Sunday, March 04, 2007

Global Warming Gets Hot

Hurrican Andrew hitting the US in 1992. The United Nations predicts the intensity of hurricanes and other storms will increase as a result of global warming.

If you never want to see the face of hell, when you come home from work every night, dance with your kitchen towel, and if you're worried about waking up your family, take off your shoes.

---Rabbi Nahman of Bratslav

After a public reading Bernie Glassman gave, a woman in the audience stood up and asked: "What does it take to live in the Now?"
The master answered: "Would anyone who is NOT living in the Now please stand up?"

---Zen mondo

Now there is time and Time is young.
O, in this single hour I live
All of myself and do not move
I, the pursued, who madly ran,
Stand still, stand still, and stop the Sun!

---May Sarton

Not so long ago every schoolchild in America got taught a major failing in a democratic republic is how long it takes to get anything done. (I'm not sure what they get taught today.) This was part of a section in your Social Studies called How A Bill Becomes A Law. Committees, both houses of Congress, President's desk, maybe the Supreme Court, on and on. To get a stop sign put quickly onto your street corner, 3 kids have to get run over first.

Many bills depend upon scientific research to prove damage is being done in the status quo. Competing sides pay different scientists to do this experiment but not that one. And all that takes time. For scientists to complete all their experiments to prove grasshoppers have ears in their hind legs may take generations. Then the results must be published, read and applied to our lives by you and me.

Lately friends and relatives have been sharing concerns with me about whether global warming might be farther along the road to disaster than even science is telling us yet. Science takes so long to be sure of stuff. Friday Spiegel Online obtained the draft of the second part of the UN Report that, along with Al Gore's documentary, is finally getting everybody's attention over here. The first part came out last month,1518,463888,00.html and now this second part, I guess, is going to scare us even more.

I don't really need to be scared more to become a believer. Common sense is good enough for me. What I do need, in discussing with doubting colleagues and friends, is a concise picture of the damage that is happening and what comes next. Friday's article does that, and its setup (with pictures) is the main reason I'm referring to it. They even have a link to blogs that are discussing the article. (Wonder if jazzoLOG will show up.)

SPIEGEL ONLINE - March 2, 2007, 05:01 PM URL:,1518,469608,00.html

Climate Change Impact More Extensive than Thought
By Volker Mrasek

Global climate change is happening faster than previously believed and its impact is worse than expected, information from an as-yet unpublished draft of the long-awaited second part of a United Nations report obtained by SPIEGEL ONLINE reveals. No region of the planet will be spared and some will be hit especially hard.

Is the world's weather already out of control? Is the pollution of the past decades having an impact on the present? That's exactly what the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change fears: Human influences over the last 30 years "have had a recognizable effect on many physical and biological systems," write the authors of the as yet unreleased second part of the 2007 global climate change report.

According to information obtained by SPIEGEL ONLINE, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is convinced global warming is already making the world sweat. At least that's the gist of the "Summary for Policymakers" from the group made up of hundreds of scientists.

The second part of the report is to be presented in April in Brussels after final discussions with government representatives from around the globe. The meta-study is certain to have a major political impact on the ongoing debate about climate change.

Mounting evidence: Climate change is happening now

The main conclusion of the report is that climate change is already having a profound effect on all the continents and on many of the Earth's ecosystems. The draft presents a long list of evidence:

Glacial lakes are increasing in both size and number, potentially leading to deadly floodsPermafrost in mountainous regions and at high latitudes is warming increasing the danger of land slides.As the temperature of rivers and lakes rises, their thermal stratification and water quality is changing.River currents, affected by melting glaciers and ice, are speeding up during the spring.Springtime is starting earlier, causing plants to bloom earlier and changing the migrations of birds.Many plants and animals are expanding their habitats into mountainous regions and higher latitudes that are becoming milder.

The authors of the report have sifted through some 30,000 data sets from more than 70 international studies documenting changes to water circulation, to cryospheres (ice zones), as well as to flora and fauna over a period of at least 20 years.

According to the IPCC, "more than 85 percent" of the data show "changes in a direction that would be expected as a reaction to warming." In other words: Researchers found evidence of environmental changes due to the greenhouse effect caused by mankind in nearly 9 out of 10 cases surveyed.

The researchers consider it "very unlikely" that the changes observed could be naturally occurring phenomena. They argue that the patterns of regional climate warming and environmental changes match up well with each other. And a similar consistency exists between the scientists' observations and what climate models have predicted would happen as temperatures rise.

Nature under threat

The UN experts go beyond the current situation. They also explore how populated regions and ecosystems will develop in the future as the world becomes warmer.

Many natural resources are likely to fall victim to climate change according to the IPCC draft report:

Some 20 to 30 percent of all species face a "high risk of extinction" should average global temperatures rise another 1.5 to 2.5 degrees Celsius from their 1990 levels. That could happen by 2050, the report warns.Coral reefs are "likely to undergo strong declines."Salt marshes and mangrove forests could disappear as sea levels rise.Tropical rainforests will be replaced by savanna in those regions where groundwater decreases.Migratory birds and mammals will suffer as vegetation zones in the Artic shift.

The IPCC expects the following world regions to suffer the most due to climate change:

The Arctic due to the greatest relative warmingSmall island states in the Pacific as sea levels riseAfrica south of the Sahel zone due to droughtDensely populated river deltas in Asia amid flooding

This list alone makes abundantly clear that mankind will not escape these changes unscathed.

Heat-related deaths, floods, drought, storms

The UN climate panel expects "increasing deaths, injuries and illness from heat waves, floods, storms, forest fires and droughts." The draft summary for policymakers details "heat-related mortality" especially in Europe and Asia.

Several hundred million people in densely populated coastal regions -- particularly river deltas in Asia -- are threatened by rising sea levels and the increasing risk of flooding. More than one-sixth of the world's population lives in areas affected by water sources from glaciers and snow pack that will "very likely" disappear, according to the report.

The climate experts detail the potential consequences for most of the world including Europe, Africa, Asia, the Americas, Australia, New Zealand, polar regions and small Pacific islands. For the most part, global warming will have negative effects for both humans and the environment across much of the planet. The positive aspects -- such as better agricultural and forestry yields in northern Europe -- will be more than outweighed by the threats presented by rising temperatures and the perils that accompany them.

The draft also makes clear just how strongly the authors stand behind their forecasts. Most of their conclusions belong to category two, which means the researchers back them with "strong certainty." Some are even designated "very strong certainty," including the example that North America will be hit by stronger forest fires and heat waves in large cities, as well as the assumption that climate change poses the biggest risk to small island states.

More food in the north and a possibly greener Earth

The report also lists specific positive developments due to global warming -- but they are expected to be of an ephemeral nature.

The experts apparently do not have concerns about the planet's food production capabilities. Conditions for agriculture are likely to improve in higher latitudes, leading to greater global yields overall. However, numerous developing countries are likely to be hit by greater periods of drought at the same time -- thus threatening their populations with hunger. The climate panel expects yields in the north and deep south only to begin to sink once temperatures rise by more than three degrees Celsius. Overall, they put "average trust" in their predictions about food production.

Rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the Earth's atmosphere will at first help the plant world. Vegetation growth will be stronger and the planet will become greener. The absorption of CO2 by plant life will to a certain extent work against climate change, but not forever. "In the second half of the century terrestrial ecosystems will become a source of carbon which will then accelerate climate change," the IPCC report warns.

The ability of the world's oceans to absorb CO2 is also expected to be depleted by the end of the 21st century. By then they could begin to release greenhouse gases instead of absorbing them.

Rich nations also at risk

Although the inhabitants of poorer, developing nations are likely to suffer the most from climate change, the IPCC report makes clear that richer industrial nations such as the United States are also at risk. North America, the report cautions, is hardly prepared for the "growing risks and economic losses caused by rising seas, storms and floods." The IPCC report also explicitly details the threat posed by tropical storms. Climate change is expected to increase the number of strong hurricanes leading to the concern that insurance companies might refuse to cover damages in regions threatened by such storms like New Orleans and the rest of the Gulf of Mexico.

Just as they did in the first part of the IPCC report released in February, the climate experts warn that air pollution and greenhouse gases are likely to have long-lasting effects since the planet's climate reacts slowly to changes. It's already a "fait accompli" that average temperatures near ground level will rise a further 0.6 degrees Celsius by 2100, according to the report. Humanity will have no choice but to adapt to the global changes.

According to information obtained by SPIEGEL ONLINE at the end of February, the climate panel will demand radical changes and massive investment against global warming in the third part of the IPCC report expected to be released in May in Bangkok. Some $16 billion (€12.1 billion) will be required by 2030 and humanity only has until 2020 to turn back the trend.

Whether the summary for policymakers will be released in its current form is unclear. Delegates from several countries wrestled with the wording of the first part of the report up until the last minute before its publication. Because, of course, for both scientists and politicians it can make a big difference whether the consequences of climate change are "likely," "very likely," or "practically certain."

The link to the blogs is here,1518,469608,00.html?partnerid=160

1 comment:

jazzolog said...

By now I suppose you heard that one day after Al Gore picked up his Oscar for An Inconvient Truth, a group grandly called the Tennessee Center For Policy Research grabbed huge press by declaring him a total hypocrite. In fact a rightwing friend of mine couldn't contain his glee as he broke the news with an email citing Gore's household electricity use, based on TCPR's figures. However, it turns out, according to the Associated Press, Nashville Electric Service "spokeswoman Laurie Parker said the utility never got a request from the policy center and never provided them with any information." Well, well, well. But let's hear Zepp tell it his way~~~

Chilling out Gore
© Bryan Zepp Jamieson 3/4/07

Hours after Gore received his Academy Award for the documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” the ambush attack was launched. Kristin Hall, uncritical news hen for the AP, breathlessly reported that “A conservative group” calling itself the “Tennessee Center for Policy Research” reported that Gore’s home energy use was ten times that of a “typical Nashville household.” The story goes on to claim that Gore used 221,000 kilowatt hours in 2006, and that the group knew this because they obtained his energy use documents from the utility, Nashville Electric Service. You have to go near the bottom to find it, but the story states, “But company spokeswoman Laurie Parker said the utility never got a request from the policy center and never gave it any information.” AP claimed to have reviewed the bills and came up with an energy use figure some 15% lower, but it’s evident that unlike the “Center,” AP remembered to factor in the surcharge that the utility charges for energy use above about a thousand kilowatts a month.

It’s pretty unlikely that the “Tennessee Center for Policy Research” was interested in any niceties like finding out how much energy Gore actually used, or where the energy came from, or–and this was the main thing they were clucking indignantly about–if he had a large carbon footprint or not.

The “Center” appears to be one of those “two-right-wing-assholes-with-a-website” kind of things that the well-funded far right likes to use to pepper the public discourse with falsely authoritative sources. According to an unnamed Usenet source, “Tennessee Center for Policy Research is run by a 27 year old Bush Cheerleader who loves Bush's Wars, Jason Drew Johnson. The Center lists a post office box number as its address which makes sense since occupancy costs were $450 for the year. The IRS requires 501(c)(3)s to disclose the names of board members and officers which the Center fails to do. The 990 is signed by Jason A. Johnson who presumably is related to Drew Johnson, listed as the Center's president on the website. Total salary expense for 2005 is $52,213. Despite a tight budget, the Center's managed to spend $8,155 on meals and travel. Marketing expense is $5,934 but no money was spent on research.” Including, apparently, looking up utility bills, which are public records. The site itself is devoted to debunking global warming, and offering “free market solutions,” presumably to free market problems. I looked over the list of “scholars” they had, presumably in the hope people would think they had something to do with the site, and none of them were in the fields of climatology or energy use.

So the whole news story came from a false-front “think tank” that couldn’t even be bothered with getting its information first-hand, or capable of giving it a fair review if they had.

Every day, the AP dismisses such “news flashes” from nobody crackpots as a waste of their time. But this one was about Gore, and would sell newspapers. So they went with it.

Gore’s home energy use (which has grown to twenty times the average household in the right wing echo chamber of Faux News, Drudge and Free Republic) somehow escaped the keen scrutiny of the media. If they had bothered checking, as I did, they would have learned a few things that demonstrate that not only is Gore’s energy use reasonable for his needs, but that his carbon footprint–that thing the right wingers are supposedly upset about–is very much less.

First, there’s his “household”. It consists of four structures, not one, and has a cumulative square footage that is 15 times that of a regular single family home. (The average Nashville household has a pretty good chance of living in an apartment, which is smaller and more energy efficient than a stand-alone house, too). One of those structures is for Gore’s secret service detail, who are on duty 24 hours a day. Another is for his non-profit foundation. Most average households don’t have the energy demands of the secret service or a foundation to deal with.

Despite all this, Gore spent less per square foot on his “household” than the average Nashvillian did.

But it doesn’t stop there. A lot of Gore’s energy bill went toward premium pricing on green energy sources or offsets. A premium that worked out to 4 times the rate per kilowatt the utility normally charged. According to Gore’s office, this accounted for roughly half his energy usage. So, in fact, his actual energy consumption in terms of CO2 releases may have been three times that of the average household in Nashville, despite the fact that it was four buildings with fifteen times the area.

There were a couple of other factors. First, there was the fact that Gore bought a large, wasteful spread and had been making it more and more energy efficient as construction began the year before to remodel the place into a more energy efficient place. Gore intends for it to be a model to show what can be done with existing structures. Even as the “high electric bill” ambush attack was launched, Gore was having solar panels installed.

A lot of right wingers were demanding that Gore move into a small house. A generous size might be 1,000 square feet, in their estimation. But they quickly dried up and blew away when I asked if they wanted to make it a government policy that everyone must live in a small house. Apparently it’s the old Republican situation in which they like to demand that others live up to rules that they themselves have no intention of observing. Energy conservation, like morals, like taxes and jail time, are for the little people – and traitors to their class.

Speaking of which the Wall Street Journal online weighed in on all this. They spent some time sputtering about the inequity of “energy offsets,” oblivious to the fact that they insisted on such offsets as a compromise in order to cut back on their own waste and pollution. They had more money than will to conserve, and didn’t mind paying to sustain their lifestyle. But now the Wall Street Journal decided the best way to discredit Gore way was by waging class warfare against the rich. For those who want a good laugh, the article is here.

The rich white trash were appalled at the fact that Gore spent $500 a month to heat his pool. Nobody is quite sure where the rich white trash got this particular “fact.” Maybe, living up in New York and Connecticut and Rhode Island, they asked one another, “Well, how much do you spend to heat your pool?” and came up with a consensus answer.

There’s just one problem. Gore doesn’t live in Connecticut or Rhode Island. He lives in Tennessee. And, as with most of the American south, his energy bills are modest in the winter – often as low was $300 a month – and soar during the summer. Not surprising, since the south enjoys mild winters and is unfit for human life the rest of the year. It costs a lot more to stay cool in the summer than it does to get warm in the winter. And nobody spends $500 a month to warm a pool in Tennessee. Nobody. Not even Al Gore. The whole story was nothing more than another right wing lie by the Wall Street Journal editorial board.

So, once again, the right wing tries to get its way with lies and smears.

But this isn’t 1998. People know they are liars and smear artists these days, and there are a lot of us prepared to show their lies and smears for what they are.

And, like the “Kerry-hates-soldiers” smear last fall, or the “Pelosi-and-the-757" a few weeks ago, this smear blew up in the right wing’s lying faces.

In the meantime, they have to ignore the fact that their hero, Ann Coulter, just called John Edwards a “faggot” and pretend they hardly even know who Coulter is.

The morality of the right is a rare and amazing creature, isn’t it?