Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Earth Is Flat, Smoking Is Healthy, Iraq Has Wmd...  
User currently offlineWellHung From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 6 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1206 times:

And humans aren't to blame for global warming.


http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20070131/1a_cover31.art.htm


A major international analysis of climate change due Friday will conclude that humankind's reliance on fossil fuels — coal, fuel oil and natural gas — is to blame for global warming, according to three scientists familiar with the research on which it is based.

The gold-standard Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report represents "a real convergence happening here, a consensus that this is a total global no-brainer," says U.S. climate scientist Jerry Mahlman, former director of the federal government's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in New Jersey.

"The big message that will come out is the strength of the attribution of the warming to human activities," says researcher Claudia Tebaldi of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo.

Mahlman, who crafted the IPCC language used to define levels of scientific certainty, says the new report will lay the blame at the feet of fossil fuels with "virtual certainty," meaning 99% sure. That's a significant jump from "likely," or 66% sure, in the group's last report in 2001, Mahlman says. His role in this year's effort involved spending two months reviewing the more than 1,600 pages of research that went into the new assessment.

Among the findings, Tebaldi says, is that even if people stopped burning the fossil fuels that release carbon dioxide, the heat-trapping gas blamed most for the warm-up, the effects of higher temperatures, including deadlier heat waves, coastal floods, longer droughts, worse wildfires and higher energy bills, would not go away in our lifetime.

~~~

The report is the work of more than 2,000 scientists, whose drafts were reviewed by scores of governments, industry and environmental groups. The document is based on research published in the six years since the last report.



http://www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm

Recognizing the problem of potential global climate change, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988. It is open to all members of the
UN and WMO.

The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters. It bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature. Its role, organisation, participation and general procedures are laid down in the "Principles Governing IPCC Work"

6 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 6 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1187 times:

Quoting WellHung (Thread starter):
Among the findings, Tebaldi says, is that even if people stopped burning the fossil fuels that release carbon dioxide, the heat-trapping gas blamed most for the warm-up, the effects of higher temperatures, including deadlier heat waves, coastal floods, longer droughts, worse wildfires and higher energy bills, would not go away in our lifetime.

This is an important point. So while we get ready for the invariable outpouring of "the earth will end tomorrow unless we ratify Kyoto" ranting, remember this.

Quote:
Tom M.L. Wigley, chief scientist at the U.S. Center for Atmospheric Research, calculates that even if every nation met its obligation to reduce greenhouse gas, the Earth would be only .07 degrees centigrade cooler by 2050. Wigley favors a much more stringent plan than Kyoto, but such restrictions would severely restrict economic growth, particularly in the developing world. Nations such as China and India were excluded from the Kyoto Protocol; yet if we're serious about reversing global warming by driving less, the developing world will have to be included.

and this:

Quote:
The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change notes that during the 20th century the Earth's temperature rose by 0.6 degrees centigrade and -- depending on which of the many climate models turn out to be closest to reality -- it expects the temperature to rise 1.4 to 5.8 degrees by 2100.

and finally, this

Quote:
Two ways of dealing with global warming emerge. A more stringent version of Kyoto could be crafted to chase the unprecedented goal of trying to cool the atmosphere of the entire planet. Yet if such efforts resulted in lower economic growth, low-income populations in the United States and developing countries would be less able to protect themselves from the ill effects of extreme heat or other kinds of severe weather.

Alternatively, the focus could be on preventing the negative effects -- the disease and death -- that global warming might bring. Each year malaria kills 1 million to 3 million people, and one-third of the world's population is infected with water- or soil-borne parasitic diseases. It may well be that dealing with global warming by building resilience against its possible effects is more productive -- and more realistic -- than trying to solve the problem by driving our automobiles less.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn.../2007/01/26/AR2007012601589_3.html


User currently offlineWellHung From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 6 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1125 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 1):

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. These changes didn't happen overnight, nor will they be reversed overnight. To suggest that it's pointless to try to reverse or slow these changes because it won't have an immediate environmental impact is somewhat ridiculous. If anything, it should be more of a reason to stop NOW so we don't do more damage that will take even longer to remedy.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 1):
if every nation met its obligation to reduce greenhouse gas, the Earth would be only .07 degrees centigrade cooler by 2050. Wigley favors a much more stringent plan than Kyoto, but such restrictions would severely restrict economic growth, particularly in the developing world.

So what if the temperature is 'only' .07 degrees cooler in 50 years? It's a hell of a lot better than being a full 2 degrees warmer. And no one cares about this 'developing world' until they can use it as an excuse to continue polluting.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 1):
It may well be that dealing with global warming by building resilience against its possible effects is more productive -- and more realistic -- than trying to solve the problem by driving our automobiles less.

Good call. Better start filling those sandbags and moving entire cities inland now. We may be able to protect against disease in humans, but we can't stop or slow the glaciers and icecaps from melting, the seas from rising, the oceans from acidifying, the atmosphere from degrading, the agricultural problems and the expected increase in extreme weather unless we start trying to solve the problem.


User currently offlineDougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 6 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1077 times:

I'm not sure a lot of people realize this, but the planet's going to do very well without us. Humans aren't important in the grand scheme of things. So what's going to happen is going to happen.


At least, until the sun burns out in what, 12 billion years?


User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 47
Reply 4, posted (7 years 6 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1055 times:

The late Carl Sagan must be down there in Purgatory looking up at us and jumping up and down screaming he wishes he was back, what with these Mars Rovers and "The Earth Is Cooking" movements and such.

Sucks to be him.


User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 47
Reply 5, posted (7 years 6 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1055 times:

The late Carl Sagan must be down there in Purgatory looking up at us and jumping up and down screaming he wishes he was back, what with these Mars Rovers and "The Earth Is Cooking" movements and such.

Sucks to be him.


User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 6 months 1 day ago) and read 976 times:

Quoting WellHung (Reply 2):
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. These changes didn't happen overnight, nor will they be reversed overnight. To suggest that it's pointless to try to reverse or slow these changes because it won't have an immediate environmental impact is somewhat ridiculous. If anything, it should be more of a reason to stop NOW so we don't do more damage that will take even longer to remedy.

I'm not saying we should do nothing. What I'm saying is that if we are going to be serious about controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, the measures we take have to apply to everyone. Sorry, but China and India don't get a pass.

Quoting WellHung (Reply 2):
So what if the temperature is 'only' .07 degrees cooler in 50 years? It's a hell of a lot better than being a full 2 degrees warmer. And no one cares about this 'developing world' until they can use it as an excuse to continue polluting.

As the chief scientist of the U.S. Center for Atmospheric Research noted, meeting the Kyoto targets will simply not fill the bill. Yes, we need to get serious about reversing the upward trend in temperature - assuming we can - but we also need to respond to the inevitable impact that increased temperatures are going to bring. Even if we met and exceeded the Kyoto targets in the next five years, the steady rise in human activity over the last 100 years can't be turned around overnight.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
One More Time..Is This All Bush Has Left? posted Mon May 31 2004 09:22:19 by Rsmith6621a
Democracy Is Impossible IN Iraq posted Mon Mar 31 2003 12:53:57 by HUS9746
Is War With Iraq Inevitable? posted Wed Dec 4 2002 08:38:38 by Tbar220
I Think My Cat Is Sick... Is She? posted Thu Jul 13 2006 03:38:59 by Cadet57
War In Iraq Has Strenghtened Al Queada?...... posted Tue May 25 2004 14:51:59 by QIguy24
Kelly Says Iraq Had WMD posted Wed Jan 21 2004 23:12:11 by Gc
Why Hasn't Iraq Used WMD Yet? posted Wed Apr 2 2003 22:37:26 by United777
Confirmed - Iraq Has Illegal Weapons posted Thu Mar 27 2003 21:47:09 by NWA742
Chirac Knows Saddam Has WMD's posted Tue Feb 18 2003 19:26:05 by Ryanb741
Iraq Has Decided... posted Wed Nov 13 2002 19:34:26 by Manni