Global warming is likely to overshoot a 2C (3.6F) rise, which is seen by the EU and many developing nations as a trigger for dangerous climate change, a poll of scientists showed on Tuesday.
Nine of the 11 experts, who were among authors of the final summary by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), also said the evidence that human activity is to blame for climate change had grown stronger in the past two years.
Giving personal views of recent research, most projected on average a faster melt of summer ice in the Arctic and a quicker rise in sea levels than estimated in the 2007 report, the most authoritative overview to date drawing on work by 2,500 experts.
“A lot of the impacts we’re seeing are running ahead of our expectations” William Hare, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research
Ten of 11 experts said it was at best “unlikely” that the world would manage to limit warming to a 2C (3.6F) rise above pre-industrial levels.
Avoiding the worst
The European Union, many developing nations and environmental groups say 2C above pre-industrial levels is the maximum to avoid the worst of rising sea levels, floods, droughts or heatwaves. Temperatures are already up 0.7C.
“The concentration of long-lived greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is already enough to cause warming of more than 2C above pre-industrial levels, and we are continuing to emit more and more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere” David Karoly, University of Melbourne
Officials from 175 nations are meeting in Bonn, Germany, for 11 days of negotiations lasting until 8th April on a new UN climate treaty due to be agreed in December.
Six of the scientists said world average annual temperatures would set a new record by 2015 – and another four projected that it would happen by 2020 – dismissing views from skeptics that global warming has stopped.
From Reuters
6 comments… read them below or add yours now
You don’t “poll” scientists. Science is not done by consensus. Just ask Copernicus or Galileo (if you could!). I am not casting doubt on what was said but I’s be more inclined to believe any of it if I was presented with hypothesis, experimentation and conclusion, not 4 out of 5 dentists kind of stuff. Our friend Galileo was excommunicated because he was the 1 out of 11 who disagreed because he had the facts on his side
That’s a good point- it’s the science itself that matters, not the majority opinion. Then again, back when Galileo was excommunicated, there were only a few people making the decisions, whereas today we all have a say (or we should) in the course of our lives and our society. So how do we decide which direction to go in? We can’t all be scientists, understanding the complexities involved and making informed decisions. The best we can do is trust that those who do understand are right. And when they disagree, we have to go with the majority opinion.
On another note, this is pretty depressing. Is there any hope? Anything that will make a significant difference within, say, a generation? Perhaps we can find ways to help here:
http://www.greatnonprofits.org/green
@Michael J Pratt: Welcome to Green Pepper and thanks for sharing your views. I’m guessing you like being pedantic just for the hell of it (or maybe for the link back to your blog?!). You can, in fact, poll whoever you like, which is what the article by Reuters (one of the largest and most respected news organisations on the planet) set out to do. It wasn’t presented as scientific evidence – which is beyond the scope of the article – but as the informed opinion of leading experts on climate change who, like Galileo, had all the facts. I believe the “hypothesis, experimentation and conclusion” was made available in the final summary by the IPCC in 2007. I’ve not read it myself but feel free to get back to me when you have, assuming you can get your head out of the sand long enough to do so.
@Shari: Likewise, welcome to Green Pepper. Depressing though the news may be, we can’t ignore the opinions of experts and the warning signs. It’s a wake-up call for us to take action and do what we can to reduce our impact on the planet. Thanks for joining the discussion and letting us know about your website.
Paul – I take it you think I have my head in the sand because you assume I am on a different side of the global warming argument than you? You’d be wrong to assume that. I was merely pointing out that we ought to rely on the process of science to draw our conclusions. Of course, you can “poll” whomever you like, let’s just not call it science. You seem to take things quite personally, so much so as to feel the need to resort to insults. That’s cool, it’s your blog and right to do so. Not sure it ranks high in the “effective ways to disagree with people and keep ‘em coming back” category, but then again, i cam e back so what do I know? I have, in fact, read the IPCC report and it has a lot of quality science, in addition to some glaring errors. There was a ton of hypothesis, a fair amount of experimentation, and way too much conclusion. often those conclusions were at odds, even within the report itself. As a result, we can’t draw as much conclusion as we like. We need irrefutable science, not irrefutable consensus. Reuters is definitely respected but it doesn’t change the fact that polling scientists is not how you make a point.
And clearly I took the time to write a comment here simply for the link back to my blog. For crying out loud, you have a field for it. I would think you’d go after Shari for the blaspheme of going so far as to include it in her post. The Horror! I left it off this time if that helps. Thanks for being so open minded.
@Michael J Pratt: No insults there, just observations, because you appeared to be denying the expert opinions on which the article is based. I don’t take anything here personally, it’s not about me, it’s about the precious planet that sustains us. Glad to hear we’re on the same side of the global warming argument. No problem with people including links in their comments either, providing that it contributes to the discussion and is of interest to our readers ;-)
Not denying the science at all. I would like to see some admission that thre are some glaring holes in certain scientists findings (particularly the one’s Al Gore uses to back him up) that ought to be addressed. A perfect example are the historical CO2 charts he used in his presentations in Inconvenient Truth. They clearly show that CO2 increases, while mirroring the temp rise on the chart, actually were preceded by the rise in an obvious shift on the chart. This has been shown by more than a few scientists but dismissed out of hand. Yes, the planet is warming. Yes there will be huge consequences. Are we 100% on all the science behind it? Not even close. As a result, we ought to be careful on the decisions we make going forward. That’s all.