News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Climate update points to 2060 nightmare rise 

Climate update points to 2060 nightmare rise

29 Sep, 2009 04:00 AM
GLOBAL temperatures could rise 4 degrees in the next 50 years - faster than previously predicted - if greenhouse gas emissions increase unchecked, according to a report for the British Government.

The climate science update, prepared by British Met Office scientists, found that the increase this century could top 15 degrees above pre-industrial levels in the Arctic and be up to 10 degrees for parts of Africa.

In Australia, rainfall is projected to decline by at least one-fifth along parts of the coastline, worsening drought.

The Met Office Hadley Centre's head of climate impacts, Richard Betts, said the most severe scenarios outlined in the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report now looked conservative.

"We've always talked about these very severe impacts only affecting future generations, but people alive today could live to see a 4-degree rise," Dr Betts told The Guardian.

Where the panel said a probable scenario without action to stop emissions was 4 degrees of warming by 2100, the new report says that level could be reached by 2060 in an extreme case.

The warning came as more than 2000 officials from about 190 countries met in Bangkok for the start of two weeks of climate talks crucial to shaping December's prospective Copenhagen agreement.

Analysts hold little hope of significant progress in Thailand after world leaders offered few concrete proposals at last week's meetings in the US.

Green and welfare groups expressed frustration yesterday after it was revealed that the G20 leaders' meeting in Pittsburgh watered down a climate-change communique at the last minute.

The Age understands proposals about a funding plan to help poorer countries reduce emissions and adapt to the effects of climate change were removed.

An earlier draft said rich nations needed to substantially increase spending to help the poor cope. It also stressed the importance of carbon markets and said oversight should be increased.

The final communique said G20 finance ministers would come up with options in November. US President Barack Obama had previously charged the G20 with coming up with a range of options by last week.

A finance deal is regarded as crucial to a new treaty.

Australia is yet to reveal its position on climate financing beyond promoting the use of revenue from carbon markets, but it is understood not to have argued for the change.

Australian Conservation Foundation climate change spokesman Tony Mohr said he believed the Government had expected the G20 to give direction on climate finance.

"It's hugely frustrating and a real missed opportunity," Mr Mohr said. "We need Australia to start forming its position and doing our bit for financing during these two weeks in Bangkok, but the negotiating team is hamstrung without a political announcement from the Prime Minister."

A spokeswoman for Climate Change Minister Penny Wong said countries had begun to agree on broad principles but not details.

Officials in Bangkok will this week attempt to reduce a 180-page negotiating draft text into a manageable document.

Points of disagreement include emissions targets for the wealthy, climate aid and sharing of clean energy technology.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size
Page:
1



RELATED COVERAGE

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
They "could" rise - why don't they make a solid opinion? They just don't know, anyone who beleives all this stuff needs to get their head read. I bet there is a disclaimer at the end of the report too.
Posted by mick, 29/09/2009 5:21:10 AM
Yeah based on that report on Australian farmers 'may' give up trying to produce food. As a consequence it is 'possible' that the urban population will run out of food. And that 'might' result in food riots with the 'potential' result of people turning to cannibalism.
Posted by Qlander, 29/09/2009 7:05:30 AM
Good on you Mick, I agree with you that the whole thing is a big tax grab. The politicians and media are brain washing people into believing all this rubbish. A lot of people today are brain washed already and believe what they see on tv and read. There once was a saying: believe half of what you see and half of what you hear.
Posted by pete, 29/09/2009 8:40:40 AM
Same old propoganda. The world is cooling - that is far more disasterous.
Posted by Paul, 29/09/2009 12:50:30 PM
Scare mongering rubbish. Rural Press should be more responsible and not publish this rot. I challenge the editor to invite Ian Plimer to respond to this rubbish.
Posted by Bob, 30/09/2009 4:28:57 AM
Yes - the propaganda's the same, but now the words "rich" and "poor" are getting into the propaganda. "Rich" appears clearly to be used in this context as a form of prejudicial insult to any person or nation who/which is better off than another, with an inference that this is associated with greed rather than success - while "poor" is apparently used to invite pathos and to imply that the "poorness" is a result of being nobly responsible "about something". They are terms favoured by welfare reformists - it seems that they are attaching themselves to the well-funded (rich?) climate change lobby.
Posted by AJ, 30/09/2009 6:30:35 AM
These projections are based on modeling which in turn are based on computer appraisals of current conditions. The central and key appraisal of current conditions was the Hockey Stick, the [in]famous graph based on tree ring data over 2000 years which Gore used in his movie, An Inconvenient Truth. The hockey stick supposedly showed flat temperatures up until the second half of the 20thC when they increased drastically producing a hockey-stick shape. This graph and the idea of the Hockey Stick has now been disproved. The data that Keith Briffa, the co-author of the Hockey Stick paper, has just been revealed to be false. This means that there were times in the immediate past such as the Medieval Warming Period which were warmer than today; it also means that the temperature increase over the 20thC has been inflated and is not exceptional. These revelations about the falsity of AGW make such alarmist predictions about the future worthless.
Posted by cohenite, 30/09/2009 6:41:45 AM
Once again a single extreme projection is the only one getting media coverage, and the only one driving the policy process. So let's spell this out for Wong and every so-called professional involved here. The absolute minimum performance standard in assessing future outcomes is the compilation of a standard "probability tree" that assigns a weighting to each of all reasonably forseeable outcomes. And in the climate context this would include the possibility of serious cooling, no warming at all, modest warming and, way out on the end with a faint chance, the above mentioned 'scarenario'. Neither the UN IPCC, nor the G20, nor Wong, nor Garnaut or any of the CSIRO goons, have bothered to produce such a fundamental risk assessment tool. This omission constitutes both an "improper exercise of power" on Wong's part, and gross negligence. The detriment that all of us will suffer from this failure to meet best practise standards of risk assessment is entirely forseeable. And Wong has a duty of care to take all reasonable and practical steps to avoid that detriment. And her personal indemnity from prosecution does not extend to acts done unlawfully or negligently.
Posted by Ian Mott, 30/09/2009 7:36:01 AM
These people are desperate worriers! But that is not half the trouble we will be in when the salt water catches fire!
Posted by Ted O'Brien, 30/09/2009 8:40:58 AM
For a more detailed look at the professional standards employed by the UK Met. Hadley Centre, see; http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/ 2009/09/leading-uk-climate-scient ists-must-explain-or-resign/#comm ents "If these people have been on the public payroll then they clearly have a case to answer in respect of official misconduct. There is a prima facie case of misrepresentation of fact by omission. It appears to have been made with a knowledge of its untruth and with a clear intention that it be acted upon by the policy process. And the fact that “persons”, in this case the crown, have acted upon this absolutely key misrepresentation by way of budget appropriations makes it fraudulent misrepresentation. The question of fraud does not just rest on whether Briffa, Osborn and Jones have gained a monetary benefit from this deception. The law has been absolutely clear for a very long time that fraud to obtain a benefit for other parties, ie for charity or some other ideal, in no way diminishes the nature of the crime. This is a matter for the UK public prosecutor." Ian Mott
Posted by Ian Mott, 30/09/2009 9:02:10 AM
1 | 2 | 3  |  next >

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
28 September, 2009
POLL
Q: Should politicians who retire mid-term be fined to help recover the costs of holding a by-election?

Yes
(73.4%)

No
(22%)

Undecided
(4.7%)

Total Votes: 473
Poll Date: 27 September, 2009

Most popular articles

1) Apple iPhone 4 32GB44 plans 12%
2) Apple iPhone 4 16GB44 plans 14%
3) Motorola Quench7 plans 3%
4) HTC Desire4 plans 1%
5) Apple iPhone 3GS 8GB33 plans 2%

Mobile Phones | Broadband Plans

Get the best deal at Fairfax Digital - Rural Press

Daily Grain
 
Freedom Tanks
 
Irwin Hunter
 
FOL EMAIL SUBS
 
WANTFA Spring Field Day


NSW
VIC
SA
QLD
NSW
VIC
QLD
SA

Farm Weekly







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Navigate

Classifieds

More Ways to Read

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2010. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...