NationStates Jolt Archive

In Jakarta, Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), said climate change was already happening and the developing world was bearing the brunt.

Weather-related disasters killed almost 3,000 people and caused 27 billion dollars in damage in China last year, he said, while the retreat of Himalayan glaciers was affecting water supplies in India and China.

"Over recent years the level of Lake Victoria in Africa has dropped by about 30 percent, affecting the livelihoods of 30 million people in one of the most unstable regions of the world who live around that lake," he said.

"What you see around the world is that the countries least able to respond to the consequences of climate change, least able to act to defend themselves against climate change are experiencing the greatest impacts," de Boer said.

Pachauri said climate science had leapt ahead since 2001, and the report would eliminate some important areas of uncertainty.

A flurry of studies has highlighted damage to the climate system, including shrinking glaciers and snow cover in high mountains, a retreat of the North Pole's sea ice in summer and acidification of the seas caused by absorption of atmospheric CO2.



Mountain glaciers are shrinking three times faster than they were in the 1980s, scientists have announced.

The World Glacier Monitoring Service, which continuously studies a sample of 30 glaciers around the world, says the acceleration is down to climate change.

[...]

[W]hatever form of words they agree on, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will declare that human-induced climate change is happening and needs to be tackled.

[...]

"We can say there were times during the warmer periods of the last 10,000 years when glaciers have been comparable to what they are now," he told the BBC News website.

"But it is not the past that worries us, it is the future. With the scenarios predicted, we will enter conditions which we have not seen in the past 10,000 years, and perhaps conditions which mankind has never experienced."

Last year, WGMS scientists forecast that the Alps would lose up to three-quarters of their glaciers during the coming century.

The WGMS is closely allied to the United Nations Environment Programme, whose executive director Achim Steiner commented: "Glaciers are important sources of water for many important rivers upon which people depend for drinking water, agriculture and industrial purposes.

"The findings... should strengthen the resolve of governments to act now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."



Later this week in Paris, climate scientists will issue a dire forecast for the planet that warns of slowly rising sea levels and higher temperatures.

But that may be the sugarcoated version.

[...]

Those calculations don't include the recent, and dramatic, melt-off of big ice sheets in two crucial locations:

They "don't take into account the gorillas -- Greenland and Antarctica," said Ohio State University earth sciences professor Lonnie Thompson, a polar ice specialist. "I think there are unpleasant surprises as we move into the 21st century."



The draft makes a strong link between increases in man-made carbon dioxide emissions and climate change.

The document says that since the last such report, released in 2001, "confidence in the assessment of the human contributions to recent climate change has increased considerably.

"Anthropogenic (man-made) warming of the climate system is widespread and can be detected in temperature observations taken at the surface, in the free atmosphere and in the oceans.

"It is highly likely that the warming observed during the past half century cannot be explained without external forcing (human activity)."

[...]

The IPCC's climate models also warn that rising temperatures will hamper the planet's natural ability to absorb carbon dioxide.

Heat waves are likely to be more intense, more frequent and longer-lasting, and tropical storms and hurricanes will probably be stronger.



Sources: France 24 (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/world/20070129-report-global-warming.html), BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6310869.stm), CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/01/29/climate.report.ap/index.html), Al Jazeera (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/7387537F-BBE1-4738-BA4D-2A28F1E9C47C.htm).

And yet STILL some are going to bury their heads in the proverbial sand, or say it's not nice to be so "alarmist".

Meh! If global climate change doesn't get us, something else will ... supervolcano under Yellowstone, super-tsunami from a Canary Island earthquake, asteroid, comet, etc. etc.

FULL STEAM AHEAD! :D

Give me those antarctic tornadoes already! :D

Climate Change getting worse, says report

http://funfreepages.com/albums/classic/captain_obvious.jpg

Weather-related disasters killed almost 3,000 people and caused 27 billion dollars in damage in China last year, he said, while the retreat of Himalayan glaciers was affecting water supplies in India and China.
Because, as we all know, weather never killed anyone before the industrial revolution.

The World Glacier Monitoring Service, which continuously studies a sample of 30 glaciers around the world, says the acceleration is down to climate change.
Just 30? I'm pretty sure there're more than 30 worldwide. "Let's test this new drug on just 30 people. If there are not side effects then it must be totally safe and should be given to millions."

"We can say there were times during the warmer periods of the last 10,000 years when glaciers have been comparable to what they are now," he told the BBC News website.

"But it is not the past that worries us, it is the future. With the scenarios predicted, we will enter conditions which we have not seen in the past 10,000 years, and perhaps conditions which mankind has never experienced."
If it's happened before then why won't it happen again? And those predictions are just scenarios. They might happen. They haven't yet, they are not certain.

Later this week in Paris, climate scientists will issue a dire forecast for the planet that warns of slowly rising sea levels and higher temperatures.
The current rate is about 8 inches per century. Even if that rate doubled it would only yeild a rise of 16 inches over the next. Combined, that's still less than a meter over about 200 years.

They "don't take into account the gorillas -- Greenland and Antarctica," said Ohio State University earth sciences professor Lonnie Thompson, a polar ice specialist. "I think there are unpleasant surprises as we move into the 21st century."
While it is true that Antarctica melting could raise sea levels about 61 meters (according to wikipedia), it isn't melting. Antarctica is one of those odd ball regions whose temperature has been dropping recently. In meteorologist Jeffrey Masters' review of State of Fear mentioned that "The Antarctic ice sheet is actually expected in increase in mass over the next 100 years due to increased precipitation, according to the IPCC" and "that there has been no rise in hurricane activity in the Atlantic over the past few decades."

And if you don't think the IPCC is politically biased then why did Dr. Christopher Landsea resign from work on the IPCC AR4, saying:
"I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth's actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4"

I'm not burying my head in the sand and I'm not saying nothings happening or that humans do nothing, but panic does no one any good. There is a long history of humans trying to improve local ecosystems they don't fully understand then end up destroying because of that lack of understanding.

Sources: France 24 (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/world/20070129-report-global-warming.html), BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6310869.stm), CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/01/29/climate.report.ap/index.html), Al Jazeera (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/7387537F-BBE1-4738-BA4D-2A28F1E9C47C.htm).

And yet STILL some are going to bury their heads in the proverbial sand, or say it's not nice to be so "alarmist".

What you'll get is deniers quoting this headline from CNN:

Climate experts slam upcoming report

Without reading that they are slamming it because it doesn't go far enough.

Early and changeable drafts of their upcoming authoritative report on climate change foresee smaller sea level rises than were projected in 2001 in the last report. Many top U.S. scientists reject these rosier numbers.

Those calculations don't include the recent, and dramatic, melt-off of big ice sheets in two crucial locations:

They "don't take into account the gorillas -- Greenland and Antarctica," said Ohio State University earth sciences professor Lonnie Thompson, a polar ice specialist. "I think there are unpleasant surprises as we move into the 21st century."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/01/29/climate.report.ap/index.html

Not much we can do at this point but nominally adjusting our greenhouse gas emissions. I however welcome a warmer earth. We need more penguins and polar bears in our zoo's anyway.

Because, as we all know, weather never killed anyone before the industrial revolution.
And weather killing more people than it did before remains a bad thing. If the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events are both increasing, we should probably go ahead and do something about it.

Just 30? I'm pretty sure there're more than 30 worldwide. "Let's test this new drug on just 30 people. If there are not side effects then it must be totally safe and should be given to millions."

30 glaciers is probably a reasonably representative sample of all glaciers worldwide. 30 people is not a reasonably representative sample of the entire human population. There are significantly less glaciers than people on Earth. Thus, you don't need the same number of glaciers for a climate study as you do people for a drug study.

If it's happened before then why won't it happen again? And those predictions are just scenarios. They might happen. They haven't yet, they are not certain.

True, the predictions are just that, predictions. But they're backed up by good evidence, and probably have a decent degree of accuracy.

While it is true that Antarctica melting could raise sea levels about 61 meters (according to wikipedia), it isn't melting. Antarctica is one of those odd ball regions whose temperature has been dropping recently. In meteorologist Jeffrey Masters' review of State of Fear mentioned that "The Antarctic ice sheet is actually expected in increase in mass over the next 100 years due to increased precipitation, according to the IPCC" and "that there has been no rise in hurricane activity in the Atlantic over the past few decades."

New rule: anything related to State of Fear DOES NOT COUNT as a legitimate scientific source on the subject of climatology. Michael Crichton is not a scientist. He writes FICTION. The book is FICTION. As in not fact.
Also, huge chunks of the Antarctic ice sheet have been breaking off recently. Like, pieces of ice larger than Rhode Island. The Antarctic ice is most definitely going away, and fast. Plus, Jeffrey Masters is a meteorologist, not a climatologist. It's an important distinction to make. One of them is very good at modeling short-term weather, the other is very good at modeling long-term climate trends.

And if you don't think the IPCC is politically biased then why did Dr. Christopher Landsea resign from work on the IPCC AR4, saying:
"I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth's actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4"


Just because one person resigns doesn't make the whole organization flawed. All that proves is that Dr. Christopher Landsea thinks that the IPCC is biased. A single anecdote does not a coherent point make.

-snip-

I love you already :)

I love you already :)

Y'know, I've been here for more than 3 years...just got an inactivity DEAT last week. Oh well.

The U.S. can do its part by signing the damn Kyoto Protocol.

30 glaciers is probably a reasonably representative sample of all glaciers worldwide. 30 people is not a reasonably representative sample of the entire human population. There are significantly less glaciers than people on Earth. Thus, you don't need the same number of glaciers for a climate study as you do people for a drug study.
Why not study all? We have satellites equipped with cameras. And the more data the better. If they're right about all or most of the glaciers melting then showing all or most following the same trend rather than just 30 would prove it.

True, the predictions are just that, predictions. But they're backed up by good evidence, and probably have a decent degree of accuracy.
Past predictions have been off by as much as 300%. That is not a decent degree of accuracy.

New rule: anything related to State of Fear DOES NOT COUNT as a legitimate scientific source on the subject of climatology. Michael Crichton is not a scientist. He writes FICTION. The book is FICTION. As in not fact.
Also, huge chunks of the Antarctic ice sheet have been breaking off recently. Like, pieces of ice larger than Rhode Island. The Antarctic ice is most definitely going away, and fast. Plus, Jeffrey Masters is a meteorologist, not a climatologist. It's an important distinction to make. One of them is very good at modeling short-term weather, the other is very good at modeling long-term climate trends.
So any real world data from Nasa presented in the book must be thrown out? The story was fiction but it used real world data. There was a citation on nearly every other page. Dr. Crichton is a medical scientist. And no, the Antarctic is most definately not going away. The majority of the continent (over 90%) has been cooling recently and if this trend holds the ice will grow.

I know it wasn't mentioned yet but it will be some time during the thread so...Antarctica is colder than the Arctic for two reasons. First, much of the continent is more than 3 km above sea level, and temperature decreases with elevation. Second, the Arctic Ocean covers the north polar zone: the ocean's relative warmth is transferred through the icepack and prevents temperatures in the Arctic regions from reaching the extremes typical of the land surface of Antarctica.

Also, I wasn't using State of Fear to prove a point, just a meteorologists review of the book. A review that criticized it a fair bit.I suggest that you actually read a book and keep an open mind when doing so before deriding it or its author. It might even make it easier to do so.

Just because one person resigns doesn't make the whole organization flawed. All that proves is that Dr. Christopher Landsea thinks that the IPCC is biased. A single anecdote does not a coherent point make.
He is but the first in a long line of critics. Actually not the first but he's not alone by a long shot.

John Maddox said "The IPCC is monolithic and complacent, and it is conceivable that they are exaggerating the speed of change".

The UK House of Lords Science and Economic Analysis and Report on IPCC for the G-8 Summit, July 2005:
"We have some concerns about the objectivity of the IPCC process, with some of its emissions scenarios and summary documentation apparently influenced by political considerations. There are significant doubts about some aspects of the IPCC

Why not study all? We have satellites equipped with cameras. And the more data the better. If they're right about all or most of the glaciers melting then showing all or most following the same trend rather than just 30 would prove it.


normal scientific procedure, record data from randomly chosen sites...30 glaciers were studied but glaciers everywhere are receding on every continent that is a fact some are nearly gone and many others will be soon...you can be as stubborn as you like and keep your membership in the Flat Earth Society but you'll be very lonely even the retard Dubya has joined "The Planet is Warming and Humans are to Blame Club"

What a f.cking shock.

Yeehah!

An OSU Professor got cited in this thread.


Laters.

you can be as stubborn as you like and keep your membership in the Flat Earth Society but you'll be very lonely even the retard Dubya has joined "The Planet is Warming and Humans are to Blame Club"
Why do you have to resort to insults? I am not a member of the Flat Earth Society. I happen to be about as white and nerdy as they come.

Why is it that whenever someone even so much as questions conventional wisdom they get open derision?

" If sin is punished and morality is rewarded then why does God let bad things happen to good people?"
"Heretic! Traitor! Benedict Assface!"

"If all the catastrophic flood scenarios are based on the melting of the majority of the Antarctic Ice Shelf and Ice Walls but most of Antarctica is in a cooling trend then why are we still being told that doom is nigh?"
"Heretic! Traitor! Benedict Assface!"

"If all the catastrophic flood scenarios are based on the melting of the majority of the Antarctic Ice Shelf and Ice Walls but most of Antarctica is in a cooling trend then why are we still being told that doom is nigh?"
"Heretic! Traitor! Benedict Assface!"

I'll agree that there is no need for insults. That aside, Antarctica is not in a cooling trend. Parts of Antarctica are. Other parts are substantially warmer.

Long term temperature data from the Southern Hemisphere are hard to find, and by the time you get to the Antarctic continent, the data are extremely sparse. Nonetheless, some patterns do emerge from the limited data available. The Antarctic Peninsula, site of the now-defunct Larsen-B ice shelf, has warmed substantially. On the other hand, the few stations on the continent and in the interior appear to have cooled slightly (Doran et al, 2002; GISTEMP). At first glance this seems to contradict the idea of “global” warming, but one needs to be careful before jumping to this conclusion.


A rise in the global mean temperature does not imply universal warming. Dynamical effects (changes in the winds and ocean circulation) can have just as large an impact, locally as the radiative forcing from greenhouse gases. The temperature change in any particular region will in fact be a combination of radiation-related changes (through greenhouse gases, aerosols, ozone and the like) and dynamical effects. Since the winds tend to only move heat from one place to another, their impact will tend to cancel out in the global mean.

It is important to recognize that the widely-cited “Antarctic cooling” appears, from the limited data available, to be restricted only to the last two decades, and that averaged over the last 40 years, there has been a slight warming (e.g. Bertler et al. 2004. At present, it is not possible to say what the long term change over the entire last century or more has been. The lesson here is that changes observed over very short time intervals do not provide a reliable picture of how the climate is changing.

Furthermore, there are actually good reasons to expect the overall rate of warming in the Southern Hemisphere to be small. It has been recognized for some time that model simulations result in much greater warming in the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere than in the South, due to ocean heat uptake by the Southern Ocean. Additionally, there is some observational evidence that atmospheric dynamical changes may explain the recent cooling over parts of Antarctica.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=18

Why do you have to resort to insults? I am not a member of the Flat Earth Society. I happen to be about as white and nerdy as they come.

Why is it that whenever someone even so much as questions conventional wisdom they get open derision?

" If sin is punished and morality is rewarded then why does God let bad things happen to good people?"
"Heretic! Traitor! Benedict Assface!"

"If all the catastrophic flood scenarios are based on the melting of the majority of the Antarctic Ice Shelf and Ice Walls but most of Antarctica is in a cooling trend then why are we still being told that doom is nigh?"
"Heretic! Traitor! Benedict Assface!"apologies if it seems harsh...

I'm tired of people grasping for straws to support their denial of climate change, often basing their entire argument on one or two bits of fact interrupting it(often incorrectly) how it best suits them, versus mountains of info of solid evidence from vast majority of scientists around the globe...

one or two years or decades of contrary evidence does not make a trend those are the exceptions...

think Climate Change, not Global Warming, there are natural ups and downs, for Antarctica its long term warming this does not mean that next year can't be colder than usual....

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=18

It should also be noted that Arctic warming is quite striking.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/1023esuice.html

I'll agree that there is no need for insults. That aside, Antarctica is not in a cooling trend. Parts of Antarctica are. Other parts are substantially warmer.


insult? oh please...that was a pathetically weak insult...

It should also be noted that Arctic warming is quite striking.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/1023esuice.html
Antarctica is colder than the Arctic for two reasons. First, much of the continent is more than 3 km above sea level, and temperature decreases with elevation. Second, the Arctic Ocean covers the north polar zone: the ocean's relative warmth is transferred through the icepack and prevents temperatures in the Arctic regions from reaching the extremes typical of the land surface of Antarctica.

The lesson here is that changes observed over very short time intervals do not provide a reliable picture of how the climate is changing.
Indeed. 100 years of observation does not provide a reliable picture. Compared to the hundreds and hundreds of millions of years that 100+ is single snapshot.

Also, political blogs are not the best sources of objective information.

Also, political blogs are not the best sources of objective information.
Kinda like using a work of fiction as a source then, huh?

Antarctica...isn't melting. Antarctica is one of those odd ball regions whose temperature has been dropping recently.

both of those claims are false

Kinda like using a work of fiction as a souce then, huh?
I didn't. I used a review (of a fiction book that cited real world information) by an atmospheric scientist. Don't confuse the two.

And Free Soviets, the wikipedia on Antarctica says that, not me.
About 98% of Antarctica is covered by the Antarctic ice sheet. The ice sheet is, on average, 2.5 kilometers (1.6 miles) thick. The continent has approximately 90% of the world's ice (approximately 70% of the world's fresh water). If all of this ice were melted sea levels would rise about 61 m (200 feet).

Eh, it's late and I have to get up in the morn. I'm not sure if I'll come back to this or not.

I didn't. I used a review (of a fiction book that cited real world information) by an atmospheric scientist. Don't confuse the two.
That sounds even sillier. You used a book review as a source for an argument on Global Warming.

It doesn't match MTAE's use of a medical drama to attempt to claim medical knowledge, but it's in the ball park.

Umm the crazier weather is the biggest proof.

Because, as we all know, weather never killed anyone before the industrial revolution.


Just 30? I'm pretty sure there're more than 30 worldwide. "Let's test this new drug on just 30 people. If there are not side effects then it must be totally safe and should be given to millions."


If it's happened before then why won't it happen again? And those predictions are just scenarios. They might happen. They haven't yet, they are not certain.


The current rate is about 8 inches per century. Even if that rate doubled it would only yeild a rise of 16 inches over the next. Combined, that's still less than a meter over about 200 years.


While it is true that Antarctica melting could raise sea levels about 61 meters (according to wikipedia), it isn't melting. Antarctica is one of those odd ball regions whose temperature has been dropping recently. In meteorologist Jeffrey Masters' review of State of Fear mentioned that "The Antarctic ice sheet is actually expected in increase in mass over the next 100 years due to increased precipitation, according to the IPCC" and "that there has been no rise in hurricane activity in the Atlantic over the past few decades."

And if you don't think the IPCC is politically biased then why did Dr. Christopher Landsea resign from work on the IPCC AR4, saying:
"I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth's actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4"

I'm not burying my head in the sand and I'm not saying nothings happening or that humans do nothing, but panic does no one any good. There is a long history of humans trying to improve local ecosystems they don't fully understand then end up destroying because of that lack of understanding.

i agree that panic is not needed.

i also have to add..the damn weatherman gets the weather wrong as much as he gets it right,and thats a 5 day forecast..lol...i am gonna trust them to predict 5-10 years down the road?

http://funfreepages.com/albums/classic/captain_obvious.jpg

As you can see, it's (sadly) not yet obvious to everyone. Hence the necessity of such reports.

As you can see, it's (sadly) not yet obvious to everyone. Hence the necessity of such reports.

It doesn't say "to the rescue" for nothing.

Australia's barrier reef could die within decades: UN report (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/01/30/barrier-reef.html)

The U.S. can do its part by signing the damn Kyoto Protocol.

With China and India basically free to do what they want the US will not sign it. Even if a Dem gets into power you wont see it signed. It is basically dead in the water with only a few countries signing it. The most populated nations are not even going to go by it. So whats the point? Bring out a new reasonable proposal.

For the lingering ostriches among you:


UN scientists have delivered their starkest warning yet about global warming, saying fossil fuel pollution would raise temperatures this century, worsen floods, droughts and hurricanes and melt polar sea ice.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) -- the United Nations' paramount scientific authority on global warming -- also dealt a crippling blow Friday to the shrinking body of opinion that claims higher temperatures have been driven by natural causes.

It said bluntly that most of the unprecedented rise in Earth's surface temperature over the past 50 years had "very likely" been caused by human activity.

This term means a certitude of 90 percent and signals an increase on the IPCC's previous assessment in 2001, which gave a probability of 66 percent.

The Earth's surface temperatures will rise between 1.8 to 4.0 degrees Celsius (3.2 to 7.2 degrees Farenheit) and sea levels increase 18 to 59 centimetres (7.1 to 23.2 inches) by 2100, the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report said. The scientists said this was their best estimate, from a broader range of possibilities derived from computer models.

The IPCC also predicted increasingly intense storms, heatwaves and heavy rains in the decades to come.

The impact of disgorging greenhouse gases into the atmosphere this century will cause climate disruptions "for more than a millennium" to come, it said.

"This report is a vital piece of information," said Achim Steiner, executive director of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP).

"It enables the world to now respond to climate change not by debating the science any more but by figuring out how on earth we are going to live in a world with an environment change scenario that is two, three, four degrees of global warming." Two to four degrees Celsius is equivalent to 3.6 to 7.2 degrees Farenheit.


Full article here (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/world/20070202-Climate-change.html), with video.

With China and India basically free to do what they want the US will not sign it. Even if a Dem gets into power you wont see it signed. It is basically dead in the water with only a few countries signing it. The most populated nations are not even going to go by it. So whats the point? Bring out a new reasonable proposal.

???

This map (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Kyoto_Protocol_participation_map_2005.png) shows you who's ratified it and who hasn't.

Remember also that the Kyoto Protocols were intended only as a tiny but necessary first step, with a lot more drastic measures needed quickly thereafter.

Here's a link to 'The Physical Science Basis (http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf)' - results of Working Group 1 that got ratified today. Its the summary for policy makers as either I couldn't find or they haven't published the full shebang yet.

Oh and while I'm here:

Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,2004398,00.html) - Exxon are still at it. These ostriches must have their heads somewhere near the mantle, jeez. :rolleyes:

The shit will hit the fan in 10 years. Alarmist? Well, if it doesnt happen, good. If it does, I´m prepared.

Anyway, the most affected countries will be in the North, so they will have to deal with the shit they have created.

People would figure the US would start to care about it after New Orleans was almost destroyed, but I guess people forget about things they dont want to remember quite quickly. :rolleyes: