Global warming is real

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
UN report says climate change man-made


SETH BORENSTEIN
Associated Press

PARIS — The warning from a top panel of international scientists was blunt and dire: “warming of the climate system is unequivocal,” the cause is “very likely” man-made, and the menace will “continue for centuries.”
Authors of the 21-page report released Friday by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change placed the onus on governments to stop prevaricating and take action.
Among other things, the report highlighted “increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and (a) rising global mean sea level.”
It said man-made emissions of greenhouse gases can already be blamed for fewer cold days, hotter nights, killer heat waves, floods and heavy rains, devastating droughts and an increase in hurricane and tropical storm strength — particularly in the Atlantic Ocean.
Related to this article

Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (AFP/Getty Images)


The message to be taken home from the report is “it's later than we think,” panel co-chair Susan Solomon of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, told The Associated Press in an interview.
The report and the scientists who wrote it called the document conservative. It used only peer reviewed published science and was edited by representatives of 113 governments that also had to agree to every word, including those opposed to measures like the Koyoto Protocol to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
Although it is a snapshot of where the world stands with regard to global warming and where it is heading, it does not tell governments what to do.
Yet if nothing is done, the world is looking at more than one million dead and hundreds of billions of dollars in costs adapting to a warmer world with more extreme weather, study co-author Kevin Trenberth, director of climate analysis at the U.S National Center for Atmospheric Research, said in an interview.
Another report by the panel later this year will address the most effective measures for slowing global warming.
If it looks bad now, the harmful effects during the 21st century “would very likely be larger than those observed during the 20th century,” the report said.
The panel predicted temperature rises of 1.1 to 6.4 Celsius by the year 2100. That was a wider range than in the 2001 report, although the panel also said its best estimate was rises of 1.8 to 4 C.
The projected effects of global warming would vary in different parts of the globe. The closer to the poles, the higher the temperature spikes, according to the report. Dramatic and noticeable temperature spikes are likely to be seen within 22 years in most of the Northern Hemisphere, the report showed. Northern Africa and other places will see dramatically less rainfall.
And that's just average temperature increases and rainfall amounts, something that doesn't affect people much.
People experience the harshest of global warming during extreme weather events — heat waves, droughts, floods, and hurricanes — said study co-author Philip Jones of Britain's University of East Anglia. And those events have increased dramatically in the past decade and will get even worse in the future, he said.
On sea levels, the report projects rises of 18 to 59 centimetres by the end of the century. An additional 10 to 20 centimetres is possible if the recent, surprising melting of polar ice sheets continues.
The next step is up to public officials, scientists said. “I want to see action — not messages,” said Swiss scientist Thomas Stocker, a co-author.
Achim Steiner, executive director of the UN Environment Program, said it was “critical that we look at this report ... as a moment where the focus of attention will shift from whether climate change is linked to human activity, whether the science is sufficient, to what on earth are we going to do about it.”
“The public should not sit back and say ‘There's nothing we can do,'” Mr. Steiner added. “Anyone who would continue to risk inaction on the basis of the evidence presented here will one day in the history books be considered irresponsible.”
Gerry Meehl of the U.S. atmospheric research centre warned that continued global warming could eventually lead to an “ice-free Arctic.”
When that happened 125,000 years ago, seas rose between four and six metres. That is looking like a real possibility for the 22nd century, the report said, but some scientists fear much of that may happen before the end of the 21st Century.
The report said no matter how much civilization slows or reduces its greenhouse gas emissions, global warming and sea-level rise will continue for centuries.
“This is just not something you can stop. We're just going to have to live with it,” Mr. Trenberth said. “We're creating a different planet. If you were to come back in 100 years' time, we'll have a different climate.”
Scientists worry that world leaders will take that message in the wrong way and throw up their hands, Mr. Trenberth said. That would be wrong, he said. Instead, the scientists urged leaders to reduce emissions and also adapt to a warmer world with wilder weather.
As the IPCC report was being released, environmental activists rappelled off a Paris bridge and draped a banner over a statue used often as a popular gauge of whether the Seine River is running high.
“Alarm bells are ringing. The world must wake up to the threat,” said Catherine Pearce of Friends of the Earth.

http://tinyurl.com/yrqfnk

Ok, global warming is real, no kidding.

It's "very likely" caused by humans, no shyte.

Ya we had our hands in it, yet scientists have stated, had we not practiced cut and burn deforestation, the greenhouse gases would "very likely" not be accumulating in the atmosphere.

And other scientists, have stated it is "very likely" caused by increased solar activity.

This glorified piece of two ply TP, is just more hot air (very likely contributing to Global Warming) to boost the junk science and socailist agenda of the Kyoto Protocol.

It's good to see the hypocracy is consistant around here!!!
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
"We can be very confident that the net effect of human activity since 1750 has been one of warming," co-lead author Dr Susan Soloman told delegates in Paris.

Note that in IPCC lingo likely means between 66 and 90% probability, while very likely is more than 90%.

Writing in the journal Science, an international group of scientists concluded that temperatures and sea levels had been rising at or above the maximum rates proposed in the last report, which was published in 2001.

Now there are two volumes left to come on this, how much more will we know in say 2010, or 2013?

Kyoto is but one agreement, and is quite old now. It's flaws are obvious as a watered down treaty, hell the science is even out-dated now.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
Ok, global warming is real, no kidding.

It's "very likely" caused by humans, no shyte.

Ya we had our hands in it, yet scientists have stated, had we not practiced cut and burn deforestation, the greenhouse gases would "very likely" not be accumulating in the atmosphere.

And other scientists, have stated it is "very likely" caused by increased solar activity.

This glorified piece of two ply TP, is just more hot air (very likely contributing to Global Warming) to boost the junk science and socailist agenda of the Kyoto Protocol.

It's good to see the hypocracy is consistant around here!!!

CDNBear

Without malice Bear, you don't know what you're talking about. Top meteorological scientists from a 130 countries put this report together and you have the gall to call it "junk science". Even the Bush crowd is backing down on their ignorant opposition to Kyoto, and Harper will be right behind them. Show me one reputable scientist who is against this report who isn't some flake working for the oil companies.
 

s_lone

Council Member
Feb 16, 2005
2,233
30
48
44
Montreal
Oh my God it's real?!!!!!

8-O

I thought it was just a summer camp story invented to scare little kids...
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
CDNBear

Without malice Bear, you don't know what you're talking about. Top meteorological scientists from a 130 countries put this report together and you have the gall to call it "junk science". Even the Bush crowd is backing down on their ignorant opposition to Kyoto, and Harper will be right behind them. Show me one reputable scientist who is against this report who isn't some flake working for the oil companies.
I already showed you 15,000 of them, that's right, it's not a typo, I said 15,000, remember the thread #juan. Just because you ignored the post and the links, doesn't mean I didn't show you.

I have always acknowledged that there is an increase in the global temps, but the model on which Kyoto is based, is junk. It is more like solar activity at this point, compounded by the greenhouse effect, which is compounded by deforestation.

Kyoto is not the answer, these "top" scientist are merely bolstering the socialist hidden agenda that is Kyoto.

I agree, global warming is occuring, is Kyoto the answer?

NO!!!

Are these guys right???

Not completely!!!
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
Show me one reputable scientist who is against this report who isn't some flake working for the oil companies.

Here are 17,000 flakes.

What consensus? Scientist are overwhelmingly against Kyoto "Joy countered that his take on global warming wasn't based on "faith" but on consensus among the scientific community."

There is no consensus. In fact, most scientists disagree with the global warming alarmists.

There are 17,000 scientists that have signed the Petition Project: http://www.sitewave.net/PPROJECT/

"It is a petition signed by nearly 17,000 US scientists, half of whom are trained in the fields of physics, geophysics, climate science, meteorology, oceanography, chemistry, biology, or biochemistry. The statement was circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine along with an eight-page abstract of the latest research on climate change. The abstract - written for scientists but comprehensible by laymen - concludes that there is no basis for believing (1) that atmospheric CO2 is causing a dangerous climb in global temperatures, (2) that greater concentrations of CO2 would be harmful, or (3) that human activity leads to global warming in the first place."

This is more than four times the number of scientists in support of the Kyoto treaty that the Media calls a "consensus" among the science community.

http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-10532-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=12059&messageID=240593&start=-1:wave:
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
71
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
I have always acknowledged that there is an increase in the global temps, but the model on which Kyoto is based, is junk. It is more like solar activity at this point, compounded by the greenhouse effect, which is compounded by deforestation.
The trouble with older models is that they were inaccurate most of the time. Nowadays data keeps coming in and the people working on the models keep improving the accuracy of them . It isn't like they are all junk now. If I can find it I will post an article or two on models and their accuracy.
Kyoto is not the answer, these "top" scientist are merely bolstering the socialist hidden agenda that is Kyoto.
I always thought Kyoto was junk and then ChRETIeN actually said he thought the accordwas junk, too; which means he had some pretty solid scientific evidence for saying it was junk.
The evidence points to Kyoto being junk. And as it was stated earlier, it is old and out-of-date.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
http://www.sitewave.net/PPROJECT/s33p36.htm

Well for starters, if you follow the link to that paper where this issue is discussed by scientists, you'll see they are using papers which are 10 years outdated or more. I can tell you that in ten years much of the science has changed in regards to these topics.

Lets review some agricultural science, my personal favorite! The paper in this link makes some claims which have since been proven false. The premise is, the more CO2 you have in the atmosphere, the larger the growth rate in photosynthetic plants, and they actually claim that this is benefiting both biodiversity (more on this later) and plant growth rates.

I can tell you this is false. The authors are guilty of what they claim against the "pro-Kyoto" crowd. That is that they assume by isolating one growth factor and measuring the response, they can extrapolate that measured response to the whole system. I cannot even fathom why they would make such assumptions. The problem is obvious, increased carbon dioxide is not happening in isolation. It is happening in conjunction with other factors such as, increased temperatures, increased precipitation and over-abundance of nutrients in the soil. Seems paradoxal doesn't it, that these factors we associate with growth are actually suppressing growth.

Why would this happen? Turns out that nature doesn't like a multitude of large scale changes in a finely tuned system.

As I mentioned earlier, the paper makes claims that the increase in CO2 and temperature is beneficial, yielding greater biodiversity. Anyone want grade A @ss wipe, that was it right there. A recent statistical analysis of more than 100 studies has shown unequivocally, that biodiversity is not only suffering, but it is on the verge of a massive extinction event. This study here explains how in the next 100 years we can expect to lose anywhere from a third to one half of the species on the planet. This study here shows how what we can expect to survive our man made greenhouse will be the weedy, pest species which have large tolerances for change. Cockroaches for dinner anyone?

I'm quite certain this new round of evidence will be met with the same zeal and one track kind of thinking which ignores basic scientific method. It's normal to challenge results in the scientific community, hence the reason these IPCC papers are toned down.
 

Alexander

Electoral Member
Jan 31, 2007
117
3
18
Vancouver, B.C.
Of course global warming is real. I can't believe how long it's taking for people to take action. All countries in the world have to work together to prevent the greenhouse gases from increasing. I believe Canada had proposed to do such a thing but America didn't so our contribution is not making much progress.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
"It is a petition signed by nearly 17,000 US scientists, half of whom are trained in the fields of physics, geophysics, climate science, meteorology, oceanography, chemistry, biology, or biochemistry.

Nice try. I saw that dopey list of Republican supporters at least two years ago.. What are the other half trained in? Dog catching? What has biology or biochemistry to do with meteorology?

The UN report was written by all the top meteorological scientists from a hundred and thirty countries. These people put their names and reputations on the line.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
71
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
Juan, climate change affects damned near every form of lfe on the planet. What's the study of biology about?

For example: http://www.royalsociety.ac.uk/news.asp?year=&id=3084
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0309_060309_bering_sea.html

Climate change affects geology: http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/climate_change_could_affect_tectonic_plates_10458.html

Etc.

Etc.

Once scientists know what changes are happening in a specie and what caused the changes, they can use the info in climate models.

Um, there are bound to be scientists who naysay man's influence on climate change but they are in the minority and are no doubt mistaken.
 

temperance

Electoral Member
Sep 27, 2006
622
16
18
yes I agree we need to stop toxic billowing smoke and not generate nuclear power fuel but --dont scare a billion people to make money


Global warming or global cooling?


Almost as soon as the Kyoto Protocol on global warming came into effect on February 15, Kashmir suffered the highest snowfall in three decades with over 150 killed, and Mumbai recorded the lowest temperature in 40 years. Had temperatures been the highest for decades, newspapers would have declared this was proof of global warming. But whenever temperatures drop, the press keeps quiet.

Things were different in 1940-70, when there was global cooling. Every cold winter then was hailed as proof of a coming new Ice Age. But the moment cooling was replaced by warming, a new disaster in the opposite direction was proclaimed.

A recent Washington Post article gave this scientist's quote from 1972. "We simply cannot afford to gamble. We cannot risk inaction. The scientists who disagree are acting irresponsibly. The indications that our climate can soon change for the worse are too strong to be reasonably ignored." The warning was not about global warming (which was not happening): it was about global cooling!

In the media, disaster is news, and its absence is not. This principle has been exploited so skillfully by ecological scare-mongers that it is now regarded as politically incorrect, even unscientific, to denounce global warming hysteria as unproven speculation.

Meteorologists are a standing joke for getting predictions wrong even a few days ahead. The same jokers are being taken seriously when they use computer models to predict the weather 100 years hence.

The models have not been tested for reliability over 100 years, or even 20 years. Different models yield variations in warming of 400%, which means they are statistically meaningless.

Wassily Leontief, Nobel prize winner for modeling, said this about the limits of models. "We move from more or less plausible but really arbitrary assumptions, to elegantly demonstrated but irrelevant conclusions." Exactly. Assume continued warming as in the last three decades, and you get a warming disaster. Assume more episodes of global cooling, and you get a cooling disaster.

In his latest best seller State of Fear, Michael Crichton does a devastating expose of the way ecological groups have tweaked data and facts to create mass hysteria. He points out that we know astonishingly little about the environment. All sides make exaggerated claims.

We know that atmospheric carbon is increasing. We are also in the midst of a natural warming trend that started in 1850 at the end of what is called the Little Ice Age. It is scientifically impossible to prove whether the subsequent warming is natural or man-made.

Greens say, rightly, that the best scientific assessment today is that global warming is occurring. Yet never in history have scientists accurately predicted what will happen 100 years later. A century ago no scientists predicted the internet, microwave ovens, TV, nuclear explosions or antibiotics. It is impossible, even stupid, to predict the distant future.

That scientific truth is rarely mentioned. Why? Because the global warming movement has now become a multi-billion dollar enterprise with thousands of jobs and millions in funding for NGOs and think-tanks, top jobs and prizes for scientists, and huge media coverage for predictions of disaster.

The vested interests in the global warming theory are now as strong, rich and politically influential as the biggest multinationals. It is no co-incidence, says Crichton, that so many scientists sceptical of global warming are retired professors: they have no need to chase research grants and chairs.

I have long been an agnostic on global warming: the evidence is ambiguous. But I almost became a convert when Greenpeace publicised photos showing the disastrously rapid retreat of the Upsala Glacier in Argentina. How disastrous, I thought, if this was the coming fate of all glaciers.

Then last Christmas, I went on vacation to Lake Argentina. The Upsala glacier and six other glaciers descend from the South Andean icefield into the lake. I was astounded to discover that while the Upsala glacier had retreated rapidly, the other glaciers showed little movement, and one had advanced across the lake into the Magellan peninsula. If in the same area some glaciers advance and others retreat, the cause is clearly not global warming but local micro-conditions.

Yet the Greenpeace photos gave the impression that glaciers in general were in rapid retreat. It was a con job, a dishonest effort to mislead. From the same icefield, another major glacier spilling into Chile has grown 60% in volume.

Greenpeace and other ecological groups have well-intentioned people with high ideals. But as crusaders they want to win by any means, honest or not. I do not like being taken for a ride, by idealists or anyone else.

We need impartial research, funded neither by MNCs, governmental groups or NGOs with private agendas. And the media needs to stop highlighting disaster scares and ignoring exposes of the scares.

 

temperance

Electoral Member
Sep 27, 2006
622
16
18
Big business ,movie making ,war industries are the culprits and should show leader ship --don't just blame individuals --we can do are part -I try as it is ,and wont stop cause others arent on board --but lets get the big polluters as well in on the clean up ---
 

eh1eh

Blah Blah Blah
Aug 31, 2006
10,749
103
48
Under a Lone Palm
Here's another look at what is going on. The amount of heat held onto by the Earth is not only dependent on Green House Gases. The Earth has something called the albet and it is not changing.
This is what NASA has observed. I will post the article as the link goes to the page of the day

http://eobglossary.gsfc.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17542

Atmospheric gases scatter blue wavelengths of visible light more than other wavelengths, giving the Earth’s visible edge a blue halo. At higher and higher altitudes, the atmosphere becomes so thin that it essentially ceases to exist. Gradually, the atmospheric halo fades into the blackness of space. This astronaut photograph captured on July 20, 2006, shows a nearly translucent moon emerging from behind the halo.
Technically, there is no absolute dividing line between the Earth’s atmosphere and space, but for scientists studying the balance of incoming and outgoing energy on the Earth, it is conceptually useful to think of the altitude at about 100 kilometers above the Earth as the “top of the atmosphere.” The top of the atmosphere is the bottom line of Earth’s energy budget, the Grand Central Station of radiation. It is the place where solar energy (mostly visible light) enters the Earth system and where both reflected light and invisible, thermal radiation from the Sun-warmed Earth exit. The balance between incoming and outgoing energy at the top of the atmosphere determines the Earth’s average temperature. The ability of greenhouses gases to change the balance by reducing how much thermal energy exits is what global warming is all about.
Greenhouse gases aren’t the only part of the Earth system that influence the energy balance. The percent of incoming sunlight the Earth system reflects (the Earth’s albedo) is a key climate factor since whatever is reflected can’t go on to warm the planet. Clouds, such as those blanketed the earth int he image above, snow, and ice have the biggest influence on how reflective Earth is. When any of these factors change, Earth’albedo can change. Since the late 1990s, NASA satellites have been observing the top of the atmosphere with sensors known as CERES, short for “Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System,” and scientists have been using the data to look for signs of change in the amount of energy the Earth reflects or emits.
Because http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17541snow and ice are so reflective, scientists have long expected that melting of snow and ice in the polar regions will accelerate climate warming by reducing the Earth’ albedo. Atmospheric scientist Seiji Kato of NASA’s Langley Research Center and several teammates have used a suite of NASA and NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) satellite observations to investigate whether this feedback is already underway. The team compared reflected sunlight, clouds, and sea ice and snow cover at polar latitudes from 2000-2004. What they found was a bit of a surprise: while snow and ice in the Arctic declined, the albedo didn’t change. To read more about the team’s investigation, read the Earth Observatory feature story Arctic Reflection: Clouds Replace Snow and Ice as Solar Reflector.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Despite that fact hat during the last ice age, the CO2 levels on earth were 20 times the level they are now, should not stop all the very smart people that keep telling us cynics, that we know nothing(without malice of course). But don't let scientific facts get in the way of your socialist pipe dream.

If you have a predetermined conclusion and you wish to sell your snake oil(read Kyoto Protocol), I'm sure it won't be hard to find all the scientists you need to scare the hapless masses into following you down the garden path.

The fact that the protocol is more a socialist economic engineer mechanism, then it is a real environmental saviour, should surprize anyone. Just look who keeps supporting it in here.

The science behind the original model was flawed, so they improved the model. Your point? I can set up a model to prove my assertions to. It's easy if you have your answer before you start.

Big business and the fossil fuel industry are the bad guys. BS, it is "very likely" a combonation of many things, several of which are not the focus, nor addressed in this piece of two ply TP.

[FONT=Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,Helv][SIZE=+2]Glenn Shaw - Atmospheric Scientist [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,Helv][SIZE=+1]
Global Warming
[/SIZE][/FONT]
Global warming is a "name brand fashion" with just enough of a whiff of scientific legitimacy and Old Testament apocalypse to make it attractive to the populace at large. The issue is quite much like Camel Cigarettes advertisements in the 1940. And buying into greenhouse warming is just as dangerous as smoking Camels!
Make no mistake about it, "global warming" is a political instrument of the left wing. It's the favorite scare tactic of environmentalists. Its being employed with vigor to bridle what Europeans are fond of calling a "cowboy economy" and to rein in a country thought of by competitors as being "out of control".
Greenhouse warming is one of the most massively overstated issues ever to hit.
Trying to cow the US by hurting the nation's economy with greenhouse gas scare tactics is France attempted to bully Germany with crippling reparation payments in the Versailles treaty at the end of World War I. This basically unenlightened policy resulted in many unexpected consequences, including the rise of Hitler! Greenhouse Warming issue, unless somebody starts to speak some sense and defuse the issue, is likely to cause a major conflict on the scale of a World War. I think this is real strategic political business with serious consequences and not a playing around thing.
What about the science? Is global warming scientific? The answer is a qualified yes. Indeed carbon dioxide is "building up". This effect, all by itself, would force a small planetary scale warming. That's the physics.
But everything poops out fast after that. The greenhouse forcing is at most like stringing a few quite dim Christmas tree lights around on the planet. Predictions of climate change for the greenhouse warming next century or next decade are much like computer models of the weather change next month: basically meaningless or at least quite inaccurate. I can make rational and intelligent arguments that global cooling by other effects such as the "Twomey Effect" is in the cards for the future. Moreover, cloud and water vapor feedbacks are pathetically incorporated in climate models, yet they are among the most important drivers of future climate.
Scaring people about the warming on basis of such flawed science and proposing massive social engineering in which the United States comes out the loser is asking for real trouble. For one thing, it would be relatively simple to engineer a way out of any global warming, if it ever wound up getting big enough to document. I reckon it would be on the scale of constructing the great hydro plants in the western United States. Whatever the net effect will prove to be, it will be less than most home thermometers can resolve and pretty unimportant on global economic and human health and welfare scales of events.
Don't swallow global warming. Its political hot air with a lot of bravado. It's a Stamp Act! It's an overblown issue that could well end up causing grave harm to this nation's economy and well being. Don't buy it.
Sincerely,
Glenn Shaw
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
Canada along with every other developed country can reduce their GHG emissions to meet their Kyoto targets with NOOOOO problem.

Just buy excess credits (AKA Carbon Credits from countries that never stood a chance at using them) at several billion dollars.

That's Kyoto.

Let's move on to the next money transfer scheme.