NickTrop
Veteran
Humans Must Act On Global Warming Posted 2007-06-05
Warming of the climate is now unequivocal (unambiguous' or 'beyond dispute). This is the central finding of the May 4, 2007, report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The four-volume report, six years in the making, summarizes the contributions of more than 800 scientists from some 130 countries. Further, the IPCC report, which was reviewed by more than 2,500 climate experts, represents a consensus view among climatologists worldwide (www.ipcc.ch).
Each major conclusion in the IPCC report is carefully qualified as "more likely than not," "very likely," or "virtually certain." Among the major conclusions are the following:
1) The global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values.
2) At continental, regional and ocean basin scales, numerous long-term changes in climate have been observed. These include changes in arctic temperatures and ice, widespread changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns and aspects of extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves and the intensity of tropical cyclones.
3) Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since 1950 is very likely due to the increase in [human-induced] greenhouse gas [GHG] concentrations.
4) Continued GHG emissions at or above current rates would cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate system in the 21st century that would very likely be larger than those observed during the 20th century.
Americans, who account for less than 5 percent of the earth's population, account for 25 percent of global GHG emissions. Recent polls show that Americans have begun to awaken to the very real threat posed by unabated climate change, a fact partially attributable to the unexpected success of Al Gore’s feature-length documentary, An Inconvenient Truth.
The scientific evidence for human-induced climate change, amassed over the past four decades, is now so compelling that denying it requires willfully burying one’s head in the sand.And yet, deniers of the "inconvenient truth" persist...
In an editorial of May 29, he ignores the consensus view of 2,500 climate experts in favor of the contrary view expressed at the website of a lone 15-year-old high-school student. Why?
It is difficult to fathom the motives of those who continue to deny what is now unambiguous to the experts. Vice-President Cheney asserts that the American standard of living is not up for negotiation. This point of view holds that Americans have an innate right to our current habits of consumption, even if those habits destroy the fabric of life on our home planet. It confuses "standard of living" with "quality of life," terms that are not synonymous. Quality of life will likely improve (because of better health and fewer wars over scarce resources) as lifestyles become less consumptive...
http://tinyurl.com/37odbo
Warming of the climate is now unequivocal (unambiguous' or 'beyond dispute). This is the central finding of the May 4, 2007, report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The four-volume report, six years in the making, summarizes the contributions of more than 800 scientists from some 130 countries. Further, the IPCC report, which was reviewed by more than 2,500 climate experts, represents a consensus view among climatologists worldwide (www.ipcc.ch).
Each major conclusion in the IPCC report is carefully qualified as "more likely than not," "very likely," or "virtually certain." Among the major conclusions are the following:
1) The global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values.
2) At continental, regional and ocean basin scales, numerous long-term changes in climate have been observed. These include changes in arctic temperatures and ice, widespread changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns and aspects of extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves and the intensity of tropical cyclones.
3) Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since 1950 is very likely due to the increase in [human-induced] greenhouse gas [GHG] concentrations.
4) Continued GHG emissions at or above current rates would cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate system in the 21st century that would very likely be larger than those observed during the 20th century.
Americans, who account for less than 5 percent of the earth's population, account for 25 percent of global GHG emissions. Recent polls show that Americans have begun to awaken to the very real threat posed by unabated climate change, a fact partially attributable to the unexpected success of Al Gore’s feature-length documentary, An Inconvenient Truth.
The scientific evidence for human-induced climate change, amassed over the past four decades, is now so compelling that denying it requires willfully burying one’s head in the sand.And yet, deniers of the "inconvenient truth" persist...
In an editorial of May 29, he ignores the consensus view of 2,500 climate experts in favor of the contrary view expressed at the website of a lone 15-year-old high-school student. Why?
It is difficult to fathom the motives of those who continue to deny what is now unambiguous to the experts. Vice-President Cheney asserts that the American standard of living is not up for negotiation. This point of view holds that Americans have an innate right to our current habits of consumption, even if those habits destroy the fabric of life on our home planet. It confuses "standard of living" with "quality of life," terms that are not synonymous. Quality of life will likely improve (because of better health and fewer wars over scarce resources) as lifestyles become less consumptive...
http://tinyurl.com/37odbo
FrankS
Registered User
But Nick, Mark pointed out in his pearls of wisdom (Pay attention; this is the smartest thing you are going to read today) that the world's scientists are trying to grab power away from the lawyers in order to take over the world by orchestrating a world wide conspiracy to invent this global warming hysteria. You haven't been listening! 
anselwannab
Well-known
No Frank, you're misunderstanding. If you see this as white-hat/black-hat kind of cowboy movie, you are a bit naive. People complain that the deniers have this profit and power motive to squash regulating carbon, but the on the otherside you have people who will dictate economic policy down to all of us.
My point on the oil is why are we all worried about carbon if the oil experts said a few years ago that we were running out and soon?
Many climatologists say that the tipping point has already passed and there are going to big changes, even if we radically changed. If the IPCC is right, we had better start working not only on non-carbon energy, but also things like higher dikes and such. I think a true litmus test is to ask people if anything good will come out of GW. If they say no, I'd put them in the same category with the guys who debate carbon-dating.
My point? Al Gore in front of the Senate said we can avert GW with changes that won't change our lifestyles appreciably. The Economist magazine says that 15% higher fuel prices and 35% higher energy prices would fix the problem. They are both wrong. It is going to change a lot more to reach the carbon goals they target, but that isn't what is being sold to the public.
You want to stop global warming, you have to bring in China and India under the caps. Otherwise production will just shift from the first-world to the third-world. Since they are not as energy efficient per unit of GDP, you could actually increase the amount of carbon emitted.
How many EU countries that chastise the US are going to hit their targets? If we all cap our stuff now, what leverage do you have to negotiate with the Chinese. Plus even if the Chinese agree to a target, they'll try to meet it, but they won't risk the civil unrest that will happen if it cuts too much into their GDP growth.
If we do end up with hard targets in the US, it will be interesting to see the average persons view of immigration as people see that population grow is increasing CO2 emissions.
I'm actually more in favor of a carbon tax as it comes out of the ground as coal, gas or oil. Ratchet that up and down to limit the amount of CO2 and use the money for alternative fuel research.
My point on the oil is why are we all worried about carbon if the oil experts said a few years ago that we were running out and soon?
Many climatologists say that the tipping point has already passed and there are going to big changes, even if we radically changed. If the IPCC is right, we had better start working not only on non-carbon energy, but also things like higher dikes and such. I think a true litmus test is to ask people if anything good will come out of GW. If they say no, I'd put them in the same category with the guys who debate carbon-dating.
My point? Al Gore in front of the Senate said we can avert GW with changes that won't change our lifestyles appreciably. The Economist magazine says that 15% higher fuel prices and 35% higher energy prices would fix the problem. They are both wrong. It is going to change a lot more to reach the carbon goals they target, but that isn't what is being sold to the public.
You want to stop global warming, you have to bring in China and India under the caps. Otherwise production will just shift from the first-world to the third-world. Since they are not as energy efficient per unit of GDP, you could actually increase the amount of carbon emitted.
How many EU countries that chastise the US are going to hit their targets? If we all cap our stuff now, what leverage do you have to negotiate with the Chinese. Plus even if the Chinese agree to a target, they'll try to meet it, but they won't risk the civil unrest that will happen if it cuts too much into their GDP growth.
If we do end up with hard targets in the US, it will be interesting to see the average persons view of immigration as people see that population grow is increasing CO2 emissions.
I'm actually more in favor of a carbon tax as it comes out of the ground as coal, gas or oil. Ratchet that up and down to limit the amount of CO2 and use the money for alternative fuel research.
FrankS
Registered User
Mark, okay. That sounded a little more rational.
NickTrop
Veteran
FrankS said:
Can you say, "Conspiracy Theory"?
Iskra 2
Kodachrome Rules!
Ok, ok, other than talking about it (the sky is falling, the sky is falling), what do we do about nasty CO2 that has, according to the experts , an impact on GW? Switch to fluorescent bulbs? Mercury hazard. Eliminate air conditioning? Never had it before the 20th century. Reduce air travel by 75% Trains work. Eliminate outside commercial lighting. You betcha. Etc. etc.
As we reduce CO2 in some manner, the world population will be increasing and CO2 will continue to grow. Right?
The challenge is to survive with higher CO2 levels. That might not be too bad. The cost of accomodating the increase could be less than reduction attempts.
My two rolls of film should return tomorrow.
Regards.:angel:
, an impact on GW? Switch to fluorescent bulbs? Mercury hazard. Eliminate air conditioning? Never had it before the 20th century. Reduce air travel by 75% Trains work. Eliminate outside commercial lighting. You betcha. Etc. etc.As we reduce CO2 in some manner, the world population will be increasing and CO2 will continue to grow. Right?
The challenge is to survive with higher CO2 levels. That might not be too bad. The cost of accomodating the increase could be less than reduction attempts.
My two rolls of film should return tomorrow.
Regards.:angel:
MikeL
Go Fish
Mark, comparing climatologists to lawyers doesn't make sense. Do you know how much most of them make? Very small amount. Every one I know cares very strongly about one thing- understanding how things work so that we can have some predictive ability if this happens or that happens. Of course due to the nature of complex systems they need to go to Japan and elsewhere to work on super computers. They aren't making the stuff up, and if they step outside what their data support they are crushed by the peer review process. They are some of the most conservative people I know when you ask them about the future, since they understand the complexity of their system and understanding how all the various pieces will interact is daunting. You and I have discussed science before, and I can't believe you'd make this analogy and suggest they are making some kind of power grab.
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
Mark
We all know that changing everything ain't gonna happen, however being aware of the issue and changing some of hour habits to reduce the carbon footprint can't do much harm.
Need a car for work because public transport is unworkable? Fine, however you can drive a car with low fuel consumption and low emissions, and maybe avoid buying a new car every 4-5 years and keep the one you have until it falls apart.
You can use energy efficient light bulbs, and recycle as much as possible.
You can replace your mobile phone every 2 years instead of every 9 months, and your laptop every 4 years instead of 2.
And do you really need the latest super-duper HDTV?
It may not be enough, but every little step helps.
And you will actually save money in the process.
Just my point of view.
We all know that changing everything ain't gonna happen, however being aware of the issue and changing some of hour habits to reduce the carbon footprint can't do much harm.
Need a car for work because public transport is unworkable? Fine, however you can drive a car with low fuel consumption and low emissions, and maybe avoid buying a new car every 4-5 years and keep the one you have until it falls apart.
You can use energy efficient light bulbs, and recycle as much as possible.
You can replace your mobile phone every 2 years instead of every 9 months, and your laptop every 4 years instead of 2.
And do you really need the latest super-duper HDTV?
It may not be enough, but every little step helps.
And you will actually save money in the process.
Just my point of view.
Finder
Veteran
dazedgonebye said:
Unfortunately, the "ice age" scare of the 70s was not a widely accepted hypothosis by scientists. Also, it was based on natural cycles, not the impact of human pollution on the atmosphere.
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
Sparrow said:
There are plenty who don't agree. However, since one of my earlier posts lead to my being insulted, I'll leave it up to you to do the research. I could state my view here, but I'm not sure it would do any good beyond feeding a few trolls.
Some people don't seem to get that one's views of science can come from science classes in college, not talk radio. They are blinded by their hate. It is really sad to see that the mods allow this thread to continue.
Last edited:
Well, I don't think closing it will make much other than a rash of new threads debating the evils of censorship. Seems to me that the conversation has been pretty civil with enough humor to keep my eyes from bleeding.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.