… otherwise, the few hundred peer reviewed articles summarized and referenced in this pre-Copenhagen summary showing, once again, that climate change is worse than the uber-conservative IPCC has been estimating might really scare me. I mean, what if it were really true that these few hundred recent peer-reviewed articles show that:

Surging greenhouse gas emissions: Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels in 2008 were nearly 40 percent higher than those in 1990. Even if global emission rates are stabilized at present-day levels, just 20 more years of emissions would give a 25 percent probability that warming exceeds 2°C, even with zero emissions after 2030. Every year of delayed action increases the chances of exceeding 2°C warming.

Recent global temperatures demonstrate human-induced warming: Over the past 25 years temperatures have increased at a rate of 0.19°C per decade, in very good agreement with predictions based on greenhouse gas increases. Even over the past ten years, despite a decrease in solar forcing, the trend continues to be one of warming. Natural, short-term fluctuations are occurring as usual, but there have been no significant changes in the underlying warming trend.

Acceleration of melting of ice-sheets, glaciers and ice-caps: A wide array of satellite and ice measurements now demonstrate beyond doubt that both the Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheets are losing mass at an increasing rate. Melting of glaciers and ice-caps in other parts of the world has also accelerated since 1990.

Rapid Arctic sea-ice decline: Summer-time melting of Arctic sea-ice has accelerated far beyond the expectations of climate models. The area of sea-ice melt during 2007-2009 was about 40 percent greater than the average prediction from IPCC AR4 climate models.

Current sea-level rise underestimated: Satellites show recent global average sea-level rise (3.4 mm/yr over the past 15 years) to be ~80 percent above past IPCC predictions. This acceleration in sea-level rise is consistent with a doubling in contribution from melting of glaciers, ice caps, and the Greenland and West-Antarctic ice-sheets

Sea-level predictions revised: By 2100, global sea-level is likely to rise at least twice as much as projected by Working Group 1 of the IPCC AR4; for unmitigated emissions it may well exceed 1 meter. The upper limit has been estimated as ~ 2 meters sea level rise by 2100. Sea level will continue to rise for centuries after global temperatures have been stabilized, and several meters of sea level rise must be expected over the next few centuries.

Delay in action risks irreversible damage: Several vulnerable elements in the climate system (e.g. continental icesheets, Amazon rainforest, West African monsoon and others) could be pushed towards abrupt or irreversible change if warming continues in a business-as-usual way throughout this century. The risk of transgressing critical thresholds (“tipping points”) increases strongly with ongoing climate change. Thus waiting for higher levels of scientific certainty could mean that some tipping points will be crossed before they are recognized.

The turning point must come soon: If global warming is to be limited to a maximum of 2 °C above pre-industrial values, global emissions need to peak between 2015 and 2020 and then decline rapidly. To stabilize climate, a decarbonized global society—with near-zero emissions of CO2 and other long-lived greenhouse gases—needs to be reached well within this century. More specifically, the average annual per-capita emissions will have to shrink to well under 1 metric ton CO2 by 2050. This is 80-95% below the per-capita emissions in developed nations in 2000.

Boy … if there really were several hundred recent peer-reviewed articles to show these things, we’d really be toast.

Oh wait … there are. You’ve just read the executive summary. Don’t believe it? Download the full report. After that, feel free to wade through the hundreds of articles in the references section, downloading whichever ones you question and reading them in their entirety.

Here’s that URL again in case you missed it up top.

The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Climate Science Report

Footnote: Do you think that the leaked emails prove anything about these few hundred articles? Well, let’s look carefully at what even the very few selected emails quoted out of context by a bunch of literal thieves with an agenda show. Nothing in those emails indicates a global conspiracy of climate scientists to get rich and take over the world.

Read these two articles on the subject. I think they make clear what the emails do and more importantly do not show.

The CRU hack
The CRU hack: Context

Here’s an excellent write-up that describes the ways in which we are stealing from future generations to feed ourselves and the parallels between doing so and any other Ponzi scheme.

PONZICONOMY: Our global pyramid scheme

I’ve read Plan B 2.0, an excellent book, and notice that there is a link to a new version Plan B 4.0 by Lester Brown.

Don’t forget, the article doesn’t even mention the fact that not only is the oil at the pump a subsidized and limited resource, so is the oil we pour on our corn as fertilizer.

That’s right, industrial fertilizers are petroleum products. We’re eating oil!! That can’t be good for either our health or our long term prospects in terms of a very large population dependent on a fossil, non-renewable, resource.

This may appear to undermine a number of my earlier posts. However, in this case, I think the point is extremely important. We must begin to recognize and tell the truth of the true nature of our problems. That said, we must also use every weapon in our arsenal to fight for the preservation of the environment to the best of our ability. Most likely the only tool that will actually be worth a damn will be birth control. Yet, we must still do all we can to reduce our ecological (including carbon) footprints while at the same time taking action to reduce the number of feet. The regulars on this blog will remember that I have already argued that the planet cannot support even 300 million of us, let alone 6.7, 8, or 9 billion. So, in that sense, this article is still somewhat consistent with my prior posts. However, I cannot recall previously gotting to the point of wording the issue such that climate change is a mere symptom of a much larger problem, one that involves not only too many people, but people with a completely failed view of the finite planet on which we depend for our very lives every single day.

The fallacy of climate activism

Here are some interesting points about laptop vs. desktop and about how to use the least power with a laptop. There are some points I’d never considered before. Though I knew that it’s best for the battery was to run it ’til dead when using battery power before charging again, I had never considered the possibility of really saving the battery itself by removing the damn thing when plugged into the wall. Interesting.

Keep On Plugging: Should you run your laptop off battery power or use a charger?

Thanks rit

Please read this article about Carter’s 1977 speech and tell me now that Carter was bad for the country and Reagan was good. Go ahead. Tell me now which of those two presidents had the right long term plan for this country. Tell me how much worse off we would have been had we continued with Carter’s energy plan. Tell me that this speech of Carter’s didn’t detail a large chunk of the events that have now come to pass as a result of not following his plan.

Do you think that we would have the need to take over Iraq as the United States National Petroleum Park?
Do you think we would have been chanting “Drill Baby Drill”?
Do you think that maybe, just maybe, a significantly reduced demand for oil would have left today’s oil-rich nations in an economic state where they would be less able to fund terrorism?
Do you think that perhaps they would have been less angry at the U.S. and less likely to commit the attrocity of 9/11?

The first two points seem obvious. The last two are, of course, highly speculative. However, had the U.S. taken the lead in renewable energy from 1977 forward, it seems obvious, at least to me, that the technology would be far beyond where it is today. The technology would be providing a major portion of the world’s energy. The U.S. would have had a strong economy based on selling renewable energy around the world instead of a weak one based on importing an ever increasing percentage of a limited resource. As a direct result of all the renewable energy that does not now but would have existed in this alternate universe, the price of oil would be very low indeed. There would just not be much demand for it.

Certainly we would not have the psychotic level of demand we have today, of which, 25% of the world’s demand is ours here in the U.S. When I say psychotic, I really mean it too. Our view of the world and of energy are a true split with the reality of the limited resource and of global climate.

So, as election day draws near, please consider whether we want to continue to “Drill Baby Drill” our way into the oblivion of extinction taking many beautiful species with us or whether we want to at least try something new. Perhaps, just perhaps, we should finally try some of this newfangled renewable energy. And, perhaps, just perhaps, we will stave off the worst effects of global warming, energy insecurity, and our economic crisis all at once.

See, not only would renewable energy give us a stable source of energy, which is a lot more important than energy independence, it would create a whole new industry here in the U.S. We could have a renewable energy boom similar to the internet boom of the 90s. This would stimulate our economy now and provide stable, clean energy for tomorrow, a tomorrow that may otherwise not be there at all for our species.

Vote for clean energy. Vote Obama.

(Don’t love Obama? He wasn’t my first choice either. He is by far the best choice available now. Drill Baby Drill is not the answer to any of our problems, short term or long term.)

There is also a description of Earth the Sequel on EDF’s website. There’s a book signing in Manhattan. Details below pasted from an email I received from EDF.

Join Fred Krupp and Suzanne Vega for a book signing on March
10th!

***********************

Are you ready for the clean energy future that’s about to
explode? Don’t miss this energizing book talk and signing event
on Monday, March 10th at Barnes and Noble’s Union Square
location.

Environmental Defense Fund President Fred Krupp will talk about
his exciting new book, Earth: The Sequel – The Race to Reinvent
Energy and Stop Global Warming. The event will also feature
Grammy Award-winning singer and songwriter Suzanne Vega.

Earth: The Sequel describes a high-stakes race that has already
begun. It involves the smartest minds in America, from venture
capitalists in Silicon Valley to scientists in the Alaskan
wilderness to inventors in garages. They are competing to
reinvent energy as we know it and solve the world’s global
warming crisis.

Come meet the author and get inspired by the clean energy
revolution about to explode.

Who: Environmental Defense Fund President Fred Krupp and special
guest Suzanne Vega

What: Earth: The Sequel book talk and signing event

When: Monday, March 10th – 7:00pm

Where: Barnes & Noble, Union Square – 33 East 17th Street:
http://action.environmentaldefense.org/ct/81aE_Y610zQy/

For the West Coast crowd, there’s also a signing on Sunday 3/16 in Portland, OR. at Powel’s Books.

I’ll be at the Manhattan signing. Though, since I don’t look much like my avatar you probably won’t recognize me.

How would you like it spent?

Here’s the link for anyone who wants to sign the petition.

I’ve tried to keep my blog from becoming one big current events show and tell type blog. I’m going to break that rule here and just post a good video. Enjoy. Feel free to comment, of course.