Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Quote:
Alliance targets greenhouse gases
Chicago Climate Exchange partners with group in India

Associated Press
Published August 23, 2006
...Europe has already enforced a mandatory carbon emissions trading program following the Kyoto deal, and several Indian companies have sold carbon credits worth millions of dollars to Western firms under the European trading program.
Source

Walter,
I'm not aware of any Indian companies selling carbon credits in the ECTS (european carbon trading scheme). If you have some concrete news of what has been done (not what WILL be done), I will be grateful to read.
Besides, the ECTS is not in a very good shape because of carbon credit tweaking from companies or institutions. For example, Germany has decided just a month ago NOT to count its coal electricity production in the scheme!
Even with such rule change, at current trend, it will be difficult to Europe to comply by Kyoto rules, dixit the EEA itself(see graph).
For each annex I country's emission and target, you may want to look here.
http://www.grida.no/products.cfm?PageID=10

http://org.eea.europa.eu/documents/newsreleases/Images/ghg2006_1.jpg

0 Replies

okie wrote:

real life wrote:
Interesting article

Quote:
Glaciers 'shrinking for 100 years'
From correspondents in Copenhagen, Denmark
August 22, 2006
GREENLAND'S glaciers have been shrinking for the past century, according to a Danish study published today, suggesting that the ice melt is not a recent phenomenon caused by global warming.

Danish researchers from Aarhus University studied glaciers on Disko island, in western Greenland in the Atlantic, from the end of the 19th century until the present day.

"This study, which covers 247 of 350 glaciers on Disko, is the most comprehensive ever conducted on the movements of Greenland's glaciers," glaciologist Jacob Clement Yde, who carried out the study with Niels Tvis Knudsen, said.

Using maps from the 19th century and current satellite observations, the scientists were able to conclude that "70 per cent of the glaciers have been shrinking regularly since the end of the 1880s at a rate of around eight metres per year," Mr Yde said.

"We studied 95 per cent of the area covered by glaciers in Disko and everything indicates that our results are also valid for the glaciers along the coasts of the rest of Greenland," he said.

The biggest reduction was observed between 1964 and 1985.

"A three-to-four degree increase of the temperature on Greenland from 1920 to 1930............

full story at http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20211652-1702,00.html

btw did we ever figure out why the polar icecaps on Mars are shrinking, too?

Perhaps this needs to be balanced with the story that sea ice is increasing in Antarctica:

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020820southseaice.html

I don't have the article at hand now, but also some have suggested the possibility that Greenland ice decreasing may be due at least in part to precipitation as much as it is to temperature.

Any documentation?

A hundred year drought in the Arctic? Or maybe just drier-than-normal for a century? Seems like a stretch without some figures to back it. We'll see.

Doesn't explain Mars though. Nor the possibility that we may be witnessing planetary warming on some of our other neighboring planets etc as well.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/jupiter_spots_040421.html

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/saturn-020305.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2005/09/05/state/n120553D08.DTL

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/solar_system_weather_010306-2.html

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/triton.html

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html

Hmmmmm. What do all of these planets etc share in common?

Oh yeah. Mankind made them all heat up by driving too many SUVs.

0 Replies

MiniTAX-- Thanks for the great graph on Kyoto Targets. The best article I ever read(not one from a scientist) is the one from Samuelson which, in part, replicates your graph.

Note:

Greenhouse Hypocrisy

Politicians are doing less than they claim to fight global warming. New energy technology may be the only practical option.

Robert J. Samuelson
Newsweek

June 29 - Almost a decade ago I suggested that global warming would become a "gushing" source of political hypocrisy. So it has. Politicians and scientists constantly warn of the grim outlook, and the subject is on the agenda of the upcoming Group of Eight summit of world economic leaders. But all this sound and fury is mainly exhibitionism-politicians pretending they're saving the planet. The truth is that, barring major technological advances, they can't (and won't) do much about global warming. It would be nice if they admitted that, though this seems unlikely.

Europe is the citadel of hypocrisy. Considering Europeans' contempt for the United States and George Bush for not embracing the Kyoto Protocol, you'd expect that they would have made major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions-the purpose of Kyoto. Well, not exactly. From 1990 (Kyoto's base year for measuring changes) to 2002, global emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the main greenhouse gas, increased 16.4 percent, reports the International Energy Agency. The U.S. increase was 16.7 percent, and most of Europe hasn't done much better.

Here are some IEA estimates of the increases: France, 6.9 percent; Italy, 8.3 percent; Greece, 28.2 percent; Ireland, 40.3 percent; the Netherlands, 13.2 percent; Portugal, 59 percent; Spain, 46.9 percent. It's true that Germany (down 13.3 percent) and Britain (a 5.5 percent decline) have made big reductions. But their cuts had nothing to do with Kyoto. After reunification in 1990, Germany closed many inefficient coal-fired plants in eastern Germany; that was a huge one-time saving. In Britain, the government had earlier decided to shift electric utilities from coal (high CO2 emissions) to plentiful natural gas (lower CO2 emissions).

On their present courses, many European countries will miss their Kyoto targets for 2008-2012. To reduce emissions significantly, Europeans would have to suppress driving and electricity use; that would depress economic growth and fan popular discontent. It won't happen. Political leaders everywhere deplore global warming-and then do little. Except for Eastern European nations, where dirty factories have been shuttered, few countries have cut emissions. Since 1990 Canada's emissions are up 23.6 percent; Japan's, 18.9 percent.

We are seeing similar exhibitionism in the United States. The U.S. Conference of Mayors recently endorsed Kyoto. California and New Mexico have adopted "targets" for emission cuts, reports the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. All this busywork won't much affect global warming, but who cares? The real purpose is for politicians to brandish their environmental credentials. Even if rich countries actually curbed their emissions, it wouldn't matter much. Poor countries would offset the reductions.

end of quote-

MiniTAX-You seem to be quite well versed on this subject. Please don't neglect checking in on this topic on this thread. There are several Global Warming Hysterics who don't seem to understand the truth. Your input is needed. Thanks!!

0 Replies

MiniTAX- What do you know about "carbon sinks". Is it true that the USA would be able to have almost all of its CO2 output absorbed by the large number of forests in the Northern Hemisphere? I realize that Co2 is emitted world wide but I wonder if we do our part if we could be considered a "closed system"

0 Replies

miniTAX wrote:

I'm not aware of any Indian companies selling carbon credits in the ECTS (european carbon trading scheme). If you have some concrete news of what has been done (not what WILL be done), I will be grateful to read.
...
For example, Germany has decided just a month ago NOT to count its coal electricity production in the scheme!

I'm not aware of both of above.

0 Replies

I am astonished that Mr. Walter Hinteler does not know what is happening in this sector in his own country. If he does not know what is happening in his own country, how can he possibly comment on the USA's energy needs and problems?

The material below may help:

pdf version: april18.pdf 36.63 KB

ENERGY AND EMISSIONS

1.1. EU CO2 Emission Prices Hit New Record High
13 April 2006 , Planet Ark
European carbon dioxide emission prices briefly jumped to new record highs on Wednesday, boosted by surging oil prices and strong German power markets.
Carbon quotas for December 2007 delivery climbed to 31 euros a tonne, although they eased to 30.25 euros at the close, down 10 cents from Wednesday's finish but still around historic highs.
The gains are feeding through into higher wholesale power prices and are set to be passed on to consumers via further increases in industrial and residential electricity bills, which have already risen sharply over the last year.
Carbon dioxide prices have climbed about five fold since the launch last year of the European Union's emission trading scheme, the centrepiece of the bloc's efforts to reduce greenhouse gas pollution and curb global warming.
High oil prices will trigger gains in European gas prices, encouraging power producers to burn more coal and increasing their demand for CO2 quotas as coal is much dirtier than gas.
Dry weather in Europe is reducing carbon-free hydropower output and prompting generators, especially in Spain , to burn more fossil fuel.
"Water shortages and high pressure across Europe are expected to curtail clean energy generation," Deutsche Bank said in a recent energy report.
"We expect this will place significant upward pressure on European emission and German power prices."
Deutsche has forecast emission prices could rise towards 40 euros over the coming year.
British energy shares gain: Shares in UK power producer British Energy rose 1.8 percent, a leading FTSE 100 gainer in a broadly lower market, on the high carbon prices.
British Energy, which generates most of its power through nuclear plants, does not have the same exposure to rising costs caused by CO2 prices as its coal and gas focused rivals.
UK forward wholesale electricity prices rose sharply, especially summer contracts.
Summer 07 gained 40 pence to 46.40 pounds a megawatt hour while the following summer firmed 80 pence to 48.35/48.50 pounds.
European gas prices are indexed to oil, so gains in crude markets feed through into gas prices, although with a lag of between six and nine months.
Oil hovered near a record high on Wednesday, boosted by uncertainty over supplies from major exporters Iran and Nigeria .
German power prices for 2007 hit record highs on Tuesday. Traders say the strong German prices encourage utilities to sell forward electricity and buy the carbon quotas they need to cover their production.
Germany is Europe 's top carbon polluter. Power stations pump out 80 percent of the country's CO2 emissions, making its utilities important players in the CO2 market.
Story by Margaret Orgill

1.2. Germany publishes cornerstones of second phase NAP
12 April 2006 , Point Carbon
Germany will allocate 495.5 million tonnes per year under its provisional second phase allocation plan, compared to 499 million tonnes in the first trading period, it emerged today.
However, while the volume appears to be only a slight cut from the first period, the inclusion of installations such as crackers means the comparable volume is 485 million tonnes, a cut of 14 million tonnes (2.8 per cent) from the first phase.
Industrial emitters will receive 98.75 per cent of their required volumes, according to a paper obtained from the federal environment ministry which summarises the main points of the plan, while utilities will receive 85 per cent. Small emitters with up to 25,000 tonnes of CO2 per year will be allocated all necessary certificates.
Minister Sigmar Gabriel explained that industrial emitters were exposed to international competition and thus not able to pass on costs for additional EUAs on to their customers. Also, they were hardly able to reduce emissions further because the largest part was process-related. On the other hand, German power producers enjoyed only limited competition and had profited from major windfall profits.
The reserve will be considerably larger than to date - instead of the current three million tonnes per year, it will be 10 million tonnes.
Another two million tonnes per year will be used for what the ministry calls "re-financing of system costs." That relates mainly to costs that the state-owned bank KfW might have from acquiring additional certificates on the market and introducing it into the system, as the government is not allowed to do so directly.
Facilities will be allowed to cover up to 12 per cent of their allocation volume through participation in flexible mechanism projects, which amounts to 60 million tonnes per year.
New plants will receive the full amount of certificates needed for 14 years - provided that they meet strict benchmarks, the ministry said. This would create a major incentive to invest in new and modern plants.
The number of special allocation rules will be dramatically reduced, the paper says. The option rule, under which facilities could apply for certificates on the basis of production forecasts rather than historic emissions, has been scrapped. It caused major disturbances in the first round of allocations and led to a much higher demand than anticipated.
The plan is open for public consultation after which amendments may be made and the plan will then go to the EC for approval before 30 June.
end of quote

NOTE--THE STORY CLAIMS THAT GERMANY IS EUROPE'S TOP CARBON POLLUTER!!!

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

MiniTAX- What do you know about "carbon sinks". Is it true that the USA would be able to have almost all of its CO2 output absorbed by the large number of forests in the Northern Hemisphere? I realize that Co2 is emitted world wide but I wonder if we do our part if we could be considered a "closed system"

Anthropogenic CO2 is measured in the atmosphere by dosing C14 content : fossile fuel's carbon contains no C14 so the C14/C12 proportion should decrease if more carbon is released by men. And indeed it has after a spike in the 60's due to atmospheric atom bomb tests. See graph from DIAC.
C14 atmospheric content is needed for precise carbon datation and is very closely monitored. Scientists thought it is constant but it is recently proved to vary widely with solar cylce, earth magnetic field (which influences cosmic radiation doses), atom tests, ocean temperature (warmer => less CO2 solubility), etc and of course anthropogenic GHG.
All this digression to say to know what is PRECISELY the AGHG proportion in the air, what is absorbed or not, is nearly mission impossible (the IPCC's 120 year life of CO2 in the atmosphere is for example a controversial number). Those same damned error bars. As to your question of knowing US GHG balance (SUVs emission versus forest absortion), unless US CO2 has a specific odor (of money ? :wink: ), needless to say it's sci-fi.
For the moment, man's emission is about 6,5 GtC per year (don't know if 6.5 B world population's CO2 in respiration is counted), estimated from the input of burned hydrocarbons. Oceans absorb around 2 Gt (estimated from isotope C13 dosing), terrestrial biosphere about 0,2 Gt (all numbers with considerable margins of error) the rest contribute to an increase of about 1 to 2 ppm atmospheric CO2/year.

Sure GHG is increasing in the atmosphere. Sure precise anthropogenic part in this increase of GHG is still in debate. Sure anthropogenic part in the resulted increase of temperature is still in debate. These are natural scientific debates necessary for any incomplete science.

The rest of the carboncentrism debates, about how to qualify current GHG increase, what to think of the results of models, how to fathom the unknown consequences, how bad (or good) a warmer world should be perceived, what preventive action should be taken, what is the priority of action compared to malaria, aids, lack of drinking water, overpopulation ... is to me more politics than science and should be left to personal choice. But that assumes everybody is well informed of the science which is a rather wild guess Cool

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/cent-vegr.gif

0 Replies

Minitax WROTE(IN PART)

The rest of the carboncentrism debates, about how to qualify current GHG increase, what to think of the results of models, how to fathom the unknown consequences, how bad (or good) a warmer world should be perceived, what preventive action should be taken, what is the priority of action compared to malaria, aids, lack of drinking water, overpopulation ... is to me more politics than science and should be left to personal choice. But that assumes everybody is well informed of the science which is a rather wild guess.

end of quote_

Wonderful, MiniTAX. It sounds like you have read Bjorn Lomborg's wonderful book-"The Skeptical Environmentalist" or maybe, you are both on the same page since he says almost the same thing you have written above!

The qualification of the CHG increases, as I am sure you are aware, have been further confused by the presentation of the IPCC of around FORTY different scenarios. Ridiculous!!

The results of models? That means the results of the Assumptions fed into them, does it not? Like the Assumptions made by Paul Ehrlich when he said we would have famine spread world wide by 1990!

And, yes, how do we fathom the unknown consequences. Dr, Lomborg approaches the problem as a cost-benefit problem. He says that we might be better off using money that would slice off just a tiny slice of global warming, whose consquences are really unknown, in helping the third world solve the problems you list--malaria, Aids, drinking water.

THANKS FOR YOUR COMPLETE AND INTERESTING ANSWER, MiniTAX- Hope to hear from you again!!!

0 Replies

BernardR,
No I haven't read the "controversial" Skeptical Environmentalist (or Ecologiste Sceptique in French, "en rupture de stock" on Amazon.fr !).

Maybe I'll read Lomborg's latest book "How to Spend $50 Billion to Make the World a Better Place" but it's not a cheap book and I should spare my money to pay a next future french carbon tax Laughing

Thanks God, we have plenty of nuclear plants and a carbon tax (for cars if I understand well) is just something in preparation. But we already have a 400% tax on car gas, so who knows what will be passed ? :wink:

0 Replies

Is it true( as I read on a US web site) that the French Tax takes about 60% of one's gross salary?

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

Is it true( as I read on a US web site) that the French Tax takes about 60% of one's gross salary?

[Offtopic On]An employer must disbourse 180 euros for his employee to pocket 100 euros, on which you have 19,6% of VAT (5,6% VAT for food, more for luxury products), 400% gas tax (when a gas seller gets 2 euros on which he earns a dozen cents of benefit, gov takes 8 euros, users pays 10 euros, diesel is a little less taxed), revenue tax (personnally, I pay about 20% of my net income), housing tax...

Counting all this, well, a 60% tax on salaried income must be a correct conservative mean number. In France, you pay MORE tax if your revenue comes from your labor (salary) than if it comes from financial gains. Funny for a socialist state, isn't it?
Bill Gates once declares : "France is the best place to spend and the worst place to earn money". He is utterly right.

P.S. BTW I understand that US gas tax is about 40% depending the state you're in. Maybe you can confirm it with some examples ?
[Offtopic Off]

0 Replies

Yes, MiniTax- In Illinois, the current Gas Prices are about $3.40 a gallon for Premium. Quite High because, they say, because of additives. I have read that the price of a gallon of gas(before taxes and before special additives-depends on the section of the country) is around $1.95. Now, even if additives add .50 cents per gallon to the cost, the FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL TAXES TAKE AT LEAST ONE DOLLAR PER GALLON.

0 Replies

MiniTax- If you don't mind--I would like to switch back to the alleged Global Warming--specifically carbon sinks. I referenced this bit-

The average pool size (tons carbon per hectare) in Europe and the USA is larger than in Canada and Russia (54-58 vs. 38-44). Amongst the European countries, Austria, France and Germany have notably large average pools (60, 67 and 73, respectively). The estimates for Finland, Norway and Sweden are comparable to Russia (35-40 vs. 38).

Does this mean that we do a relatively good job with our carbon sinks in taking care of CO2 emissions?

0 Replies

carbon sink

BernardR wrote:

The average pool size (tons carbon per hectare) in Europe and the USA is larger than in Canada and Russia (54-58 vs. 38-44). Amongst the European countries, Austria, France and Germany have notably large average pools (60, 67 and 73, respectively). The estimates for Finland, Norway and Sweden are comparable to Russia (35-40 vs. 38).

Bernard,
I don't know what you mean by "pool size" and what is the reference of it. If it is carbon sink (per year ?, per hectare of forest or territory ?), it seems hefty numbers. For example, just with France, you have about 500.000 square km of all lands, or a "pool" of 50 mega hectares or 3 GtC (I used your number of 60 for France). Remember that terrestrial carbon sink is 0,2 GtC/year globally ! If it means total biomass, it accounts for less than half the annual global fossil fuel emission which is 6,5 GtC/y. You may want to watch at this 2001 carbon cycle from the IPCC (not up to date but fine in proportions) http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig3-1.htm

What I know is that
- Northern hemisphere forest surface expands annually (in France, we have 50% more forest than in 1900).
- Southern hemisphere temperate zone carbon sink is negligible because it is made mostly of oceans.
- France or US vegetal productivity is bigger than higher latitude countries because were have warmer and sunnier climates.
- A mature forest emits (respiration) almost as much as it sinks (growth & biomass formation) carbon. Younger or well managed forests absorb more CO2 thanks to more growing trees. And the balance is very rapidly, on a climate timescale, upset by wildfire such as those giant forest fires found in the USA or in Siberia. Another example is in 2003 where a big heatwave hit Europe, it is estimated that year's forests were a net emitter (!) of carbon... the model said so :wink: (Source : Ciais et al., Nature, septembre 2005). Another controversial study by Bellamy et al. (Nature, septembre 2005) showed that from 1978 to 2003, Great Britan soils were a net emitter of carbon. Controversial because because many other studies say the opposite (google for this on the site http://www.co2science.org).
- Measuring forest carbon fluxes is a highly acrobatical task. For example, the two european CO2 monitoring projects Aerocarb and Carbeurope don't have more than... 30 measuring stations each all over Europe !!! Needless to say what is the real CO2 balance of forests, what CO2 comes from cars, town or industrial plants and what comes from trees, what is localized and what is brought by winds for ALL forests is highly speculative. As for the Amazon forest, measuring stations are even scarcer and the exact fluxes are even less known. Should satellites have a direct or indirect CO2 measure (as for Temperature, cloud cover, humidty...), it would be OK thanks to their much better spatial capabilities, but unfortunately they have NOT. Researches are on the way (more money is needed :wink:).

All that to say that I'll take your numbers with a big grain of salt, if you don't mind Rolling Eyes

The US may, or may not sink more carbon or less than another country. To me, the answer which may be both or none as nobody knows is futile when you ask an aside question: what is more important to deal with, a 1ppm/y (0,0001%) increase in atmospheric CO2 or a 1%/y increase in national debt, a 2,5%/y increase in world's population, a 2 Million malaria deaths/y?

0 Replies

Re: carbon sink

miniTAX wrote:

- Northern hemisphere forest surface expands annually (in France, we have 50% more forest than in 1900).

With a little knowledge of history about France, the reason for that is quite understandable and has nothing at all to do with the topic discussed here.*

That (most) northern hemispehere forests expanded had to be expected: we (and the EU) spend a lot of money in reforesting and if there had been any significant results ...

* Though when I look at photos, which I took in the early 70's and those from the last couple of years: a long way to go to get forests like in the past! (Especially around where you live, miniTAX, in Landes.)

0 Replies

Just one small reason I love the Brit press... (this from the Independent's website front page)

Quote:

And now for the weather forecast: 'It's pissing down'

0 Replies

Re: carbon sink

Walter Hinteler wrote:

* Though when I look at photos, which I took in the early 70's and those from the last couple of years: a long way to go to get forests like in the past! (Especially around where you live, miniTAX, in Landes.)

... if we ever get there one day, when les Landes were marshes and not a uniform man made pine forest, with all these German, Dutch and Belgian flocking to our coasts for sea, sun and... Laughing

(just kidding, don't want to wage another war we'll lose again. Come many of you and spend a good time instead :wink: ).

0 Replies

I might really agree that the Landes should become again what they had been.

But those pines weren't planted for tourists (and believe me: at the end of the 60's/in the earliest 70's only very few foreigners were there).

But this wasn't my point: you were bringing up the 1900 date (seen a photo from the landes about that time :wink: ).

0 Replies

Quote:

Earlier springs and later autumns: climate change sends nature awry

· Shifting seasons threaten plants, birds and insects
· Scientists urge action to counter global warming

Ian Sample, science correspondent
Saturday August 26, 2006
The Guardian

Spring is arriving earlier each year as a result of climate change, the first "conclusive proof" that global warming is altering the timing of the seasons, scientists announced yesterday.
In what is believed to be the world's largest study of seasonal events, such as the flowering of plants, autumnal leaf fall and insect behaviour, scientists found that spring now arrives six to eight days earlier across Europe than in the early 1970s. Warmer temperatures have also delayed autumn, by an average of three days in the past 30 years, the scientists report.

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1858859,00.html

0 Replies

Quote:

Ice Age gives clues to global warming: study By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent
Fri Aug 25, 1:23 PM ET

Ice Age evidence confirms that a doubling of greenhouse gases could drive up world temperatures by about 3 Celsius (5.4 Fahrenheit), causing havoc with the climate, a study showed on Friday.

The researchers made a novel check of computer climate forecasts about the modern impact of heat-trapping gases, widely blamed on use of fossil fuels, against ice cores and marine sediments from the last Ice Age which ended 10,000 years ago.

"A doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations would cause a global temperature increase of around 3 Celsius," said Thomas Schneider of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research who led the report.

The findings broadly back up other Potsdam forecasts about the effects of a build-up of carbon dioxide emitted by power plants, cars and factories. Some skeptics dismiss such models as exaggerations.

Temperatures have already risen by 0.6 Celsius since before the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century. Many scientists project that higher temperatures will cause more heatwaves, droughts, floods and rising sea levels.

Greenhouse gas concentrations are likely to double from pre-Industrial levels this century unless the world drastically cuts energy use and shifts to clean wind or solar power.

The Potsdam scientists worked out 1,000 climate model versions, each with different assumptions of the behavior of clouds, ocean currents and other factors.

They then checked the likelihood of the scenarios against climate shifts at the end of the Ice Age -- carbon dioxide trapped in air bubbles in ice and the chemical makeup of marine sediments which gives clues to temperatures.

Schneider said the study, published in the journal Climate Dynamics, indicated that the outer ranges of likely temperature rises were 1.2-4.3 Celsius if carbon dioxide levels doubled.

Still, he said the study meant temperatures were unlikely to rise by six or seven degrees, as some studies had suggested.

The European Union wants to limit any rise in temperatures linked to global warming to 2 Celsius -- a threshold it sees as triggering "dangerous" climate change.

Carbon dioxide levels were far lower at the end of the last Ice Age than in the 18th century. Today, concentrations are at their highest level for at least 650,000 years.

The scientific panel that advises the United Nations has forecast that world temperatures could rise by 1.4-5.8 Celsius by 2100. The Potsdam survey merely projects the impact of a doubling of carbon dioxide, without giving any dates.

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know