|
myrskybongarit-l_ät_ursa.fi
viestiarkisto
Tämä myrskybongarit-l_ät_ursa.fi-listan viestiarkisto. Huomaa,
että voit vastata viesteihin tältä sivulta ainoastaan, jos olet jo
liittynyt listalle.
Ilmaston muutoksen seuraukset voivat olla pahempia kuin olemme pelänneet...
Pitkä juttu, mutta ottakaa vähän aikaa ja lukekaa.
t: Olli
- Forwarded message ----------
From: Claire W. Gilbert [mailto:claire_ät_blazingtattles.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2005 11:29 PM
To: MAWS_General_List_ät_yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MAWS General List] Apocalypse Now: How Mankind is Sleepwalking
to the End of the Earth
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/story.jsp?story=608209
Published on Sunday, February 6, 2005 by the lndependent/UK
Apocalypse Now: How Mankind is Sleepwalking to the End of the
Earth
Floods, storms and droughts. Melting Arctic ice, shrinking
glaciers, oceans turning to acid. The world's top scientists warned last
week that dangerous climate change is taking place today, not the day
after tomorrow. You don't believe it? Then, says Geoffrey Lean, read
this...
by Geoffrey Lean
Future historians, looking back from a much hotter and less
hospitable world, are likely to play special attention to the first few
weeks of 2005. As they puzzle over how a whole generation could have
sleepwalked into disaster - destroying the climate that has allowed
human civilization to flourish over the past 11,000 years - they may
well identify the past weeks as the time when the last alarms sounded.
Last week, 200 of the world's leading climate scientists - meeting
at Tony Blair's request at the Met Office's new headquarters at Exeter -
issued the most urgent warning to date that dangerous climate change is
taking place, and that time is running out.
Next week the Kyoto Protocol, the international treaty that tries
to control global warming, comes into force after a seven-year delay.
But it is clear that the protocol does not go nearly far enough.
The alarms have been going off since the beginning of one of the
warmest Januaries on record. First, Dr Rajendra Pachauri - chairman of
the official Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - told a
UN conference in Mauritius that the pollution which causes global
warming has reached "dangerous" levels.
Then the biggest-ever study of climate change, based at Oxford
University, reported that it could prove to be twice as catastrophic as
the IPCC's worst predictions. And an international task force - also
reporting to Tony Blair, and co-chaired by his close ally, Stephen Byers
- concluded that we could reach "the point of no return" in a decade.
Finally, the UK head of Shell, Lord Oxburgh, took time out - just
before his company reported record profits mainly achieved by selling
oil, one of the main causes of the problem - to warn that unless
governments take urgent action there "will be a disaster".
But it was last week at the Met Office's futuristic glass
headquarters, incongruously set in a dreary industrial estate on the
outskirts of Exeter, that it all came together. The conference had been
called by the Prime Minister to advise him on how to "avoid dangerous
climate change". He needed help in persuading the world to prioritize
the issue this year during Britain's presidencies of the EU and the G8
group of economic powers.
The conference opened with the Secretary of State for the
Environment, Margaret Beckett, warning that "a significant impact" from
global warming "is already inevitable". It continued with presentations
from top scientists and economists from every continent. These showed
that some dangerous climate change was already taking place and that
catastrophic events once thought highly improbable were now seen as
likely (see panel). Avoiding the worst was technically simple and
economically cheap, they said, provided that governments could be
persuaded to take immediate action.
About halfway through I realized that I had been here before. In
the summer of 1986 the world's leading nuclear experts gathered in
Vienna for an inquest into the accident at Chernobyl. The head of the
Russian delegation showed a film shot from a helicopter, and we suddenly
found ourselves gazing down on the red-hot exposed reactor core.
It was all, of course, much less dramatic at Exeter. But as paper
followed learned paper, once again a group of world authorities were
staring at a crisis they had devoted their lives to trying to avoid.
I am willing to bet there were few in the room who did not sense
their children or grandchildren standing invisibly at their shoulders.
The conference formally concluded that climate change was "already
occurring" and that "in many cases the risks are more serious than
previously thought". But the cautious scientific language scarcely does
justice to the sense of the meeting.
We learned that glaciers are shrinking around the world. Arctic
sea ice has lost almost half its thickness in recent decades. Natural
disasters are increasing rapidly around the world. Those caused by the
weather - such as droughts, storms, and floods - are rising three times
faster than those - such as earthquakes - that are not.
We learned that bird populations in the North Sea collapsed last
year, after the sand eels on which they feed left its warmer waters -
and how the number of scientific papers recording changes in ecosystems
due to global warming has escalated from 14 to more than a thousand in
five years.
Worse, leading scientists warned of catastrophic changes that once
they had dismissed as "improbable". The meeting was particularly alarmed
by powerful evidence, first reported in The Independent on Sunday last
July, that the oceans are slowly turning acid, threatening all marine
life.
Professor Chris Rapley, director of the British Antarctic Survey,
presented new evidence that the West Antarctic ice sheet is beginning to
melt, threatening eventually to raise sea levels by 15ft: 90 per cent of
the world's people live near current sea levels. Recalling that the
IPCC's last report had called Antarctica "a slumbering giant", he said:
"I would say that this is now an awakened giant."
Professor Mike Schlesinger, of the University of Illinois,
reported that the shutdown of the Gulf Stream, once seen as a "low
probability event", was now 45 per cent likely this century, and 70 per
cent probable by 2200. If it comes sooner rather than later it will be
catastrophic for Britain and northern Europe, giving us a climate like
Labrador (which shares our latitude) even as the rest of the world heats
up: if it comes later it could be beneficial, moderating the worst of
the warming.
The experts at Exeter were virtually unanimous about the danger,
mirroring the attitude of the climate science community as a whole:
humanity is to blame. There were a few skeptics at Exeter, including
Andrei Illarionov, an adviser to Russia's President Putin, who last year
called the Kyoto Protocol "an interstate Auschwitz". But in truth it is
much easier to find skeptics among media pundits in London or neo-cons
in Washington than among climate scientists. Even the few contrarian
climatalogists publish little research to support their views,
concentrating on questioning the work of others.
Now a new scientific consensus is emerging - that the warming must
be kept below an average increase of two degrees centigrade if
catastrophe is to be avoided. This almost certainly involves keeping
concentrations of carbon dioxide, the main cause of climate change,
below 400 parts per million.
Unfortunately we are almost there, with concentrations exceeding
370ppm and rising, but experts at the conference concluded that we could
go briefly above the danger level so long as we brought it down rapidly
afterwards. They added that this would involve the world reducing
emissions by 50 per cent by 2050 - and rich countries cutting theirs by
30 per cent by 2020.
Economists stressed there is little time for delay. If action is
put off for a decade, it will need to be twice as radical; if it has to
wait 20 years, it will cost between three and seven times as much.
The good news is that it can be done with existing technology, by
cutting energy waste, expanding the use of renewable sources, growing
trees and crops (which remove carbon dioxide from the air) to turn into
fuel, capturing the gas before it is released from power stations, and -
maybe - using more nuclear energy.
The better news is that it would not cost much: one estimate
suggested the cost would be about 1 per cent of Europe's GNP spread over
20 years; another suggested it meant postponing an expected fivefold
increase in world wealth by just two years. Many experts believe
combating global warming would increase prosperity, by bringing in new
technologies.
The big question is whether governments will act. President Bush's
opposition to international action remains the greatest obstacle. Tony
Blair, by almost universal agreement, remains the leader with the best
chance of persuading him to change his mind.
But so far the Prime Minister has been more influenced by the
President than the other way round. He appears to be moving away from
fighting for the pollution reductions needed in favor of agreeing on a
vague pledge to bring in new technologies sometime in the future.
By then it will be too late. And our children and grandchildren
will wonder - as we do in surveying, for example, the drift into the
First World War - "how on earth could they be so blind?"
WATER WARS
What could happen? Wars break out over diminishing water resources
as populations grow and rains fail.
How would this come about? Over 25 per cent more people than at
present are expected to live in countries where water is scarce in the
future, and global warming will make it worse.
How likely is it? Former UN chief Boutros Boutros-Ghali has long
said that the next Middle East war will be fought for water, not oil.
DISAPPEARING NATIONS
What could happen? Low-lying island such as the Maldives and
Tuvalu - with highest points only a few feet above sea-level - will
disappear off the face of the Earth.
How would this come about? As the world heats up, sea levels are
rising, partly because glaciers are melting, and partly because the
water in the oceans expands as it gets warmer.
How likely is it? Inevitable. Even if global warming stopped
today, the seas would continue to rise for centuries. Some small islands
have already sunk for ever. A year ago, Tuvalu was briefly submerged.
FLOODING
What could happen? London, New York, Tokyo, Bombay, many other
cities and vast areas of countries from Britain to Bangladesh disappear
under tens of feet of water, as the seas rise dramatically.
How would this come about? Ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica
melt. The Greenland ice sheet would raise sea levels by more than 20ft,
the West Antarctic ice sheet by another 15ft.
How likely is it? Scientists used to think it unlikely, but this
year reported that the melting of both ice caps had begun. It will take
hundreds of years, however, for the seas to rise that much.
UNINHABITABLE EARTH
What could happen? Global warming escalates to the point where the
world's whole climate abruptly switches, turning it permanently into a
much hotter and less hospitable planet.
How would this come about? A process involving "positive feedback"
causes the warming to fuel itself, until it reaches a point that finally
tips the climate pattern over.
How likely is it? Abrupt flips have happened in the prehistoric
past. Scientists believe this is unlikely, at least in the foreseeable
future, but increasingly they are refusing to rule it out.
RAINFOREST FIRES
What could happen? Famously wet tropical forests, such as those in
the Amazon, go up in flames, destroying the world's richest wildlife
habitats and releasing vast amounts of carbon dioxide to speed global
warming.
How would this come about? Britain's Met Office predicted in 1999
that much of the Amazon will dry out and die within 50 years, making it
ready for sparks - from humans or lightning - to set it ablaze.
How likely is it? Very, if the predictions turn out to be right.
Already there have been massive forest fires in Borneo and Amazonia,
casting palls of highly polluting smoke over vast areas.
THE BIG FREEZE
What could happen? Britain and northern Europe get much colder
because the Gulf Stream, which provides as much heat as the sun in
winter, fails.
How would this come about? Melting polar ice sends fresh water
into the North Atlantic. The less salty water fails to generate the
underwater current which the Gulf Stream needs.
How likely is it? About evens for a Gulf Steam failure this
century, said scientists last week.
STARVATION
What could happen? Food production collapses in Africa, for
example, as rainfall dries up and droughts increase. As farmland turns
to desert, people flee in their millions in search of food.
How would this come about? Rainfall is expected to decrease by up
to 60 per cent in winter and 30 per cent in summer in southern Africa
this century. By some estimates, Zambia could lose almost all its farms.
How likely is it? Pretty likely unless the world tackles both
global warming and Africa's decline. Scientists agree that droughts will
increase in a warmer world.
ACID OCEANS
What could happen? The seas will gradually turn more and more
acid. Coral reefs, shellfish and plankton, on which all life depends,
will die off. Much of the life of the oceans will become extinct.
How would this come about? The oceans have absorbed half the
carbon dioxide, the main cause of global warming, so far emitted by
humanity. This forms dilute carbonic acid, which attacks corals and
shells.
How likely is it? It is already starting. Scientists warn that the
chemistry of the oceans is changing in ways unprecedented for 20 million
years. Some predict that the world's coral reefs will die within 35
years.
DISEASE
What could happen? Malaria - which kills two million people
worldwide every year - reaches Britain with foreign travelers, gets
picked up by British mosquitos and becomes endemic in the warmer
climate.
How would this come about? Four of our 40 mosquito species can
carry the disease, and hundreds of travelers return with it annually.
The insects breed faster, and feed more, in warmer temperatures.
How likely is it? A Department of Health study has suggested it
may happen by 2050: the Environment Agency has mentioned 2020. Some
experts say it is miraculous that it has not happened already.
HURRICANES
What could happen? Hurricanes, typhoons and violent storms
proliferate, grow even fiercer, and hit new areas. Last September's
repeated battering of Florida and the Caribbean may be just a foretaste
of what is to come, say scientists.
How would this come about? The storms gather their energy from
warm seas, and so, as oceans heat up, fiercer ones occur and threaten
areas where at present the seas are too cool for such weather.
How likely is it? Scientists are divided over whether storms will
get more frequent and whether the process has already begun.
(c) 2005 Independent News & Media (UK) Ltd.
###
Claire W. Gilbert, Ph.D.
www.blazingtattles.com
--
Myrskybongareiden sähköpostilista: myrskybongarit-l_ät_ursa.fi ***
Liittymiset ja eroamiset: http://www.ursa.fi/cgi-bin/majordomo?myrskybongarit-l&ro ***
Listan www-arkisto: http://www.ursa.fi/ursa/viestinta/listat/myrskybongarit-l/summary.html
|