/01/09/9135_out_of_9136_scientists_believe_climate_change_is_happening/

Unless I'm missing something, that article speculates about only Russia losing money because of the fight against global warming. No comparison to the many billions of dollars being spent globally to "go green".

Do I think the earth may be warming? Sure, I think it's possible ... but hardly enough to warrant any dangers in the next thousand years or so. I've seen this shit happen too many times, playing on society's fears to make money.

The other few that argue against climate change are usually in cahoots with either Oil Companies themselves or the major oil/coal producing nations.

humans have been on this planet a fraction of a second compared to the overall time this planet has been here. long before humans were on this planet the climate swung erratically from one extreme to the other. im not saying humans do not contribute to global warming,pumping shit into the atmosphere is going to have ramifications one way or another.

i think right now no one is really sure what is going to happen. i think scientists have a difficult job to do since their is no real guideline to this. what is a normal/abnormal? it is hard enough to predict the weather for a week, trying to predict what the weather will be over a stretch of 50-100 years and beyond is near impossible.

I wanted to like your post but I ran out of likes. I owe you one.

The thing is, only a fool would deny the impact of human beings and our activities on the environment. We know it's causing a big damage and some things are already fucked up forever. But extremley changes on Earth have happened in the past and will continue to happen in the future. The world as we know it is meant to disappear, not next year nor in 50 years but it will eventually do. And before that point, the Earth will keep on evolving day by day. Surely we can make many things to slow down the process and, at least, not being us who pulls the trigger.

But, I have a hard time dealing with people who pretend to care about it. However, they've bought the most updated smartphone when their old one still worked perfectly, have 2 or 3 TV at home, have more clothes than they really need... well, I think you get my point. Yes, better to do something than anything but still. And, some of the most vocal people about this issue, especially on TV and papers, tend to be like this.

No one is arguing the whole, "Earth is millions/billions of years old, this is just a blip"....that's the entire problem. Of course climate change occurred in the past....ice ages and so forth.....but it happened over tens of thousands of years, or more.....NOT hundreds of years....like is happening now....and THAT's the problem.

Edited April 14, 2014 by Kasanova King

[Dazey]

Two pages and still nothing from Shades? Gah! Somebody PM me when the fun starts please?

[Thin White Duke]

No one is arguing the whole, "Earth is millions/billions of years old, this is just a blip"....that's the entire problem. Of course climate change occurred in the past....ice ages and so forth.....but it happened over tens of thousands of years, or more.....NOT hundreds of years....like is happening now....and THAT's the problem.

7 billion people and growing, our lifestyles, the development of poor areas, iphones... does the people in that article really believe in what they are saying? Gardens in the roofs and ads of fancy cars on the telly. That's our planet.

Edited April 13, 2014 by Thin White Duke

[Ace Nova]

No one is arguing the whole, "Earth is millions/billions of years old, this is just a blip"....that's the entire problem. Of course climate change occurred in the past....ice ages and so forth.....but it happened over tens of thousands of years, or more.....NOT hundreds of years....like is happening now....and THAT's the problem.

7 billion people and growing, our lifestyles, the development of poor areas, iphones... does the people in that article really believe in what they are saying? Gardens in the roofs and ads of fancy cars on the telly. That's our planet.

That's just (actually) a relatively simple way to put a dent in it....there's thousands of other ways as well.

[SoulMonster]

Can you provide evidence that it's not the same scientists?

Of course. But that would take me a lot of time and since it was you who started by claiming they are the same scientists the burden of proof lies with you.

Okay so the huge majority of scientists insist that human activity is one of the reasons (I noticed you downgraded your stance from "significant" to "one of") for the observed climate changes now resulting in the 29% increase of ocean covered in ice. Got it.

I didn't say anything about the fluctuations of ice coverage. That is your hang up. Do you really think that because the Arctic ice grows by 29 % somehow means the scientists are wrong in their observations that we are experiencing global warming? No on has claimed the ice caps will diminish each and every year. Global warming doesn't mean that each place on Earth will have a steady increase in temperature. Actual measurements show a fluctuating graph that on a longer time-scale (not form year to year) gets higher. Do you understand this? Arguing against global warming because region X now has colder temperature than normal just demonstrates ignorance. And I haven't even started to talk about how changes in ocean currents may cause big local changes in climate resulting in some areas becoming colder than before the climate changes occurred.

Here are the measurements:

[wasted]

it's probably just a random fluctuation in eternity. We'll be extinct one day anyway. just let it go.

[SoulMonster]

humans have been on this planet a fraction of a second compared to the overall time this planet has been here. long before humans were on this planet the climate swung erratically from one extreme to the other. im not saying humans do not contribute to global warming,pumping shit into the atmosphere is going to have ramifications one way or another.

i think right now no one is really sure what is going to happen. i think scientists have a difficult job to do since their is no real guideline to this.

And that is why we have the IPCC: To project possible trajectories of the observed climate change, predict global and regional outcomes, and suggest actions that may remedy the situation. And the clear advice from IPCC is that we need to take action now. Hiding behind "it's too uncertain" and "we don't know the exact size of the human component" is just cowardly and egoistical.

Edited April 14, 2014 by SoulMonster

[SoulMonster]

But humans have never before been a component and what we are observing now is alarming.

FALSE on so many levels! Haven't you ever heard of the Industrial Revolution?

Huh? What I meant was that in the previous large-scale climate changes that have occurred on Earth human activity was not a component simply because we weren't around back then.

The industrial revolution was when we really started pouring CO₂ into the atmosphere.

[Dazey]

Still flogging a dead horse?

Says the dude with a near 40 page thread full of nonsense to his name that nobody's paid any attention to in months?

[Aaron_H]

Am I seriously seeing non-experts arguing with the scientists that have spent large portions of their life working on this stuff?..

[SoulMonster]

Am I seriously seeing non-experts arguing with the scientists that have spent large portions of their life working on this stuff?..

It is a credit to an almost amazing confidence and belief in oneself or, on the other hand, an indication of blatant ignorance, when non-experts believe they have come across some startling insight or idea that have somehow eluded the thousands of experts who have spent their professional lives studying something and which completely ruins those experts' conclusions and theories. Do they really believe that they have come up with some completely novel idea or evidence and that the scientific communities will go "Oh! Why didn't I think of that!"? Or do they genuinely believe all these experts are too stupid to think about the same things that just popped into their heads? Or do they fail to comprehend that if it really is a valid observation or idea that it isn't already implemented in the scientists models and thus accounted for?

Examples of such are the idea that since it has been colder where I live this year global warming must be a conspiracy (neglecting the fact that global warming is an average, long-term trend allowing for local variations and deviations; the growing ice caps is a variation of this); and that random mutations can't cause possibly cause complexity on the scale of the human brain and therefore evolution is wrong (disregarding the fact that random mutations are followed by non-random natural selection).

A more ominous explanation is of course the startlingly wide-spread belief that scientists are paid to ignore contradictory observations and evidence, which displays a severe lack of understanding how science works and how many independent scientists across the globe is involved in the task of putting together the various pieces of the puzzles that form such vast fields as "climate research", and a failure to understand how motivating it is to scientists to be able to publish results that go against the grain (in many cases much more motivating than money). Do they really believe it is just a matter of paying off a few dozen researchers in, say, US and UK?

Edited April 14, 2014 by SoulMonster

[arnold layne]

It's a mess because there are too many financial and political factors. All we can do is watch the world burn.