Climate change is currently one of the hottest topics, which is of course the result of Cancun climate talks, where world leaders will try to clean the mess that was left by Copenhagen, or what is more likely create even bigger mess and lead this world to the brink of total environmental disaster.
It is difficult to be optimist about it, especially after so many disappointments, and the current political climate looks anything but ready to find the way to significantly lower emissions on global level. US is not ready to lead the world, China isn't giving up on coal, renewable energy sector is still not developed, and the differences between countries are still pretty much the same as they were last year in Copenhagen.
New, legally binding climate deal therefore looks more like a nice dream after which it's time to get back in the harsh reality. And this reality will likely become even harsher in years to come because climate change will likely very soon pass the point of no return, namely the 2C temperature increase.
The two largest CO2 emitters in the world are China and United States, and so any success of climate deal will primarily depend upon the will of these two countries to significantly curb their own emissions.
The difference in opinions between developed and developing world is still the biggest obstacle that will likely undermine all current climate efforts, and yet again postpone the decisive political action.
What to expect from Cancun climate talks? A lot of expectations resulting in one huge disappointment is the most likely scenario.
Climate change again becoming hot topic
What must world do to stop climate change?
These are the most important things world needs to do in order to stop climate change from strengthening its impact:
1. Significantly reduce the global level of greenhouse gas emissions, not only carbon dioxide (CO2) but also other greenhouse gases such as methane.
2. Agree on new international climate deal that would legally oblige countries to curb their emissions. Kyoto protocol definitely needs much stronger successor to make the difference.
3. Listen to science, and ensure better funding for science researches that study the climate change phenomenon. Climate change is extremely complex and multidimensional issue which is why science needs all the help it can get in form of adequate funding.
4. Stop deforestation in Amazon rainforests, and other large rainforests and forests on our planet because these forests absorb huge quantities of CO2.
5. Stop the ocean acidification because this could disrupt the ability of oceans to sink CO2, and they are currently, together with rainforests, the largest CO2 absorbers on our planet.
6. Develop renewable energy sector to get more energy from renewable energy, and decrease the fossil fuels consumption because burning fossil fuels creates harmful carbon emissions.
7. Significantly improve energy efficiency. By improving energy efficiency world would also decrease its need for energy coming from fossil fuels which would result in less CO2 emissions.
Cancun climate talks success or not?
It is very difficult to characterize Cancun climate talks as successful. True, there were some small steps forward like the decision to give more money to poor countries in a form of a Green Climate Fund that would give $100 billion a year in aid to poor nations by 2020 (though the mechanism for raising this amount of money each year is still unclear). Other positive notes include certain measures to protect tropical forests and ways to share clean energy technologies.
But despite these positive things world leaders still failed on the most important thing of them all, namely there was no progress at all in extending the Kyoto protocol and oblige countries to curb their carbon emissions.
Most of world leaders will likely describe Cancun climate talks like U.S. president Obama did by saying that "the Cancun meeting was a success and advances the world's response to climate change". Of course, most environmentalists will not agree with such statements.
Niklas Hoehne, director of energy and climate policy at consultancy Ecofys, believes that this isn't enough to halt temperature rise, and that existing government policies will lead to a rise in world temperatures of about 3.6 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial times.
The best way to describe this year's climate talks in Cancun would be "not a total failure like Copenhagen last year but still not a step forward many of us were expecting".
The next climate talks will be held at the end of 2011 in South Africa.
Arctic ice could even recover?
Many scientists support the thesis that once temperatures reach "tipping point" then the climate change will eventually push the Arctic's ice towards the total melting, meaning that Arctic summer ice would completely disappear.
Among scientists who do not agree with this opinion is Steven Amstrup, a professor at the University of Washington. Professor Amstrup in his recent study concluded that "There is no 'tipping point' that would result in unstoppable loss of summer sea ice when greenhouse gas-driven warming rose above a certain threshold".
The most recent reports claim that Arctic ice has shrank by close to 20 percent in the last few decades, and many scientists are worried that if the current warming trend (regional temperature at Arctic has in the same period increased twice or triple the global average) at Arctic continues in years to come Arctic will become totally free of ice during summer months.
Professor Amstrup has based his study on computer models, and his study showed that if annual emissions of greenhouse gases are significantly reduced over the next twenty years, an initial phase of rapid ice loss would afterward be replaced by a period of stability and, eventually, partial recovery.
This would in the best possible scenario mean that polar bears might actually get a decent chance to survive because after some time Arctic could recover enough ice, which would give polar bears more habitat needed to stop the further population decline.
Many polar bears are dying of hunger because the ice has started melting much sooner in the spring which has significantly shortened their hunting season. World needs to do something fast or Arctic' largest predator will soon come to the very brink of the extinction.
Cancun climate talks have showed certain positive outlook but world needs to transform this into legally obliging international climate deal. This shouldn't be done only to protect polar bears from extinction but also to ensure our future generations healthy planet, free of environmental disasters such as droughts, floods, sea level rise, etc.
The most mentioned climate change threats
Here are some of the most mentioned climate change threats:
More frequent extreme weather events such as droughts, floods, hurricanes which will not only create huge environmental but also huge economic damage.
Arctic totally free of summer ice, and rapid melting of Antarctica's ice. This could cause serious sea level rise, and threaten many coastal areas around the globe.
More hunger in the world, because of new pests and new diseases that will have the negative impact on crop health. More hunger in the world could lead to new wars.
Severe water shortages in some parts of the world. This, just like hunger issue, could lead to new wars.
More refugees. Climate change has the potential to make living impossible in certain areas of our planet which could turn lot of people into refugees.
Extinction of many animal and plant species. We are not talking only about polar bears but many other animals which will find it hard to adapt to rapid changes in climate. Biodiversity loss is already a huge problem, and in years to come it could reach catastrophic proportions.
Climate change and glacier melting - Latest data
There have been many studies conducted with the purpose of determining the level of glacier melting and shrinkage in years to come, and the latest comes from the the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada. Here are some of the most interesting conclusions of this study:
1. Mountain glaciers and ice caps are projected to lose 15-27% of their volume by 2100, though this will significantly vary by region. It is expected that European Alps and New Zealand will shrink the most (by more than 70%) while on the other hand shrinkage is predicted to reach about 10% in Greenland and high-mountain Asia.
2. Melting of the glaciers will threaten the water supplies of cities such as Kathmandu in Nepal and La Paz in Bolivia, which depend substantially on glacial meltwater for drinking and farming.
3. Melting glaciers and ice caps will be responsible for increases in sea levels of 8.7-16.1cm by 2100 (this doesn't include ice loss from calving).
4. Total sea level rise is likely to be considerably higher but glacier melting has made a growing contribution to sea level rise over past decades.
5. Mountain glaciers and ice caps include less than one percent of all water on Earth bound in glacier ice but despite this their retreat has caused half of sea level rises from melting ice over the past 50 years.
Climate change in 2011 - What needs to change?
The year 2010 was the year of big expectations, and there were many environmentalists who believed that world would be finally able to stop the further increase in CO2 emissions by agreeing on new climate deal. Sadly, Cancun climate talks, despite providing some glimpses of optimism, still weren't successful in uniting the world to tackle the climate change, well at least not in the form of new international climate deal which would oblige countries to significantly reduce their CO2 emissions.
Will we see a change for better in 2011, and will this be a year when the world will finally act as one in order to agree the so much needed successor to Kyoto protocol, or will once again the differences in opinion between developed and developing countries prove to be too much of the stumbling block for world leaders to unite?
World leaders still prefer talk instead of the real action so don't be surprised if the 2011 ends up in similar tone like the 2010, namely plenty of expectations, with not much positive in the end. I would really like to think otherwise but the way things have been going lately it is very difficult to remain optimistic about it.
World leaders still do not realize that there is no time to delay on climate change. Time is running out, and climate change is becoming stronger and stronger, after all the year 2010 was the joint warmest year on record.
The thing that needs to change the most about the climate change in 2011 is the way world leaders look at it, or to be more precise world leaders should add the factor of urgency when discussing climate change, and they should stop talking about this issue like they have all the time in the world to tackle it.
Inactivity means stronger climate change impact, and the more stronger climate change gets the more closer this world is to a state of total environmental and economic disaster where large parts of the world will be inhabitable, with millions people as refugees.
More commitment and more urgency in tackling the climate change issue are two main things that need to change in 2011. Without these two, yet another year will end up in disappointing tone.
Greenland ice melting in 2010 facts
The year 2010 was the warmest year on record, and Greenland being one of the most sensitive areas to increased temperatures, certainly felt the effects of that by having 50 days longer melting period in many areas, from the end of April till the mid September.
2010 summer temperatures in Greenland were 3C above the average, and this is the main reason why Greenland experienced this prolonged period of melting.
This year, the largest city in Greenland, Nuuk, experienced the warmest spring and summer in history since the measurements began in 1873.
Greenland ice melting is one of the main contributing factors to global sea level rise, and there is large number of scientists such as WWF climate specialist Dr. Martin Sommerkorn who believe that sea levels will rise by more than 1 meter till the end of this century. Scientists have calculated that Greenland ice melt currently contributes to global sea level rise at about .02 inches a year, but the potential impact is enormous.
According to the Marco Tedesco, director of the Cryospheric Processes Laboratory at The City College of New York, in 2010 an area of the size of France melted in Greenland.
Greenland has about one-twentieth of the world's total ice, and if all of this ice were to melt this would cause 21 feet of global sea rise.
Despite the record ice melting in 2010, it is estimated that the scenario in which Greenland would lose all its ice would take at least few centuries to be completed. However, once rapid melting starts (and it certainly looks like this process has already started) it is extremely difficult to reverse it, and this is one of the main reasons why world leaders should finally agree new climate deal which would limit greenhouse gas production. This is really world's only chance to stop further ice melting at Greenland.
Himalayan glaciers - Melting or not?
There have been several different reports claiming that climate change is the main factor responsible for the melting of Himalayan glaciers but the latest study by scientists at the Universities of California and Potsdam has found that half of the glaciers in the Karakoram range, in the northwestern Himalaya, are doing quite an opposite, namely growing and not melting.
If the results of this study are correct then this would mean that climate change in form of global warming isn't the only deciding factor whether certain glacier will melt or not.
The scientists found out that global warming is not the main force behind the melting of the Himalayan glaciers, the most important role in fact belongs to the amount of debris (rocks and mud) – strewn on their surface. What this means is that the glaciers surrounded by high mountains and covered with more than two centimeters of debris are well protected from melting.
Such conclusion can be also drawn from the fact that debris-covered glaciers are common in the rugged central Himalaya, but they are very rare in subdued landscapes on the Tibetan Plateau, where melting rates are significantly higher.
The scientists have studied 286 glaciers between the Hindu Kush on the Afghan-Pakistan border to Bhutan, and they discovered that more than half of these glaciers are in stable or even advancing state.
Debris cover therefore looks to be the factor of major importance when it comes to melting of the glaciers, and this effect has so far been neglected in many previous climate change studies.
UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change still hasn't expressed their opinion on this study. It would be very interesting to hear their opinion about this matter, particularly given the fact that their first reports on this matter predicted that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035.
Climate change already showing its scary face in Australia?
If you take into account the recent record fires and massive floods, and also the visit of a giant Cyclone Yasi you could pretty much say that climate change is already showing its scary face in Australia. In any case these latest events have at least spurred very lively political debate down under.
There are still many people in Australia who do not see any connection between climate change and these recent disasters. Many environmentalists believe that the main reason why many of Australian politicians are reluctant to accept the connection between climate change and these extreme weather events lies in powerful fossil fuel lobbies.
But perhaps things are changing for better in Australia because Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard has recently (at least) admitted that climate change was real but still hesitated to connect climate change with these recent disasters.
Admitting the climate change isn't enough and environmentalists ask from government to price carbon emissions. The issue whether to price carbon emissions or not has stirred many political debates for almost a decade, on one hand environmentalists believe that this is the only way to tackle climate change in Australia while opposition coming from fossil fuel lobbies believe that such measure would cause higher taxes and job losses.
The recent rise of extreme weather events has been very evident in Australia. This latest cyclone is really just a continuation, and many Australians still remember the year 2006 and cyclone Larry that tore through the northern Queensland town of Innisfail, accounting for an estimated A$1.5 billion in damage to the area.
There was also the combination of drought and heatwave in February 2009 which caused the nation's deadliest fires around the southern city of Melbourne, and floods in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria have destroyed around 30,000 Australian homes.
When you look at all of these, Australia certainly has plenty of reasons to think about the possible connection between the climate change and recent extreme weather events.
Why is climate change having negative impact on polar bears?
Polar bears have over the years become negative symbol for climate change, and the most obvious negative impact of climate change in reference to polar bears has certainly been the rapid loss of ice in polar areas.
Polar bears depend on ice not only for hunting prey (because early melting of the ice makes it more difficult for the bears to hunt seals successfully) but also for successful breeding.
The latest study by the researchers from the University of Alberta has showed that rapid loss of ice cover has very negative impact on breeding because females are hunting seals on the ice to gather enough energy for the autumn and winter when they will hibernate for up to eight months and give birth.
Less ice means less prey, and less prey means less energy, which in the ends results in fewer cubs.
The scientists calculated that if the ice melts up two months earlier than in the 1990s, there is a 55 to a full 100% chance that all pregnant female polar bears will not have a single cub.
Researchers usually study Hudson Bay polar bear population, and this was also the case in this study. The researchers have calculated that if spring break up in Hudson Bay comes one month earlier than in the 1990s, there is a 40 to 73% chance that pregnant female polar bears will not give birth to a single cub.
Hudson Bay polar bear population currently counts around 900 individuals, down from 1200 individuals a decade ago. The total number of polar bears across the entire Arctic is estimated at around 20,000.
The equation is pretty simple, namely less ice equals less polar bears. Judging by the current levels (Arctic sea ice was at its lowest ever level this January), things are certainly not looking good for polar bears in years to come.
Is it too late to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
The most obvious solution to tackle climate change is to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, most notably carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. But would this solution actually stop warming of our planet?
According to the researchers from the University of Washington even if greenhouse gas emissions were to be stopped right now, earth would still very likely continue the warming trend because of the excessive greenhouse gas emissions that have occurred up to now.
Greenhouse gases such as CO2 which are already emitted are likely to persist in the Earth's atmosphere for thousands of years so it is very possible that warming would still continue even if all greenhouse gas sources would be suddenly eliminated.
Kyle Armour, a UW doctoral student in physics explains this by connecting greenhouse gases with aerosols. According to Armour aerosols which tend to counteract the effect of greenhouse warming by reflecting sunlight back into space, would last only a matter of weeks once emissions stopped, while the greenhouse gases would continue on. However, Armour also notes that the overall effect of aerosols is still the largest uncertainty in climate research so this is really only a very likely possibility.
This research does not send the message that we should be indifferent to reducing the greenhouse gases because if we continue current trend of emissions things will likely become much worse in years to come.
Today's temperature is already about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit higher than it was 200 years ago. Many scientists agree that a threshold at which the climate change related damage begins to occur is if the average temperature on our planet would rise to 3.5 degrees F higher than before the Industrial Revolution.
Is it too late to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
The most obvious solution to tackle climate change is to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, most notably carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. But would this solution actually stop warming of our planet?
According to the researchers from the University of Washington even if greenhouse gas emissions were to be stopped right now, earth would still very likely continue the warming trend because of the excessive greenhouse gas emissions that have occurred up to now.
Greenhouse gases such as CO2 which are already emitted are likely to persist in the Earth's atmosphere for thousands of years so it is very possible that warming would still continue even if all greenhouse gas sources would be suddenly eliminated.
Kyle Armour, a UW doctoral student in physics explains this by connecting greenhouse gases with aerosols. According to Armour aerosols which tend to counteract the effect of greenhouse warming by reflecting sunlight back into space, would last only a matter of weeks once emissions stopped, while the greenhouse gases would continue on. However, Armour also notes that the overall effect of aerosols is still the largest uncertainty in climate research so this is really only a very likely possibility.
This research does not send the message that we should be indifferent to reducing the greenhouse gases because if we continue current trend of emissions things will likely become much worse in years to come.
Today's temperature is already about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit higher than it was 200 years ago. Many scientists agree that a threshold at which the climate change related damage begins to occur is if the average temperature on our planet would rise to 3.5 degrees F higher than before the Industrial Revolution.
There's really no point in climate change talks
This year's climate change talks will be held in South Africa, and by the current looks of it everything will remain only on talks. This is because many political analysts believe that it is almost impossible to expect international climate deal to be agreed given the current political situation in the world.
Last year's climate change talks in Cancun ended with some fairly modest advancements, and it looks like the same scenario could happen once again because of the difference in opinion between the developed and developing countries.
The major players, and world's largest CO2 polluters China and United States are still not prepared to cut their greenhouse gas emissions, and without these two countries showing the example everything else is pretty much useless.
As said before the gap in opinions between the developed and the developing world is still a too big obstacle to any success in reaching the international climate deal. Developing countries believe that rich industrialized countries should make legally binding commitments to deeper cuts in the emissions of the greenhouse gases, most notably carbon dioxide (CO2).
Rich countries believe that deeper CO2 cuts would hurt their economies too much, especially if developing countries such as China and India would be left out of it.
Basically, it is status quo situation with none of major players ready to show the will to actually do something about climate change issue. Top polluters are anything but ready to legally commit to emission cuts, and if you look at these things more closely there's really no point in climate change talks. Just a high expectations resulting in one big disappointment.
Climate change issue - Ten things that need to be done
1. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions on global level. In order to do so countries must agree new international climate deal, at this point this looks to be impossible because of difference in opinions between the developed and the developing world.
2. Help animals and plants to adapt to climate change or else many species will go extinct. The biodiversity loss is already huge, and climate change has the potential to make things even worse.
3. Develop strong renewable energy sector on global level. Strong renewable energy sector would mean less need for fossil fuels, and less fossil fuels burning means less CO2 emissions.
4. Improve energy efficiency. Together with developing renewable energy sector world also needs to improve efficiency of currently dominant energy technologies.
5. Protect our oceans and forests. Our oceans and forests are our planet's largest absorbers of carbon dioxide, and maintaining this extremely useful ability of theirs is crucial thing in fight against climate change.
6. Adequate environmental and renewable energy legislation, both on national as well as international level.
7. Create funds for poor countries because poor countries do not have enough money to adapt to climate change. After all, these countries are the least responsible for ongoing climate change phenomenon, and they certainly do not deserve to suffer the most because of it.
8. Create more funds for climate change research. Much of climate change is still in sphere of predictions and scientific research will play a key role in developing a best possible strategy in our fight against climate change.
9. Stop deforestation. Deforestation not only destroys forests that sink lot of carbon dioxide but it is also responsible for around one fifth of total world's carbon emissions.
10. Green development of our entire society. People need to develop ecological conscience, and change their current system of values where everything resolves around the money. We need to know that we need nature much more than nature needs us.
What is the key to success in tackling climate change?
Climate change presents a huge threat to human well being. There are many people wondering why are world leaders doing so little to save us from seeing the worst of climate change. International climate talks are always just talks and nothing else, and such strategy will definitely not be enough to tackle climate change. What we need is an immediate action, and not more talks and false promises.
Many scientists will agree that the best way to tackle climate change is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, most notably carbon dioxide (CO2 emissions). In order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions we need to first identify the main cause of these emissions.
The main cause of greenhouse gas emissions is fossil fuels burning. World economy still heavily relies on fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas), and as long as fossil fuels remain dominant sources of energy we won't have any chance to successfully tackle climate change.
What's the alternative to fossil fuels? The answer is quite simple, namely the renewable energy. If world would to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy sources this would reduce the amount of greenhouse gases that end up in earth's atmosphere, and stop climate change from going totally out of control.
So what's the problem then? Well, besides the fact that some people still do not believe in climate change there is also the problem regarding the reliability of renewable energy, namely renewable energy technologies are still not developed enough to reliably deliver enough power needed to satisfy a global economy.
Renewable energy is also more expensive option compared to fossil fuels, and not many people are willing to pay higher energy bills, because to many people money is still more important than saving our planet from huge environmental catastrophe.
The key to success in tackling climate change is basically in changing the ethical values of our society. World has to stop its blind faith in money because there are things much more important than money like for instance our environment, or in general our planet.
Climate change has the potential to completely destroy our way of life and people should be really asking themselves what's the use in having all the money in the world if you don't have nothing to spend it on?
Indian ocean sinks huge amounts of carbon emissions
Our oceans are the largest absorbers of carbon dioxide (CO2), and they (together with forests) play a vital role in global fight against climate change. Are all oceans equally important in sinking the carbon emissions from the atmosphere? Well, if the results of the latest international study are true, then the answer is no they're not.
According to the latest study resulting from the joined work which included 400 scientists from 10 countries Indian Ocean absorbs three times more carbon dioxide than the Atlantic Ocean.
Why is that? Professor Carlos Duarte explained this by saying that this is because of the proliferation of a particular kinds of algae called diatoms. Diatoms are one of the most common types of phytoplankton which contribute up to 45% of the total oceanic primary production.
Many scientists across the globe have been lately putting more efforts into ocean research because they are aware that oceans are our most important ally in fight against climate change.
World must gain a better knowledge about natural defense systems against climate change such as oceans and forests because climate change impact is constantly growing in strength.
Improving our knowledge is the only way to success in fight against climate change, and so the scientists around the world need to share their data and work together in order to find the adequate solutions against climate change.
Climate change is global issue that can be solved only at global level, and world leaders need to be aware of that. Sadly, when it comes to politics individual interests still outweigh global interest, and world leaders will continue to care very little about the carbon sinking ability that our oceans posses.