TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Global Warming 'very likely' man made.
Pages (4): [1] 2 3 4 »
Global Warming 'very likely' man made.
| quote: |
Global warming 'very likely' man-made By SETH BORENSTEIN AP Science Writer � 2007 The Associated Press TOOLS Get section feed Subscribe NOW PARIS � A long-awaited report says global warming is "very likely" man-made, the most powerful language ever used on the issue by the world's leading climate scientists, delegates who have seen the report said Thursday. And the document, the most authoritative science on the issue, says the disturbing signs are already visible in rising seas, killer heat waves, worsening droughts and stronger hurricanes. There was another signal, too: The City of Light dimmed the lights. It was an expression of concern over the state of the planet as the world awaited the report's release on Friday. Slowly, starting first with the iconic Eiffel Tower and then spreading to the hotel where many scientists were staying, Paris quieted and dimmed ever so slightly, even as those still fine-tuning the document burned the midnight oil. The report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change � a group of hundreds of scientists and representatives of 113 governments � unanimously portrays the science of global warming as an existing and worsening threat, officials told The Associated Press. "There's no question that the powerful language is intimately linked to the more powerful science," said one of the study's many co-authors, Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria, who spoke by phone from Canada. He said the report was based on science that is rock-solid, peer-reviewed, conservative and consensus: "It's very conservative. Scientists by their nature are skeptics." The scientists wrote the report, based on years of peer-reviewed research; government officials edited it with an eye toward the required unanimous approval by world governments. In the end, there was little debate on the strength of the wording about human activity most likely to blame. "That is a big move. I hope it is a powerful statement," said Jan Pretel, head of the department of climate change at the Czech Hydrometeorological Institute. The panel quickly agreed Thursday on two of the most contentious issues: attributing global warming to man-made burning of fossil fuels and connecting it to a recent increase in stronger hurricanes. Negotiations over a final third difficult issue � how much sea level rise is predicted by 2100 � went into the night Thursday with a deadline approaching for the report. While critics call the panel overly alarmist, it is by nature relatively cautious because it relies on hundreds of scientists, including skeptics. "I hope that policymakers will be quite convinced by this message," said Riibeta Abeta, a delegate whose island nation Kiribati is threatened by rising seas. "The purpose is to get them moving." It took delegates just 90 minutes to agree on the signature statement which describes how sure scientists are about global warming being caused by man. The answer � "very likely" � translates to a more than 90 percent certainty. What that means in layman's language is "we have this nailed," said top U.S. climate scientist Jerry Mahlman, who originated the percentage system. "They're hearing through the science that this is appropriate," Mahlman, a reviewer of panel's work but not an author or editor, said. "I'm pretty happy with the 'very likely' designation." That phrase is an escalation from the panel's last report in 2001, which said warming was "likely" caused by human activity. There had been speculation that the participants might try to up the ante too "virtually certain" man causes global warming, which translates to 99 percent chance. The Chinese delegation was resistant to strong wording on global warming, said Barbados delegate Leonard Fields and others. China has increasingly turned to fossil fuels for its huge and growing energy needs and it asked that an ambiguous footnote be added to the "very likely" statement. The footnote reads, "Consideration of remaining uncertainty is based on current methodology," according to an official who was at the negotiations but was sworn to secrecy. Meanwhile, the U.S. government delegation was not one of the more vocal groups in the debate over whether warming is man-made, said other countries' officials. And several attendees credited the head of the panel session, Susan Solomon, a top U.S. government climate scientist, with pushing through the agreement so quickly. The Bush administration acknowledges that global warming is man-made and a problem that must be dealt with, Bush science adviser John Marburger has said. However, Bush continues to reject mandatory limits on so-called "greenhouse" gases, even as he acknowledges the existence of climate change. But this is more than just a U.S. issue. "What you're trying to do is get the whole planet under the proverbial tent in how to deal with this, not just the rich countries," Mahlman said Thursday. "I think we're in a different kind of game now." The panel, created by the United Nations in 1988, releases its assessments every five or six years � although scientists have been observing aspects of climate change since as far back as the 1960s. The reports are released in phases, with this one being the first of four this year. The next report is due in April and will discuss the effects of global warming. But there are some elements of that in the current document. The report will say that global warming has made stronger hurricanes, including those on the Atlantic Ocean, such as Hurricane Katrina, according to Fields, the Barbados delegate, and others. They said the panel agreed that an increase in hurricane and tropical cyclone strength since 1970 "more likely than not" can be attributed to man-made global warming. The scientists said global warming's connection varies with storms in different parts of the world, but that the storms that strike the Americas are global warming-influenced. That's a contrast from the 2001 which said there was not enough evidence to make such a conclusion. And it conflicts with a November 2006 statement by the World Meteorological Organization, which helped found the IPCC. The meteorological group said it could not link past stronger storms to global warming. Fields � of Barbados, a country in the path of many hurricanes � said the new wording was "very important." He noted that insurance companies � which look to science to calculate storm risk � "watch the language, too." Another contentious issue is predictions of sea level rise. Scientists are trying to incorporate concerns that their early drafts underestimate how much the sea level will rise by 2100 because they cannot predict how much ice will melt from Greenland and Antarctica. In early drafts, scientists predicted a sea level rise of no more than 23 inches by 2100, but that does not include the ice sheet melts. The report is being edited in English, then must be translated into five other languages. It will be a 11-15 page summary for policymakers in most of the world's countries. ___ Associated Press Writer Angela Charlton contributed to this report. |
Global Warming is a politically incorrect phrase. It is called Climate Change, because thats exactly what it is.
Because it's not Global Warming?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Sunsnail Because it's not Global Warming? |
The term global warming describes the rise in the average temperature of the world. Climate change sounds like a BS term to lessen the sting from global warming.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Sunsnail The term global warming describes the rise in the average temperature of the world. Climate change sounds like a BS term to lessen the sting from global warming. |
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/...M200702021.html
| quote: |
| A conservative think tank reportedly offered scientists and economists as much as $10,000 each to undermine an unsettling UN report on global warming released today. Stephen Beard has the story. |
Why should people bother much about this Global Warming thing?
Often times it seems to me that it is more a case of increased volatility rather than outright "warming". We still have plenty of extreme climate here that rivals historical highs and lows. It just seems that variability has increased more.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Magnetonium According to Wikipedia, climate change is the neutral view, while global warming is more radical. I've done a lot of research on the topic, and though I strongly believe humans are destroying the environment and polluting Earth, I think it all coincides with the global climate change: All courtesy of Wikipedia |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by venomX Im sorry ill take the word of over 100 scientists from over 40 countries over graphs on wikipedia any day of the week. This graphs mean nothing and are mostly incomprehensible. Might as well make your same argument and post a picture of a hamster with a pancake on its head. |
It is a concern, and the Bush Administration still wont budge. The thing he mentioned about climate change and the need for alternative sources...he's been saying that for years. Where has it taken us? These American companies that are doing so poorly really need to work on making some more alternative fuel powered vehicles and hybrids..that may save them in the future. Toyota and Honda have surpassed them in making quality..reliable and fairly affordable hybrids. The Bush Administation also refused to allow caps on carbon dioxide emissions...which they claim will hurt our economy. Uh if we get to developing more alternative energy sources maybe our economy will actually get better..it will force them to work harder at it.
Here's the bottom line:
Are we having an effect on the environment?
-Yes
Are all of the "climate changes" we are experiencing solely the fault of us humans?
-There is absolutely no way to be 100% certain.
Should we continue our current environmental policies since there is no definitive way to show we are causing climate change?
-Hell no, change now.
Should we change our environmental policies to be political and economic death sentences?
-Hell no.
In the end it's called "compromise" mother f*ckers.
We're never going to agree if there is a change in the Earths average temperatures caused by the actions of men. We can however, say we are going through a time of climate change that may have been impacted by the activities of humans.
We're also not going to be able to cut every freaking hazardous chemical, and we can't continue to spew the shit we do out of our factories. However, we can compromise and find a middle road.
I just hear so much talk about people being for or against global warming, as far as being the fault of man. Why can't we just say we're people that are witnessing a climate change, that may be in part to human activity, that needs to be taken care of through moderation, not elimination.
--Sorry, I'm a bit "goofy" right now, if some of this makes sense, I've done better than I thought I would.
I know humans are causing severe damage to the biosystem of Earth. I dont like how instead of focusing on the damage done by us on forests, water, ecosystems, release of pollution, chemicals, overpopulation - media instead focuses on fossil fuel emissions which are the least of the problems according to the historic weather records. Its much more important for us to immediately halt destruction of forests, halt pollution of environment, abuse of resources, stop release of chemicals and pathogens, etc. etc. etc.
CO2 and other gases makes up less than 1% of our atmosphere today (atmosphere is mostly nitrogen/oxygen). As far as 1 million years ago the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere was significantly higher. In dinosaur era, it was as high as 1/3 of atmospheric content.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Magnetonium These graphs are more accurate than your media's whining. They'ew historical weather records, 99% accurate (just like tree's rings can tell a lot about what kind of weather happened durind its lifetime). Especially this one: These are based on ice core samples taken from around the world, particularly in Greenland and Antarctica. All have shown similarities and have perfectly matched the previous natural disasters like massive volcanic eruptions - the dust travelled all around the world and settled even in those glaciers, and then part of historical record. These graphs clearly show that we should be experiencing warming trends followed by an ice age, but not anytime soon, perhaps several thousands years away. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka I still call bullshit. My TI-81 can draw better graphs than that. What the hell precession and eccentricity? I have a pretty eccentric neighbor--she spraypaints her cats pink. Actually, what conclusion am I to draw from your claims? That natural evolutionary climate change is the reason we have a warming climate? Or that mankind is causing it? You can't have it both ways. If both phenomena were occurring at the same time, I'd expect all of those sine and cosine waves to greater in amplitude or frequency or something. |
| quote: |
The Holocene Climate Optimum warm event consisted of increases of up to 4 �C near the North Pole (in one study, winter warming of 3-9�C and summer of 2-6�C in northern central Siberia)[1]. Northwestern Europe experienced warming, while there was cooling in the south.[2] The average temperature change appears to have declined rapidly with latitude so that essentially no change in mean temperature is reported at low and mid latitudes. Tropical reefs tend to show temperature increases of less than 1 �C. In terms of the global average, the typical shift was probably between 0.5 and 2 �C warmer than the mid-20th century (depending on estimates of latitude dependence and seasonality in response patterns). At 140 sites across the western Arctic, there is clear evidence for warmer-than-present conditions at 120 sites. At 16 sites where quantitative estimates have been obtained, local HTM temperatures were on average 1.6��0.8�C higher than present. Northwestern North America had peak warmth first, from 11,000 to 9,000 years ago, while the Laurentide ice sheet still chilled the continent. Northeastern North America experienced peak warming 4,000 years later.[3] West African sediments additionally record the "African Humid Period", an interval between 16,000 and 6,000 years ago when Africa was much wetter due to a strengthening of the African monsoon by changes in summer radiation resulting from long-term variations in the Earth's orbit around the sun. During this period, the Saharan desert was dotted with numerous lakes containing typical African lake crocodile and hippopotamus fauna. A curious discovery from the marine sediments is that the transitions into and out of this wet period occurred within decades, not millennia as previously thought.[ |
| quote: |
Many estimates of past temperatures have been made over Earth's history. The field of paleoclimatology includes ancient temperature records. As the present article is oriented toward recent temperatures, there is a focus here on events since the retreat of the Pleistocene glaciers. The 10,000 years of the Holocene epoch covers most of this period, since the end of the Northern Hemisphere's Younger Dryas millennium-long cooling. The Holocene Climatic Optimum was generally warmer than the 20th century, but numerous regional variations have been noted since the start of the Younger Dryas. |
This is from 2005 and still people still debate the fact humans are indeed changing the climate.
http://news.mongabay.com/2005/1124-climate.html#aaas
New evidence extends greenhouse gas record from ice cores by 50 percent, adding 210,000 years
American Association for the Advancement of Science release
24-Nov-2005
Today's atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are highest in 650,000 years, Science studies say
With the first in-depth analysis of the air bubbles trapped in the �EPICA Dome C� ice core from East Antarctica, European researchers have extended the greenhouse gas record back to 650,000 years before the present.
This 210,000-year extension of atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane records -- encompassing two full glacial cycles -- should help scientists better understand climate change and the nature of the current warm period on Earth. The record may also aid researchers in reducing uncertainty in predictions of future climate change and help to clarify when humans began significantly changing the balance of greenhouse gasses in Earth�s atmosphere.
| quote: |
| PARIS, Feb. 2 � In a grim and powerful assessment of the future of the planet, the leading international network of climate scientists has concluded for the first time that global warming is �unequivocal� and that human activity is the main driver, �very likely� causing most of the rise in temperatures since 1950. They said the world was in for centuries of climbing temperatures, rising seas and shifting weather patterns � unavoidable results of the buildup of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. But their report, released here on Friday by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said warming and its harmful consequences could be substantially blunted by prompt action. |
| quote: |
| The report is the panel�s fourth assessment since 1990 on the causes and consequences of climate change, but it is the first in which the group asserts with near certainty � more than 90 percent confidence � that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from human activities have been the main causes of warming in the past half century. In its last report, in 2001, the panel, consisting of hundreds of scientists and reviewers, said the confidence level for its projections was �likely,� or 66 to 90 percent. That level has now been raised to �very likely,� better than 90 percent. Both reports are online at www.ipcc.ch. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/03/s...4QTYU/PW/U4bPjA |
| quote: |
| In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)]. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conte...l/306/5702/1686 |
| quote: |
| In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)]. Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8). |
| quote: |
| The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century... The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue. http://books.nap.edu/html/climatechange/summary.html |
| quote: |
| In May 2000, at the InterAcademy Panel (IAP) meeting in Tokyo, 63 academies of science from all parts of the world issued a statement on sustainability in which they noted that �global trends in climate change � are growing concerns� and pledged themselves to work for sustainability � meeting current human needs while preserving the environment and natural resources needed by future generations2. It is now evident that human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate change. Business as usual is no longer a viable option. http://www.royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13619 |
| quote: |
| Global climate change is increasingly recognised as the key threat to the continued development � and even survival - of humanity. Here, we give the context obtained from earth history, as the pattern of global environmental change in the past provides an indispensable context to establishing likely trajectories of future climate change. We find that the evidence for human-induced climate change is now persuasive, and the need for direct action compelling. http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/template....l_Warming_Essay |
| quote: |
| The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth�s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries. http://www.geosociety.org/aboutus/position10.htm |
| quote: |
| Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today. Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered. The UN report was written by international experts and is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science. It will underpin international negotiations on new emissions targets to succeed the Kyoto agreement, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft last year and invited to comment. The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees. http://environment.guardian.co.uk/c...2004397,00.html |
This is stupid. The whole global warming crap is dumb. Why? I strongly believe its a well-oiled campaign to shift attention away from REAL destruction and damage to Earth through deforestation, pollution, overpopulation, ecological and environmental genocide and just blame it on fossil fuel emissions. Enough with that crap. Global warming is not a threat, we are a threat.
Global warming is just someone's way to take the spotlight off human destruction of the planet's ecosystems and blame fossil fuel emissions for it. Not smart.
If global warming/cooling/climate change/deforestation/pollution/environmental suicide/etc is man made who here will volunteer to see to it that there is a balance in nature? Who will sacrifice their life so that a tree grows in Brooklyn? That a flower blossoms in the plains of the midwest? Any takers?
Because whenever someone comes up with the tree hugging nonsense they never seek to look for the solution. The solution would be for genocide. After all the Georgia Guidestones call for a "balance" of 500,000,000 people on the planet. Who out of the 5.5bn difference will be the first to go?
It's bad enough people die from disease, famine, war and government (democide), now people want you to die for earth.
What's even worse is that people who claim their Christian or Jewish or that the earth was created by God; don't see that they are silently claiming that Gods' creation of earth is flawed, or that God would break the Noachic covenant.
I've lived near bodies of water all my life. There is no rising of any water levels near I live for as long as I can remember or anyone has ever told me.
Man people are so easy. No wonder they're slaves when they think they're free.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Taken from the film Blade Runner.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ogvh5150 If global warming/cooling/climate change/deforestation/pollution/environmental suicide/etc is man made who here will volunteer to see to it that there is a balance in nature? Who will sacrifice their life so that a tree grows in Brooklyn? That a flower blossoms in the plains of the midwest? Any takers? Because whenever someone comes up with the tree hugging nonsense they never seek to look for the solution. The solution would be for genocide. After all the Georgia Guidestones call for a "balance" of 500,000,000 people on the planet. Who out of the 5.5bn difference will be the first to go? It's bad enough people die from disease, famine, war and government (democide), now people want you to die for earth. What's even worse is that people who claim their Christian or Jewish or that the earth was created by God; don't see that they are silently claiming that Gods' creation of earth is flawed, or that God would break the Noachic covenant. I've lived near bodies of water all my life. There is no rising of any water levels near I live for as long as I can remember or anyone has ever told me. Man people are so easy. No wonder they're slaves when they think they're free. Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave. Taken from the film Blade Runner. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Magnetonium This is stupid. The whole global warming crap is dumb. Why? I strongly believe its a well-oiled campaign to shift attention away from REAL destruction and damage to Earth through deforestation, pollution, overpopulation, ecological and environmental genocide and just blame it on fossil fuel emissions. Enough with that crap. Global warming is not a threat, we are a threat. Global warming is just someone's way to take the spotlight off human destruction of the planet's ecosystems and blame fossil fuel emissions for it. Not smart. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Magnetonium Population of the world is rising dramatically. World weather patterns have become extreme because of ice caps melting. Sooner or later (this has been seen already) this will result in food production disruptions and many more people will have to die anyway, often through war, disease, violence, social degredation. It is destined to happen one way or another. Population control failed in China with their doomed one-child policy. Its over ;-) many millions of people will die this century one way or another. Earth is getting very exhausted, and the Little Ice Age that happened in 1500s-1800s showed what can happen. French Revolution, for example, happened after failed crops and people taking up arms overthrowing the government. |
Magnetonium stop it with your constant bickering and failed oneupmanship attempts.
We can all agree on the fact that there are problems. You are pointing out that the so called perceived problem isn't the most important issue and this discussion is turning into a tit for tat debate.
Raising awareness about the issue of "global warming" or whatever semantics you want to use to describe what appears to be known as fact is just an unnecessary call for attention.
Also you concentrating on matters of supposed misplaced focus from the media couldn't be farther from the truth for me at least.
Ever heard of the Kyoto protocol? Greenhouse effect, acid rain showers etc all these tend to stem from the industrial arena which all have a direct link to fossil fuels in one way or another at varying degrees.
Having hopes in the media to educate the masses to better cleaner living is sheer ignorance and I think above it all if you are wanting to make conscious efforts in the domain of green living your education on the matter is surely not going to come from a Wikipedia chart or a television news broadcast.
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.