|
|
|
 |
|
|
WD_061/ 2004
(  Satoshi Kinoshita )
| Series: | Works on paper: Drawings | | Medium: | crayon and pencil on paper | | Size (inches): | 9.6 x 8 | | Size (mm): | 245 x 203 | | Catalog #: | WD_061 | | Description: | Signed, date and copyright in pencil on the reverse.
If I was an Emperor Penguin, my life "is" totally.., fcuked up! This planet is hotter than Hell.
-Satoshi Kinoshita in conversation in N.Y.C., Summer, 2003.
Kyoto Protocol:
An agreement on global warming reached by the United Nations Conference on Climate Change in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997. The major industrial nations pledged to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases between 2008 and 2012. (See greenhouse effect.) Although the American delegation signed the protocol, the United States Senate has refused to ratify the treaty, mainly because it believes that the targeted reductions are so steep that they will produce a severe economic slump.
#Attacking the U.S. position as selfish, European governments have been extremely critical of the U.S. refusal to ratify the protocol.
-The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. 2002.
(Quick definitions) Global warming:
*noun: an increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere (especially a sustained increase that causes climatic changes).
-www.onelook.com
Global warming:
Global warming is an increase over time of the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans. It is generally used to describe the temperature rise over the past century or so, and the effects of human activity on the temperature. The term may be used to describe theories explaining such an increase or the crisis that many say will arise if nothing is done to prevent such an increase from occurring.
Use of the term "global warming" usually implies a human influence. The more neutral term climate change is usually used to describe previous natural variations. However, the UNFCCC defines "climate change" as changes which are anthropogenic in origin (climate variability is the term they use for natural climate change). [1] (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/518.htm)
In the 1970s it was unclear whether global warming or global cooling were more likely in the near future (next 100 years). By 1980 most opinion was in the warming camp, though uncertainties remained large. Since 1990, however, the prospect that the earth's surface might become dangerously overheated -- because of heat trapped by carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gases" -- took over and it has been a hotly debated topic ever since.
Proponents and Opponents:
To be a "proponent" of this theory encompasses a wide range of opinions. Some believe that the environmental damage will have such severe impact that immediate steps must be taken to reduce CO2 emissions, regardless of the economic costs to advanced nations such as the United States (according to the EPA, the United States is the second greatest producer of greenhouse gases in the world). Others merely "believe in" the observed increase in
temperature. Somewhere in between are those who support relatively mild measures such as the Kyoto Protocol.
"Opponent" similarly covers a wide range. Some dismiss the theory as completely lacking any basis in fact; however, there are no known climate scientists adopting this position. Others, such as the well-known skeptic Patrick Michaels are milder, accepting that human influence has warmed the atmosphere while disputing the current and future warming given by the IPCC.
Temperature records:
Depending on what data one chooses to emphasize, different conclusions are possible.
All quantitative reconstructions show temperatures as having been roughly stable for the last 1,000 years but sharply rising in the last century (see Temperature record of the past 1000 years). These records, combined with attribution analysis, indicate that it is likely this is due to human activity (see anthropogenic climate change). Environmentalists have been quick to believe this and generally urge quick and radical action to save the environment.
Qualitative historical evidence show warming and cooling, and there is some evidence that these correlate with sunspots and other aspects of solar activity; for example, some historians argue that the Medieval Warm Period enabled the colonization of Greenland. Recent research suggests that episodes of warming and cooling such as the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age may have been regional, not global.
The difference between the interpretations of the historical record affects how the most recent warming trend is viewed: the quantitative records show the recent warming trend, and the current warmth, as unusual; from the qualitative record, many "skeptics" believe that the recent trend is not unusual, and reject calls for actions such as the Kyoto Protocol.
The current conflict results in professional and personal disagreements as well as pressuring political forces. Presently this is particularly visible in various interpretations in topics such as the UNFCCC Kyoto Protocol.
The above paragraphs might give the impression that belief in the course of past climate change correlates strongly with advocacy for future actions: this is not necessarily so. It is possible, perhaps common, to study the past record and give no counsel on the future.
In the twentieth century, both marine and land-based thermometers have recorded such a warming from the 1880s to about 1940, followed by a lesser cooling from 1940 to 1975, and another period of warming from 1975 to present [4] (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm). See Historical temperature record for more discussion; and anthropogenic climate change for attribution of the change.
Scientific opinion:
A survey by Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch in 1996 showed a tendency of scientists in this field to agree that it is "certain that, without change in human behavior, global warming will definitely occur sometime in the future" - with the survey showing these scientists giving this statement an average score of 2.6 on a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 indicated complete agreement and 7 indicated complete disagreement.
Theories to explain temperature change:
The climate system varies both through natural, "internal" processes as well as in response to variations in "external forcing" from both human and non-human causes, including changes in solar activity and volcanic emissions as well as greenhouse gases. See Climate change for further discussion of these forcing processes.
Most climatologists accept that the earth has warmed recently. Somewhat more controversial is what may have caused this change.
Greenhouse gas theory:
The hypothesis that increases or decreases in greenhouse gas concentration would lead to higher or lower global mean temperature was first postulated in the late 19th century by Swedish chemist and 1903 Nobel Laureate Svante Arrhenius, largely as an attempt to explain ice ages. At the time his peers largely rejected his theory.
The theory that human greenhouse gas emissions have contributed to the warming of the Earth's atmosphere in the 20th century, has gained both adherents and opponents in the scientific community within the past 25 years. The IPCC was established to assess the risk of human-induced climate change; the United States National Academy of Sciences endorsed the theory. Atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen and other skeptics oppose the theory.
Coal-burning power plants, automobile exhausts, factory smokestacks, and other waste vents of the industrial age now pump about 22 billion tons of carbon dioxide (corresponding to 6 billion tons of pure carbon) and other greenhouse gases into the earth's atmosphere each year. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) has increased by 31% above pre-industrial levels since 1750. This is considerably higher than at any time during the last 420,000 years, the period for which reliable data exists, from ice cores. From less direct geological evidence it is believed that values this high were last attained 40 million years ago. About three-quarters of the anthropogenic emissions of CO2 to the atmosphere during the past 20 years is due to fossil fuel burning. The rest is predominantly due to land-use change, especially deforestation [7] (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/006.htm). They are called greenhouse gases because they trap radiant energy from the sun that would otherwise be re-radiated back into space. (The fact that a natural greenhouse effect occurs is well-known and is not at issue in the debate over global warming. Without it, temperatures would drop by approximately 30°C, the oceans would freeze and life as we know it would be impossible.)
What climatologists are concerned about, rather, is that increased levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere might cause more heat to be trapped.
Increases in CO2 measured since 1958 at Mauna Loa show a monotonically increasing atmospheric concentration of CO2. In fact, it is clear that the increase is faster than linear. On March 21, 2004, it was reported that the concentration in ppm reached 376ppm in 2003. South Pole records show similar growth [8] (http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/info/spo2000.html).
Solar variation theory:
Various hypotheses have been proposed to link terrestrial temperature variations to solar variations. The meteorological community has responded with skepticism, in part because theories of this nature have come and gone over the course of the 20th century. The theories have usually been one of three types:
* Solar irradiance changes directly affecting the climate. This is generally considered unlikely, as the variations seem to be small
* Variations in the ultraviolet component having an effect. The UV component varies by more than the total.
* Effects mediated by changes in cosmic rays (which are affected by the solar wind, which is affected by the solar output) such as changes in cloud cover.
Although correlations often can be found, the mechanism behind these correlations is a matter of speculation. Many of these speculative accounts have fared badly over time, and in a paper "Solar activity and terrestrial climate: an analysis of some purported correlations" (J. Atmos. and Solar-Terr. Phy., 2003 p801-812) Peter Laut demonstrates problems with some of the most popular, notably those by Svensmark and by Lassen.
In 1991, Knud Lassen of the Danish Meteorological Institute in Copenhagen and his colleague Eigil Friis-Christensen found a strong correlation between the length of the solar cycle and temperature changes throughout the northern hemisphere. Initially, they used sunspot and temperature measurements from 1861 to 1989, but later found that climate records dating back four centuries supported their findings. This relationship appeared to account for nearly 80 per cent of the measured temperature changes over this period (http://solar center.stanford.edu/images/solactivity.jpg)). Sallie Baliunas, an astronomer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, has been among the supporters of the theory that changes in the sun "can account for major climate changes on Earth for the past 300 years, including part of the recent surge of global warming." [9] (http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1997/11.06/BrighteningSuni.html)
On May 6, 2000, however, New Scientist magazine reported that Lassen and astrophysicist Peter Thejll had updated Lassen's 1991 research and found that while the solar cycle still accounts for about half the temperature rise since 1900, it fails to explain a rise of 0.4 °C since 1980. "The curves diverge after 1980," Thejll said, "and it's a startlingly large deviation. Something else is acting on the climate. ... It has the fingerprints of the greenhouse effect."[10] (http://archive.newscientist.com/secure/article/article.jsp?rp=1&id=mg16622370.800)
Later that same year, Peter Stott and other researchers at the Hadley Centre in the United Kingdom published a paper in which they reported on the most comprehensive model simulations to date of the climate of the 20th century. Their study looked at both natural forcing agents (solar variations and volcanic emissions) as well as anthropogenic forcing (greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols). Like Lassen and Thejll, they found that the natural factors accounted for gradual warming to about 1960 followed by a return to late 19th-century temperatures, consistent with the gradual change in solar forcing throughout the 20th century and volcanic activity during the past few decades. These factors alone, however, could not account for the warming in recent decades. Similarly, anthropogenic forcing alone
was insufficient to explain the 1910-1945 warming, but was necessary to simulate the warming since 1976. Stott's team found that combining all of these factors enabled them to closely simulate global temperature changes throughout the 20th century. They predicted that continued greenhouse gas emissions would cause additional future temperature increases "at a rate similar to that observed in recent decades."[11] (http://www.sciencemag.org:80/cgi/content/full/290/5499/2133) A graphical representation (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig12-7.htm) of the relationship between natural and anthropogenic factors contributing to climate change appears in "Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis," a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). [12] (http://www.grida.no/climate ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm)
Others:
Various other hypotheses have been proposed, including but not limited to:
1. The warming is within the range of natural variation and needs no particular explanation
2. The warming is a consequence of coming out of a prior cool period - the Little ice age - and needs no other
explanation.
Some skeptics would claim that the warming trend itself is not valid, and therefore does not need any explanation.
Global warming controversy:
A separate article on socio-political issues surrounding the theory of global warming.
Historical temperature record:
Over the past 20,000 years the dominant temperature signal has been the end of the last ice age, approximately 12,000 years ago [13] (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/073.htm). Since then the temperature has been quite stable, though with various fluctuations, e.g. Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age.
The Historical temperature record page now contains those sections previously on this page concerning arguments whether the current temperature changes are real or not. For attribution of change, see Anthropogenic global warming.
Jurassic Global Warming:
It is though by geologists that the Earth experienced global warming in the early Jurassic period, with average temperatures rising by 5° Celsius (9° Fahrenheit). Research by the Open University published in Geology (32, 157-160, 2004 [14] (http://www3.open.ac.uk/earth-sciences/downloads/Press%20Release.pdf)) indicates that this caused the weathering of rocks to be speeded up by 400%, a process that took around 150,000 years
to return carbon dioxide levels to normal.
Climate models:
Climate simulations do not unambiguously attribute the warming that occurred from approximately 1910 to 1945 to either natural variation or to anthropogenic forcing (see anthropogenic global warming). All models show that the warming occurring from approximately 1975 to 2000 is largely anthropogenic. These conclusions depend on the accuracy of the models used and on the correct estimation of the external factors.
The majority of scientists agree that important climate processes are incorrectly accounted for by the climate models but don't think that better models would change the conclusion. (Source: IPCC )
Critics point out that there are unspecified flaws in the models and unspecified external factors not taken into consideration that could change the conclusion above. Some unidentified critics say that the climate simulations are unable to fit the water vapor feedback, and handle clouds. Some indirect solar effects may be very important and are not accounted for by the models. Or then again, they might not be important at all. (Source: The Skeptical Environmentalist)
Potential effects:
Many public policy organizations and government officials are concerned that the current warming has the potential for harm to the environment and agriculture.
This is a matter of considerable controversy, with environmentalist groups typically emphasizing the possible dangers and groups close to industry questioning the climate models and consequences of global warming - and funding scientists to do so.
Due to potential effects on human health and economy due to the impact on the environment, global warming is a cause of great concern. Some important environmental changes have been observed and linked to global warming.
The examples of secondary evidence cited above (lessened snow cover, rising sea levels, weather changes) are examples of consequences of global warming that may influence not only human activities but also the ecosystems. Increasing global temperature means that ecosystems may change; some species may be forced out of their habitats (possibly to extinction) because of changing conditions, while others may spread. Few of the terrestrial ecoregions on Earth could expect to be unaffected.
Another cause of great concern is sea level rise. Sea levels are rising 1 to 2 centimetres (around half an inch) per decade, and some small countries in the Pacific Ocean are expressing concerns that if this rise in sea level continues, they soon will be entirely under water. Global warming causes the sea level to rise mainly because sea water expands as it warms, but some scientists are concerned that in the future, the polar ice caps and glaciers may melt. The IPCC TAR says: "Global mean sea level is projected to rise by 0.09 to 0.88 metres between 1990 and 2100, for the full range of
SRES scenarios. This is due primarily to thermal expansion and loss of mass from glaciers and ice caps" [15] (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/008.htm). Some researchers have found a negative correlation between sea level rise and average global temperature; water evaporates more quickly than it expands. (Source: Science and Environmental Policy Project)
As the climate gets hotter, evaporation will increase. This will cause heavier rainfall and more erosion. Many people think that it could result in more extreme weather as global warming progresses. The IPCC TAR says: "...global average water vapour concentration and precipitation are projected to increase during the 21st century. By the second half of the 21st century, it is likely that precipitation will have increased over northern mid- to high latitudes and Antarctica in winter. At low latitudes there are both regional increases and decreases over land areas. Larger year to year variations in precipitation are very likely over most areas where an increase in mean precipitation is projected" [16] (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/008.htm).
Global warming can also have other, less obvious effects. The North Atlantic drift, for instance, is driven by temperature changes. It seems that it is diminishing as the climate grows warmer, and this means that areas like Scandinavia and Britain that are warmed by the drift might face a colder climate in spite of the general global warming. It is now feared that Global Warming may be able to trigger the type of abrupt massive temperature shifts which bracketed the Younger
Dryas period.
Global warming will probably extend the favourable zones for vectors conveying infectious disease, such as Malaria, Dengue fever, Yellow fever, ...
However, global warming can also have positive effects, since higher temperatures and higher CO2 concentrations improve the ecosystems' productivity. Satellite data shows that the productivity of the Northern Hemisphere has increased since 1982. On the other hand, an increase in the total amount of biomass produced is not necessarily all good, since biodiversity can still decrease even though a small number of species are flourishing. Similarly, from the human economic viewpoint, an increase in total biomass but a decrease in crop harvests would be a net disadvantage. In addition, IPCC models predict that higher CO2 concentrations would only spur growth of flora up to a point, because in many regions the limiting factors are water or nutrients, not temperature or CO2; after that, though greenhouse effects and warming would continue there would be no compensatory increase in growth.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:
Since it is such an important issue, governments need predictions of future trends in global change so they can take political decisions to avoid undesired impacts. Global warming is being studied by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The Kyoto Protocol:
The Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC proposes binding greenhouse gas limits for developed countries.
-From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Kyoto Protocol:
The Kyoto Protocol is a proposed amendment to an international treaty on global warming -- the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Countries which ratify this protocol will commit to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, which are linked to global warming. It also reaffirms sections of the UNFCCC.
The formal name of the proposed agreement is the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. [1] (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1997/global.warming/stories/treaty/)
It was negotiated in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, opened for signature on March 16, 1998, and closed on March 15, 1999.
-Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
| | | send price request |
|
|
|
|
|
Gallery opening
500 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1820 (Between 42nd and 43rd)
...
|
|
more
|
|
