So says Schellnhuber (ht ht). I imagine he really did say it, because its in quotes. But the same page says "Schnellhuber charged that 20 per cent of the loss of the ice sheet on Greenland could be directly linked to the added carbon dioxide emissions from new Chinese coal-fired power stations." This I find rather hard to believe. The Chinese produce produce about 20% of global emissions, true, but not all of that is from power stations; and besides which its the atmos concentrations that matter, not the instantaneous emissions, and they have a long way to go before they catch up with a West on that score. So I imagine they have garbled that bit.
There is some RC stuff on SLR; but the basic answer is "no-one really knows yet".
More like this
From Long-term trend in global CO2 emissions, published by PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency and the European Commission's Joint Research Centre, comes some good news:
No joke: California Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill to regulate 'gas' emissions from cows along with other sources of greenhouse gases, of course. According to an interview from NPR, dairy cows are the number one producer of methane in California.
From the US Energy Information Adminstration's latest thinking:
Tony Abbott seems to have answered Julia Gillard's question of whether you should get your climate science from reputable climate scientists or Andrew Bolt by going for Andrew Bolt.
Perhaps it meant "added black carbon emissions."
Schellnhuber and Marotzke are also said to have said that ice loss in the Arctic has "doubled or even tripled" since 2005. Can that be true? I assume they are talking about the rate of ice loss from Greenland, which is said to have doubled between 1996 and 2005. Can it really have doubled again in the last three years?