Carbon in atmosphere 'could warm planet for centuries'

Global warming could continue for centuries even if carbon emissions were stopped overnight.

  A diesel particulate filter captures small soot particles,preventing

 them from being expelled into the atmosphere

Carbon dioxide which is already in our atmosphere could continue warming the planet for centuries even if new emissions were entirely halted, scientists claim.

A new analysis of future carbon emission scenarios found that it may take significantly fewer emissions for global temperatures to reach unsafe levels than previously thought.
Carbon dioxide, the most important greenhouse gas, has long-term effects because it can remain in the atmosphere for centuries after it is emitted.

To understand how long its influence on global temperatures will last, scientists produced a computer model of a scenario where all carbon emissions were immediately stopped after 1,800 billion tonnes had been released into the atmosphere.

They found that 40 per cent of the carbon would be absorbed by the oceans or landmasses within 20 years of emissions ceasing, 60 per cent within 100 years and 80 per cent within 1,000 years.

The decreasing levels of carbon in the atmosphere should in theory have a cooling effect, but this would be outweighed by the fact the oceans will absorb less and less heat as time goes on.

Previous studies had suggested that global temperatures would remain steady or decline if emissions were suddenly stopped, but did not account for the declining capacity of the oceans to continue absorbing heat, the scientists claimed.

Eventually the warming effect of heat which is no longer being absorbed by the oceans and is lingering in the atmosphere will outweigh the cooling caused by declining CO2 levels, they said.
Results published in the Nature Climate Change journal suggest that after an initial century of cooling following the stoppage of emissions, the planet would then warm by 0.37C over a 400 year period.
Although the change sounds small, it is almost half the total amount of warming seen since the start of the industrial era which stands at 0.85C.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an increase of 2C or more above pre-industrial levels could result in dangerous effects on the climate system.

Experts have previously warned that to keep global temperature rises below 2C, humans must keep the total amount of carbon dioxide emitted in the industrial era below 1,000 billion tonnes, about half of which has already been released.

But the new study suggests the 2C benchmark could be reached with significantly lower carbon emissions.
Dr Thomas Frölicher of Princeton University, who led the study, said: "If our results are correct, the total carbon emissions required to stay below two degrees of warming would have to be three-quarters of previous estimates, only 750 billion tons instead of 1,000 billion tons of carbon.

"Thus, limiting the warming to two degrees would require keeping future cumulative carbon emissions below 250 billion tons, only half of the already emitted amount of 500 billion tons."

Photo credit - Nick Collins Content Courtesy - Telegraph

Why the Insurance Industry won’t save us from Climate Change

RL Miller debugs the shaky Insurance industry and Climate Change relationship

A myth floats around among those seeking free-market solutions to climate change that insurers will be a positive force. Insurers are worried about the impact of climate on their business model. They will increase rates. Expensive insurance will drive people off the coasts. People and property won't be as affected by coastal storms. Most recently, Fast Company asked whether trillion-dollar storms will drive us off the coasts: "Just how long until large chunks of America's coastline become virtually uninsurable, starting with Lower Manhattan? Some would say this is a good thing, a perfect example of markets appropriately pricing risk and (dis-)incentivizing people accordingly."

There's only one problem: This market-driven solution won't work.

Insurers are worried about climate change, with good reason. A recent Ceres report found, generally, that they're ill-prepared for climate. Their model for pricing risks depends on historical models, which are meaningless in the time of the new normal.

For several years Munich Re, the giant reinsurer, has been advocating for governments to do something about climate change, based on rational self-interest: If governments can prevent it from happening, then insurers won't have to pay out. Guess that didn't work out so well -- thanks, United States Senate! As climate mitigation seems to be failing, adaptation strategies become necessary.

The first adaptation strategy will be to raise rates. Here, the free market advocates are giddy. Coastal insurance will become very expensive, so no one will live on the coasts! Yay! However, it won't work. A look at two southern California coastal communities illustrates the free-market failure of insurance to deter people from living near the coast.

Malibu is a notoriously high-risk area -- I joke, "Do you know what Malibu means in the Chumash language? 'Stupid people live here.'" It's prone to fires and landslides. Year after year, TV cameras cover muddy devastation, wrecked mansions, and teary-eyed residents vowing to rebuild. And, generally, they do rebuild. But they rarely do so with insurance money, because California policies don't cover landslides. Insurance in Malibu has become so expensive that many residents rely on the FAIR Plan, an insurance pool of last resort. Although California's FAIR plan was created in 1968 ostensibly to aid inner-city residents who were considered uninsurable after the 1965 Watts Riots, it now serves wealthy homeowners who have chosen to live in high-risk canyons and coastlines. And wealthy people have lobbied the state legislature for concessions in coverage.

Twenty-eight states have similar plans that cover certain high-risk weather events -- brushfires in Malibu; wind and hail damage in coastal communities in Georgia and New York. FAIR Plan high premiums and limited coverage haven't deterred people from living in high-weather-risk areas so far.

Another way of understanding how high premiums fail to act as a deterrent is to imagine yourself with enough money to buy your dream car -- that fire-engine-red Lotus, that 1965 Mustang, that Tesla Roadster. Insurance on that car is expensive. Does that stop you? If so, you're rare. People who can afford to live on the coast do so for reasons wholly divorced from pragmatic cost issues.

In short, the free market of high insurance premiums and limited coverage hasn't deterred people from living in pricey coastal communities. Climate change will raise premiums and limit coverage, but people will still want to live in Malibu. But what of less expensive coastal communities?

La Conchita is a small community sandwiched between the coast and steep, unstable mountains on the Ventura-Santa Barbara county line. A 1995 landslide buried seven homes. Property values plummeted, insurance became unaffordable, and people moved in anyway. Why did they move in? Because you could get a walk-to-beach home for $500,000 instead of the $5 million you'd spend in Santa Barbara or Malibu. The area took on a surfing haven reputation -- a little funky, a little high-risk, a lot less expensive. People moved in, paid cash, and thus weren't required to have insurance, or went onto the FAIR Plan -- again, the cost of insurance wasn't a factor. Then a second landslide in 2005 killed 10 people. The $500,000 house is now marked down to $350,000, and no one is buying it. Although no significant connection has been made between the storms of 1995 and 2005 and climate change, La Conchita may be a harbinger of what's to come: high-risk hamlets.

A new OECD report finds that the two American cities most vulnerable to rising sea levels are New York and Miami. Lower Manhattan is likely to end up like Malibu -- very wealthy people willing to ignore risks -- while Miami becomes a high-risk island, cut off from the rest of Florida as a wall of saltwater moves inland. Insurance rates aren't likely to uproot people.

In the medium-term (10 to 20 years), I wouldn't be surprised to see insurers attempt to restrict coverage for climate-related damage, much as has been done for mold/fungus coverage when mold became a hot-button issue in about 2001.

In the long-term, the industry may not survive in its present day form. It's built on charging risks based on past patterns. But past history can't map a new normal. The property insurance industry is reeling from the storms of 2011, and the life and health insurers have barely begun to consider the likely profound impact of climate change on their mortality tables. If the federal crop insurance program has yet begun to calculate the impact of climate on its program, I haven't seen it. Perhaps we'll end up with some sort of two-tiered program in which government extends the concept of a FAIR plan (minimal coverage, high premiums) to virtually every aspect of insurance, and some wealthy people choose to pay even higher premiums for additional coverage. For now, the insurance industry shouldn't be considered a player in the search for free-market solutions to climate change.

RL Miller is an attorney, climate/enviro blogger, runner, quilter, keeper of chickens. If you hate the terms climate zombies and oilpocalypse, blame RL Miller.© Grist Magazine

Can I Save the World ?

HeleneJa ponders if she can indeed fight Global Warming and save the World!

With so much information out there about global warming and the effects that are causing natural disasters, is there anything we as individuals can do to make a difference? Yep! You don't need to move mountains, but a small pebble can really make ripples that can create positive changes world wide. Here's a few "pebbles" you can use today!

We all feel we have a purpose in life. As more of us become aware of the damaging effects of global warming, we are also concerned about practical solutions to the problem. Most importantly, how can we fit in as part of the solution, instead of the problem?

Unfortunately, many of us become overwhelmed when we watch the ever-increasing natural disasters and it starts to feel like the world is crashing around us. I remember watching the plane hit the World Trade Center over and over and over again. I remember being completely paralyzed to the television. Sleep was optional, but only in between important news breaks. I felt helpless. I wanted to understand the reasoning behind the attacks to ease my fears of possible future attacks, but I mainly wanted a sense of control back into my life.

I do not like to focus on the doom of global warming because that's not the best mindset for me to find solutions and implement actions. I truly believe we all can make a difference in our lives, in the lives of our families, friends and community. I also am a firm believer that every single action taken produces a ripple effect throughout the world. When we take a simple action such as changing a light bulb to a compact fluorescent bulb, a positive motion is set in place.

Just for fun, let's see what can happen: (this will show how the action affects others)

- That old bulb in the living finally goes out. You go to your local hardware store and see miles of shelves of light bulbs! OY! (production of CFL bulbs)

- Someone comes over to help and maybe suggest a CFL. "A what?" you ask. The assistant tells you that even though the bulb is more expensive than a basic tungsten bulb, it will last years longer, it will not burn hot, uses way less energy, thus saving you money every month AND prevents the release of more than 450 pounds of emission from a power plant normally used to light the old style bulbs into the air! (increased sales and more potential advertisement of a green product, decreased amount of carbons released into the atmosphere)

- You read the advertisement and glimpse the familiar EnergyStar sign. So, you think, "Why not!" (increased awareness of a great program)

- You go home and your kids ask you about the funny looking bulb. (educates the kids and tell their friends how smart their parents are!)

- Your friends come over for dinner and recognize the bulb, but never really considered buying one until now. (increased awareness through word-of mouth [extremely powerful!!!] and more potential sales, advertisement, decreased emissions)

- You get the electric bill the next month and notice you really did use less electricity AND saved a little money. ($$$)

- You go to buy more CFL bulbs and realize the prices dropped a bit due to increased sales! (supply and demand of a product that improves our world)

That's just for changing one bulb! Just one action really can make an impact. Just because we do not always see the immediate results don't mean they aren't there!

So what are the best solutions of global warming? Can we help save the world? Yep. I would first suggest do whatever feels right for you. The level of comfort will be different for everyone. To me, it can be summed up as: AWARENESS and ACTION

AWARENESS

My first exposure to environmental issues came about while working at Home Depot. I watch as a person chained himself to our lumber shelves and awaited the local police. His actions, maybe a bit extreme to some, created awareness to the customers, Home Depot and the media. Many of those same actions ultimately changed the way Home Depot purchased and sold lumber.

For me, my level of comfort was turning off the lights. The more I learned, the more I did to help the environment. Learning about basic, easy-to-do home repairs really made a difference and increased my confidence as well as the confidence of my customers.

Now, years later, I must say living in Thailand has taught me a lot about saving energy as well as joining together for what you believe in. I've seen Thais go to the employment office and march because wages were too low. I have witnessed the ousting of a political figure because the Thais felt betrayed.

I have greater respect for Thais and for others I've met from different countries. Their views and actions have taught me so much about global warming. I also have greater appreciation for our abilities as Americans to make changes worldwide.

So to further answer people's question - "What are the best solutions to global warming?" My suggestions are all easy to do, but the main factor lies with what is comfortable for you. If I am given a great idea, but is too time-intensive, I probably won't do it. But if it's as easy as hitting the enter key, now you got my attention!

Ok. We are much more aware of what's going on. We understand we have a problem. Now what?

ACTION

I started with small steps. As I learned more, I found the bigger steps easier than I realized. I discussed my views with others and listened to their ideas.

My friends in Alabama recently installed solar heaters and a tankless water heater. Businesses are seeing the advantages of doing the right thing and stepping up their environmental cleaning efforts People from all walks of life have created petitions requesting a more proactive government. Even the 2008 Presidential Candidates are listening. Many are now including global warming as their primary issue.

Need some ideas to get your creative green juices flowing? OK! Here you go! Enjoy!

- Get the family involved - make it fun and educational.

- Make it a project during your child's science fair.

- Chat with your friends - they may have some unique ideas.

- Add a signature tag to your emails. I have a personal account with Yahoo. Whenever I send someone an email, my signature message or quote is at the end of the page. I create the signature once and forget about it. If you see a quote you like or have a message to share with others - signature it!

- Find out what tax incentives or refunds are available to you, i.e. hybrid car tax incentives, toilet replacement rebates, deduct the costs of energy-saving appliances and energy renovations in your home.

- Support greener businesses. Our money dictates what businesses sell. Our support encourages businesses to continue doing the right thing.

- Want to invest in the stock market? What companies are moving forward in clean-up? Researching new technologies? Contributing portions of their profits to support environmental organizations?

- Vote. What candidates are fighting for positive changes in the environment? Who seems to be making global warming a primary focus in their campaign? How does the candidate balance global warming and the economy? Does the candidate understand the threat and what solutions does he or she offer?

- Join others online and become a part of something bigger. In the past, petitions involved going door-to-door or standing near the mall entrance. Thanks to the internet, a letter to Congress has never been easier - or more effective! Read the letter already prepared. If you agree with it, type your name and hit ENTER!

- Submit your ideas to websites. I would love input from you! Your ideas can be just what someone else needed! Many websites would also benefit from your thoughts and appreciate the communication!

- Start a discussion group in your community. Barnes and Noble or Borders are excellent meetings spots. It's a great way to meet others and bounce around ideas.

- Help improve your neighborhood. In Tampa, there's a wonderful community group that has a Project Lottery. Each participant chooses a project they need completed on their house. A name is pulled every month. The neighbors spend one weekend on the project. The lucky owner provides drinks and snacks to the neighbors volunteering.

- Create a website of your own! Everyone has a voice. Today, websites are effective communicators and very inexpensive. Get the kids or the community involved. Let your voice be heard too! Even better, volunteer for Green Coalition.

HeleneJa is a writer and an environmentalist in the making!

FireFighting a Global Warming Duel

Daily news continues to roll in with regard to global warming and weather change especially but international and national policymakers remain unsure of both its veracity and consequences. Information that supports the theories of eco-alarmists and environmental skeptics alike seem to pepper the airwaves, while news of bush fires in Australia and devastating floods in India only aggravate the issue. To add to the barrage, I recently read that an internationally funded Weather satellite has just been tasked to exclusively study the melting of ice that sits atop the North Pole, allowing researchers to watch the movement of ice in great detail for the first time (yes, apparently first time). And the borders of Italy and Switzerland have to to reworked due to the melting icepeaks!

This issue that the human industrial presence was causing an unprecedented rise in global temperatures sparked a lively discussion among 2 of my close friends who are also involved in this area but in diametrically opposite fields. One is a researcher at a Greencetric NGO that actively hunts environmental violations by corporates and fights it out in courts while the other is a lawyer who coincidentally represents these corporate baddies. I played the firefighter albeit with a green bias and got to hear interesting arguments.

For my attorney pal, he dismissed the alarmist point of view and argued that nature needs to be harnessed. With regard to ice melting at the poles and the Italian-Swiss borders, he felt we could gather scientific data before jumping to political conclusions. Just because a wacky global warming activist misrepresents scant satellite information for her own visionary schemes, he felt there was no reason to go off half-cocked and ban the global internal combustion engine.

He complained that there were too many people who wanted social change at all costs, such as those who released urban bred animals to certain death in the forests rather than use them to warm our bodies or fill our stomachs, those who would rather leave millions starve for water than let build a dam and those who preach about poverty alleviation, govt negligence but themselves don’t pay the tax. Hmmm!

Even if the ice was indeed melting at the poles, he argued that we needed to avoid the divisive rhetoric of the eco-radicals in dealing with it, if we need to deal with it at all. After all, he felt there has been far more damage to forests from Mother Nature’s rains and floods than harvesting by loggers would ever cause. And responsible loggers replant with a constructive purpose; nature still needs to be harnessed. Mother Nature doesn’t think, and often environmentalists and global warming worrywarts don’t take time for that either. He stated both needed to be challenged when they run amuck.

After my lawyer pal was through downing almost a full bottle of Smirnoff, my eco-warrior buddy made his case for caution in our overconsumption and overcopulating ways.

Mother Nature, as you say, “needs to be harnessed” because we as a species have this mistaken notion that our running amuck is a “natural” Progression. If we hadn’t been so arrogant as to think plopping down 7 billion people on this planet wouldn’t have adverse effects on the climate, ecology, etc. then we’d understand that losing 200,000 acres of forest to wild fires isn’t that big a deal – or wasn’t till we reduced our forests to such a small tiny mass. We’d rather believe that this planet can get along fine with very limited populations of all species except our own.

Sure, the ecosystem is very large and not all effects are felt immediately; however, the belief that our present course of action won’t result in the destabilization of said system and the destruction of the planet as we know it - is the same stupidity and lack foresight and judgement which resulted in so many our children being born deformed due to their parents either exposed or/ of drinking contaminated water and food. He added that everyone wanted to believe that if it looks good two years down the road, then there are no worries… but as we all now know, that’s a big mistake and too big a gamble to risk this planet.

After hearing this loud verbal duel, I was left with enough food for thought of my own that I couldn’t declare a verdict nor present my personal view to this hugely gigantic issue. Mankind I realized needed a much bigger, collective and gargantuan firefighter for this burning problem and I was just a small fry. Really small indeed.

- Websnacker is a blogger/bootlegger from Antartica