A cyber-penny for your thoughts.
And has it come to this?
Climate Progress
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Get ThinkProgress email alerts
About Climate Progress
Edited by Joe Romm, we cover climate science, solutions and politics. Columnist Tom Friedman calls us "the indispensable blog" and Time magazine named us one of the 25 "Best Blogs of 2010." Newcomers, start here.
Joe Romm's New Book
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga.
Joe Romm has pulled together the secrets of the greatest communicators in history to show how you can apply these tools to your writing, speaking, blogging — even your Tweeting.
Subscribe to Climate Progress by Email
Powered by NewsWhip
Got a Hot Tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
Climate Progress Archives
About ThinkProgress | Contact Us | Donate
Drought in Europe continues to cause problems
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/1202/1224308474777.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45523938
It is also impacting the Swiss ski season but it is OK because fifteen Austrian chimney sweepers are praying for snow.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16018453
Asbestos world wide
http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/asbestos/map/
asbestos cement workers Chrysotile International Alliance of Trade Unions .
This organization is, according to the “union” of asbestos-cement companies in front of “scientifically unfounded attacks protect” and stop an impending ban on asbestos in many places.
So far, only 23 percent of the member States of the World Health Organization ( WHO ) imposed a ban on asbestos, 77 percent are in processing and production of asbestos and still allowed to operate actively in 36 percent of the WHO member states. According to the WHO are now working more globally about 125 million people exposed to asbestos jobs. http://translate.google.de/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.arte.tv%2Fde%2FDie-Welt-verstehen%2FToedlicher-Staub—Der-Turiner-Asbest-Prozess%2F4270890.html
That strikes a chord with the latest message from Greg Palast which highlights how one of the Romney backer vultures got going. It would seem that Koch-aligned vulture Paul Singer has threatened Palast and the BBC with a ‘file on Palast’.
One of the things these vultures plunder is the Foreign Aid given to third world countries, the more the Aid the more the vultures fatten. And now there are stories circulating that the UK Government is to go about passing a law to make increase in spending on Foreign Aid obligatory.
Hum! Are ministers trying to compensate for loss of expenses perks? I smell corruption and lobbyists.
I didn’t realize that asbestos is not actually banned in Canada. As far as I know, it is not allowed in buildings anymore. And it is being taken out of old buildings.
But what is more appalling is that Canada exports asbestos to other countries that have not banned it. This says that the health of Canadians is more important than the health of other people around the world, and asbestos as a commodity is too important to stop.
Shame
If a business ghoul can make a buck out of it, whether it be cigarettes, asbestos, infant formula, leaded petrol, cluster bombs, depleted uranium munitions etc, then it will be flogged, and the political reptiles will aid their masters in doing so. An intractable law of market capitalism. Asbestos, then known as ‘salamander’ was known to be deadly dangerous to the Romans. They had slaves to work to death- we have human ‘collateral damage’.
Violent wind storm leaves path of destruction
Several overturned semis on a Utah highway. Hundreds of thousands without power in California. A wind gust reaching 123-mph in Colorado.
The storms, described as a once-in-a-decade event, http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9RCDANO0.htm
No mention of climate change and that this kind of events is exactly what has been predicted to occur with global warming.
Jeff Huggins, on a Nov. 20 CP thread you asked why I would support President Obama’s re-election.
I have another reason. See the HuffPost article:
House Republicans Stepping Up Anti-Regulation Effort
at: http://tinyurl.com/dy3p5gh
WASHINGTON — In an ambitious gesture to their business allies, House Republicans passed legislation Friday to reduce what the GOP calls “an avalanche” of unneeded, costly regulations. Opponents call the bill an attempt to prevent the government from protecting Americans at their workplaces, in their homes and when they want a breath of fresh air.
The 253-167 vote sent the bill to the Democratic-run Senate, where it’s likely to die. Just in case, the White House has issued a veto threat.
President Obama threatened a veto. The Newter would obviously sign a similar bill and declare an naitnal holiday in its honor.
So, bak in Nov. 20 you asked me:
“How do you think your approach will change “the reality” of 2011/2012 so we can benefit from a MUCH MORE dedicated and effective Administration in the coming term, and so the Dems will have learned the lesson and do even better in future cycles?”
Jeff, I have convinced myself that rethugs will take control of the Senate in the 2012 election (23 Senate Dems up for re-election, some are open seats; 10 rethug Senators).
With that in mind, I have also convinced myself that a re-elected President Obama will be the only stop gap against repeal of everything and anything that has meaning and value to social progress, including child labor laws, worker health and safety, pesticide regulations, Clean Air Act, Roe v Wade…tell me when to stop!
A Grundwich, in the Oval office and a rethug Congress will have 8 years to tear down our freedom and democracy.
And, lest we overlook Ed Gillespie’s Red State Plan. An Excerpt from a recent New Yorker:
“In the spring of 2010, the conservative political strategist Ed Gillespie flew from Washington, D.C., to Raleigh, North Carolina, to spend a day laying the groundwork for REDMAP, a new project aimed at engineering a Republican takeover of state legislatures. Gillespie hoped to help his party get control of statehouses where congressional redistricting was pending, thereby leveraging victories in cheap local races into a means of shifting the balance of power in Washington.”
Jeff, the above is the reality I see, feel, fear. It is less than a year away and the Kroch bros have the money and the fascination to make it all come true.
Laying all of our anger, frustration and disappointment at the feet of President Obama is a denial of the political condition we voters created in the 112th Congress. It can get worse. I’m certain it will.
How can we then throw the match into that gun powder-filled mess by assuring a rethug president will have full control over every aspect of our life.
I see darkness ahead for elderly, very low income persons, those suffering long term and expensive illness, laborers, inmates, public school students…tell me when to stop.
First we dig deep into our wallets, buy up and establish honest radio, TV and print media, train Americans how to think rationally about their government, prep good candidates to run for every elective office in the land, disinfect the US Congress and Supreme Court and, basically, own our Democracy.
Yes, it will take a generation to achieve this and maybe all the other bricks falling upon us will make all that more difficult and possibly futile. Now, this morning, today, I am worried about Medicaid and EPA funding after the 2012 election. Short term reality? I agree. But, a step at a time. And, we do have a responsibility to those who cannot defend themselves against the likes of rethugs.
P.S., your suggestion about a direct and open letter to Romney is super and people should take you up on it.
It is time to challenge the relevance of the IPCC’s climate change reports given its failure to adequately address methane and CO2 feedbacks from melting permafrost and tundra along with other examples of its cautious approach to telling the world we are facing extinction when the climate takes humanity and all species into a death spiral.
Lewis Cleverdon suggested the formation of a “Inter-Academy Panel on Climate Destabilization” that would supersede the IPCC’s approach. That would allow scientists and not government leaders to write the truth.
This is a very important discussion that awaits input and suggestions. Climate chaos is a time-related happening and IPCC marches to a slower and less sharp beat.
John, this is the type of suggestion that I have been waiting for but lacked something (confidence? standing? focus?) that kept me from articulating any similar idea. It is clear, especially in the US of A, that we have to take these decisions out of the hands of politicians.
That is what the Occupy movement is trying to do with our economy but they have almost no focus on our ecology.
In 2008, Chris Mooney was part of an organized effort to create a “Science Debate” as part of the presidential electoral process. It had significant support from Nobel Laureates, university presidents, every member of Congress with a science degree. Rush Holt (D-NJ 12) and Vern Ehlers (R-I 3 in 2008) were CoChairs. http://www.sciencedebate.org/debate08.html
The effort went absolutely nowhere because all of the campaigns made the judgement that they could ignore it without any adverse political consequences and they were right. The same political class still holds science at arms length today and I don’t think that this will every change.
In my own district, I see very little pressure on our Congressman (Jerry McNerney D-CA 11 with a PhD in Applied Math and a work history in Wind Energy) to spend any time at all on Climate.
Is it possible that we could force such a debate in 2012? I doubt it… but still think that we should try.
I am with you guys. I really think we need to amp up the discussion and therein the concern about melting CO2 and methane from all sources. Not talking about it is like a doctor who discovers the early stages of cancer in his/her patient and tells them, “You know you should really make a few lifestyle changes.”
Without something more specific the patient is going to think, “Yeah, sure,” and continue with their current habits. But if they are told, “you have the early stages of cancer and the chances are very good it will kill you in the coming months if you don’t quite, smoking, drinking, and eating red meat,” then they have a real reason to change what they are doing.
I think there is a very real threat of runaway warming as early as 2030 if we do not create a CO2 emissions hockey stick with the line dropping off a cliff really, really soon.
Rather I suspect runaway warming is a sure bet by 2030 but will probably kick in sooner if we do not act right away.
At the same time you can see David Attenborough, who has made his most direct appeal yet to comprehend the danger we face, being interviewed by a BBC flunky who asks him if he is not being ‘alarmist’. The MSM and the global business Mafiosi, are in my opinion, ‘enemies of the human race’, as the Robot said in Dr Who.
A dreadful week for environmental concerns in the UK with the Chancellor turning against environmentally sensible investments and talking instead of building new exports, whilst subsidising polluters with another 300 million taken from the poor.
Good editorial condemning this grave misjudgement here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/03/climate-change-observer-editorial
And Osbourne is being condemned by green organisations in the UK
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/dec/03/new-green-alliance-savages-osborne
Like this idea.
If you look at the section
# 7.3 Conservative nature of IPCC reports
in the IPCC entry on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change ) I’m the one who started that section some years ago when at the time there was only sections with nonsense about (right wing faux)-”criticisms” of IPCC
(that said, I dare not peek at the wikipedia entry today, it might have been corrupted)
I have a draft listing of “items which IPCC got wrong by UNDER-estimating” and have had it for some time..John of skepticalScinece expressed interest in adding that (once improved by others, cleaned expanded etc) to his blog…when life gives a breather, I hope to get first draft done in January.
That (relevant) aside said, the IPCC is not pure evil incarnate but does suffer the problems you articulate well…and so organizing: public+scientists** would be great
** (those not afraid of the political consequences of being called ‘alarmist’ or ‘too emotional’ for pointing out (a) the actual science, (b)the Precautionary Principle and (c) the uncertainties which for being uncertain should make us MORE cautious, not less!)
Methane is featured on Revkin’s most recent post, but rather complacently I feel.
I think it is the Revkin’s of the world that must be convinced that the situation is more dire than they imagine (within their lifetimes and even for those who are endowed with money). I think it is.
If this is any indication, the Durban Climate Talks will have a few surprises in store for us still. It made my day and trust it will do the same for you. From an opening day Presentation.
http://rockblogs.psu.edu/climate/2011/12/an-ethical-analysis-of-the-climate-change-disinformation-campaign-is-this-a-new-kind-of-assault-on-h.html
Leif, many thanks. Dr Romm, is there a post here? ==Mike
Dr. Hansen’s Nov. 10 draft paper on New Climate Dice is a blockbuster.
At the heart of it is the simple mathematical fact that steady increases of a mean can result in accelerating extremes.
A back-of the envelope calculation shows the prevalence of extreme summer heat could be projected as follows with business-as-usual warming rates:
1980: extreme summer heat over 0.1% of land
2010: extreme summer heat over 7% of land
2040: extreme summer heat over 50% of land
2070: extreme summer heat over 95% of land
It’s a hockey stick derived directly from shifting a normal curve to the right and tracking the area to the right of the original 3 SD mark.
We are at the point of the curve where it suddenly turns up.
Ouch!
The draft paper is posted online at: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/
PDF direct link to Hansen,Sato & Ruedy (2011) “Climate Variability and Climate Change: The New Climate Dice”
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20111110_NewClimateDice.pdf
Hansen on the recent climate sensitivity paper here, quoted by Revkin
http://crocodoc.com/0ouKCFL
Joe,
In a discussion last week I think you said you were thinking about doing a post on paleoclimate. I for one would appreciate that. The discussion was about the Pliocene. Thanks!
Swiss Government Declares Downloading for Personal Use Legal
Government research says piracy not as harmful as industry claims http://www.webpronews.com/swiss-government-declares-downloading-for-personal-use-legal-2011-12
About time!
Permian mega extinction redux:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/11/18/3369150.htm
Great Dying happened in hell of a short time
(which says “200,000 years” while the abstract and MIT release say “20,000″ but otherwise an interesting read) and unlike many of us have the subscription to see more than the abstract (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/11/16/science.1213454 )
of this interesting paper.
while having a nice quote (“David Bottjer, professor of earth sciences and biological sciences at the University of Southern California, views the group’s results as strong evidence for one of the extinction’s most likely causes…’they provide unique evidence … that this mass extinction was probably caused by an enormous input of
carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and oceans’..”) and is thus more direct than some reports, it contains also this:
“Rothman says the total amount of CO2 pumped into Earth over this time period was so immense that it’s not immediately clear where it all came from.”
so apparently some aspects that are pretty crucial and central (where you can get such a huge amount of carbon) are not clear to scientists?
And does “carbon” mean just co2 or could it be from “methane burps”, the C in methane (or even microbes ‘eating’ the methane and leaving co2 as waste product, back then too, as we’re worried about happening today in the northern latitudes)? If the answer to these questions is “no” then is there a better answer? or do the best scientists and best science we have today really have no idea where so much carbon came from?
Would great to see a CP post with clarification on this issue.
Lastly a post on CP would be great if it also sun up in which ways we can say things are even worse, today, than at Permian
extinction..for one thing, back then you didn’t have massiveover-fishing on top of it, plus modern toxic chemicals etc..and the
total damage (whether to the health of a patient or to Earth) tends to be more than the sum of the parts…but compiling a list for a CP post of reasons not to be complacent and list of ways in which today’s is, or reasonable evidence today’s at least might be, worse, would be great to see too.
EDspeak, I agree. The human assault on the life-supporting biospheres is absolute and all-encompassing. We will create horrific synergies that no-one had imagined, and we will wipe this planet very clean. It will take an awfully long time to recover the previous extent of biodiversity. In fact, I’d say that the only force that could avert this sixth great extinction, is us, but only if we act in the precisely opposite manner to that which we have followed over the last several thousand years.
Isn’t the ice melt in the arctic and permamelt runaway warming for that area? Soon to be recognized as such for the world!
1) given that mankind makes changes that change the Arctic from permafrost to permamelt, how is it that mankind will quickly change it’s ways to reverse those changes? That concept is so very hopeful. Better to prepare a fortified structure to withstand some of the outcome and to develop a hydroponic sys. to provide food. Many of the survival changes do lower the harmful effects while providing a way of somewhat sustainability.
Just saying.
what kind of fortified structure do you mean?
A fortified structure- my guess is the weather will get more severe in more places more often.
So an easy guess is that tornadoes will generally happen in hilly areas where whirlwinds are common.
Where other area just near usually doesn’t get the tree falls so often in a storm.
But that would just be a guess about the sound of the winds and where they seem to start and which way they go to.
For an area to start getting stronger winds, well how low does one need to duck and how high does an embankment need to be.
For those who don’t think of cost so much, I might suggest planning a new vacation home in a more remote area and starting with having the extensive servant quarters some distance underground and then putting completion of the upper levels on hold while the design plans are being determined.
For the rest of us,velvet for the hole seems better than none.
Any help?
Things are getting heated in the British coalition government, and it’s all about environmental policy after Tory Chancellor George Osborne’s outrageous statements last week. He didn’t even consult Lib-Dem Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Chris Huhne, beforehand. It seems to have led to a backlash in the form of the biggest ever alliance of environmental groups here.
New green alliance in savage attack on George Osborne
Chris Huhne, and the rest of the LibDems are what the British ruling class know as ‘fags’. In elite schools, the head-boys (the Tories) get the ‘fags’ to do their dirty work for them. Huhne is a nobody-Osbourne, Gove, Cameron etc, the real power in the land, are ideological zealots and brutalists, uber-Thatcherites who would please the old girl if she was not too ga-ga to appreciate their efforts. They hate-hatred is their driving force-and these hatreds, class, race, gender, sexual preference, religion, inter-generational etc are now being unleashed. The Right, everywhere, faced by the failure of their brutilitarian world project and by rising popular resistance to neo-feudalism, are reacting with rage and a lust for vengeance, and environmentalism and the environment itself, are a prime target. These gigantic egomaniacs despise the natural world because it is bigger than them, and, to all intents and purposes, immortal, and this fills the Right with fury.
Good editorial about the rise of denialism in the UK in today’s Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/03/climate-change-observer-editorial
But my God! the denialist comments below it are bloody depressing! It’s reading such comments in a supposedly “liberal, progressive” paper that just makes me think “Why bother? Why not just give up and accept that the battle is lost?”
News which are censored or distorted at Faux News
Protests at climate change summit in Durban
Thousands of demonstrators have marched through the South African city of Durban demanding faster action on climate change.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16021217
But even if resistance from the US and others can be overcome, it is hard to envisage anything being agreed that can start to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions before 2020.
And that is the timeframe science suggests is necessary if the most dangerous climate impacts are to be avoided.
I’m reading Naomi Klein’s “Capitalism vs. the Climate” in the Nov. 28 issue of The Nation. Quite good.
If only we could arrange such a soft landing.
Unusual species continue to turn up in UK waters
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/04/whales-new-species-britain?INTCMP=SRCH
In the UK the bankruptcy of conventional economic thinking is being challenged by alternatives to the neoliberal consensus which recognise the urgency of the environmental challenge
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/oct/29/plan-b-economy-george-osborne
Stanford researchers are developing cheap, high power batteries that put Li-ion batteries to shame; they can even be used on the grid http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/mz2f6/stanford_researchers_are_developing_cheap_high/
Hell and High water Texas
Flood threat for Ark., Tenn., Ky., Ohio, even Texas
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/04/9201608-flood-threat-for-ark-tenn-ky-ohio-even-texas
Santa Ana wind damage stuns Southland residents
The onslaught leaves rooftops shredded and yards littered with downed trees in many communities, especially the foothill cities of the San Gabriel Valley. Residents brace for another night of battering.
Southland residents, tens of thousands of them without electricity, braced for a second onslaught of cold and freakishly powerful winds late Thursday, having barely had time to assess the fallen trees and shredded rooftops left by the previous night’s barrage.
“Nobody in our department has ever seen such widespread damage. Nobody,” said Jon Kirk Mukri, general manager of the Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks, talking of scores of city parks so littered with broken branches and teetering trees that they were considered a threat to public safety. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-wind-damage-20111202,0,5653237.story
Authorities warn of fire threats as howling winds hit Southern California
The unusually powerful Santa Ana winds descend to the Pacific Coast around Los Angeles from inland desert regions, according to the weather service.
The weather service reported gusts stronger than 140 mph along the Sierra Crest mountain ridge, while there were roughly 100 mph-hour winds in the San Gabriel Mountain Foothills of southern California.
Los Angeles County declared a state of emergency “to ensure that state and federal financial resources are available to serve county residents impacted by the windstorms,” Supervisor Michael Antonovich said. http://edition.cnn.com/2011/12/04/us/california-winds/index.html
Lame stream media reporting, fails to mention climate change.
The quotes from the Schuur et al paper posted on Dec 1 appear inconsistent once they’re explored mathematically. For all Joe and I differ on some matters of interpretation (such as over Obama’s motivation for his de-jure adoption of Bush climate policy) I’ve yet to see anything but scrupulous accuracy in his reporting of new scientific papers. Equally, this paper was peer-reviewed for ‘Nature’, which should imply a total consistency of data and text, unless some anomaly has occurred.
From the post, quoting the paper:
- “Across all the warming scenarios, we project that most of the released carbon will be in the form of CO2, with only about 2.7% in the form of CH4. However, because CH4 has a higher global-warming potential, almost half the effect of future permafrost-zone carbon emissions on climate forcing is likely to be from CH4.”
- “Our collective estimate is that carbon will be released more quickly than models suggest . . .”
- “We calculate that permafrost thaw will release the same order of magnitude of carbon as deforestation if current rates of deforestation continue. But because these emissions include significant quantities of methane, the overall effect on climate could be 2.5 times larger.”
- “The new analysis finds the permafrost releases up to 380 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent by 2100.”
If permafrost carbon emissions reach 380 GtCO2e by 2100, with 2.7% released as methane with a CO2e value of 33 on 100 years, then the carbon output cannot be more than 55.65Gts:
55.65 x 0.027 x 3.664 x 33 = 181.68 GtCO2e
55.65 x 0.973 x 3.664 . . . = 198.40 GtCO2
Sum = 380.07 GtCO2e
Rather than being quicker, this is far slower than the ~100GtC the NSIDC study projected, and less than a third of the ~178GtC that deforestation on current rates (~2.0GtC /yr) would release by 2100. Also, it is nowhere near 2.5 times the warming effect of that level of deforestation; in fact it is only about 1.86 times the warming if the 55.65 GtC were all emitted as CO2.
One point where the 380 GtCO2e and 2.7% CH4 figures do tally with the text is in “almost half the effect” being from methane (47.8%); this share is reduced to near 41% if methane’s CO2e value is set at (the outdated) 25 on 100 years, while the required carbon output rises to only ~63.0GtC. (Using the 20-year CO2e value of 105 gives a warming share of 74.4% and an output of only 27.3GtC).
While the 2.7% methane projection will doubtless be subject to much further research, particularly as ex-permafrost waterlogging expands, it is worth applying it to the NSIDC curve of permafrost carbon emissions under the 105 CO2e value on 20 years (the logical choice given the feedback dynamic) to assess its implications.
That curve shows about 100GtC of output by 2100 which would amount to 1,395.25 GtCO2e under these factors.
It also shows ~0.54GtC output in 2020, which under these factors equates to 7.53 GtCO2e, which is about 23.9% of present annual anthro-CO2 output.
At its peak at 2100 that curve shows ~1.6GtC /yr output, which under these factors equates to 22.32 GtCO2e, which is about 70.9% of present annual anthro-CO2 output.
Even without accounting the several other interactive mega-feedbacks, it seems that permafrost’s projected outputs would have to shrink by at least an order of magnitude if the successful control of anthro-GHG outputs is to be any more than entirely necessary but utterly insufficient to resolve the predicament.
Regards,
Lewis
(not scientific, but just as disturbing) this from yahoo news:
Fiscal Crisis Failed to Curb Global Warming Emissions
By Wynne Parry | LiveScience.com – 57 mins ago
Believe it or not, there is a potential upside to the global financial crisis that began in 2007. However, it now appears that benefit — namely, putting the brakes on greenhouse gas emissions, and, as a result, global warming — never fully materialized, according to an analysis of two important sources of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.
While a decline in economic activity means fewer greenhouse gas emissions, the most recent crisis seems to have created only a dip in the road to a warmer planet, the analysis indicates.
In fact, after the predictable downturn, emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from two prominent sources climbed to a record high, the researchers found.
“The (global financial crisis) was an opportunity to move the global economy away from a high emissions trajectory,” write the researchers, led by Glenn Peters of the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research in Norway, today in the journal Nature Climate Change. “Our results provide no indication of this happening, and further, indicate that the global financial crisis has been quite different from previous global crises.”
The rebound in emissions makes the goal of limiting global warming to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) more difficult to achieve. Negotiators, gathered in Durban, South Africa, are attempting to figure out a solution. [How 2 Degrees Will Change Earth]
Economic crises mean fewer things are sold or built and less fossil fuel is burned as individuals and corporations keep tighter grips on their pocketbooks. This research relied on two crucial sources of carbon dioxide — the burning of fossil fuels, such as gasoline in cars, and cement production, which accounts for 5 percent of human carbon dioxide emissions.
Global carbon dioxide emissions from these sources have dropped in years past; one example was the oil crisis of 1979. And in 2009, during the financial crisis, global emissions dropped by 1.4 percent.
But last year, emissions of carbon dioxide increased by 5.9 percent, reaching a record high and swallowing up any reduction that occurred during the crisis, according to preliminary estimates.
The rapid rise may have been the result of easing energy prices, government investment intended to speed economic recovery and high economic growth in the developing world, the researchers write.
You can follow LiveScience senior writer Wynne Parry on Twitter @Wynne_Parry. Follow LiveScience for the latest in science news and discoveries on Twitter @livescience and on Facebo
The skiing season is delayed in all over Europe (from Norway to Italy) due to record breaking temperatures and for some parts combined with drought.
Many references in msm – google it.