U.N. report: Urgent action needed on 'severe' climate change

[Fat Guy]

I don't know how anyone could say that global warming is not a real concern...

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe...ate/index.html


(CNN) -- Climate change is "severe and so sweeping that only urgent, global action" can head it off, a United Nations scientific panel said in a report on global warming issued Saturday.

The report produced by the Nobel prize-winning panel warns of the devastating impact for developing countries and the threat of species extinction posed by the climate crisis.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, presenting the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in Valencia, Spain, warned that some of the effects of rising levels of greenhouse gases may already be irreversible.

The U.N. head said the situation was already "so severe and so sweeping that only urgent, global action" could head off the crisis.

The report warns that in spite of the protocols adopted by many Western countries after Kyoto, greenhouse gas emissions will continue to rise by between 25 and 90 per cent by 2030.

The Kyoto treaty was a global effort to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The United States is one of only a few nations not to have signed the protocol, which expires in 2012.

The report also predicts a rise in global warming of around 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade.

Scientists say up to an 85 percent cut in carbon dioxide emissions is needed to head off potential catastrophic changes that could lead to more floods and famine.

Ban Ki-moon told the panel he was hopeful that the report's findings could help bring about "a real breakthrough" in climate change negotiations in Bali, Indonesia, next month.

The climate change panel was delivering its fourth and final report on the science of climate change and the impact of human-produced greenhouse gases at a conference in Valencia.

The Bali talks will set the groundwork for the successor to the Kyoto treaty.

They will also guide global climate policy for at least the next decade, and dictate the types of long-term investment decisions made by big industries and utilities.

Written by more than 2,500 top government-appointed scientists, Saturday's report contains a summary for policymakers attending the Bali talks, outlining the scientific evidence for global warming and ways to deal with it.

However, panel member Achim Steiner, executive director of United Nations environment program, said the report was also meant to serve as a "civilian's guide" to dealing with climate change. He said he hoped individuals could use the information contained in the report to take practical steps to curbing gas emissions.

The U.N. panel -- the recent recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize with former U.S. Vice President Al Gore -- was asked if goals of reducing emissions could be achieved without the contribution of China and especially the United States, which was one of only a few countries that did not sign up to the Kyoto treaty.

Ban Ki-moon said he had "high expectations" that both countries would play a "constructive role" at the upcoming talks.

"Both countries I think can and should lead each in its own way," he said.

The disagreement over how the cuts in carbon dioxide emissions should be managed may well stall the Bali talks.

Some countries are thought to be in favor of mandatory caps on emissions, which could hit the industrial output of major carbon dioxide producers such as the United States.

Mandatory caps are also unlikely to be supported by developing countries, who fear they could be a barrier to growth.

Opponents of the caps -- thought to include the Bush administration -- favor voluntary restrictions and suggest postponing mandatory caps until the richer world is better able to pay for it, and cleaner energy technologies are more developed.

Writing in the International Herald Tribune on Friday, the U.N. head said the world was "on the verge of a catastrophe if we do not act."

However, he insisted that he remained optimistic that international cooperation could still help reverse the damage caused by unchecked temperature rises.

"The overarching message: We can beat this. There are real and affordable ways to deal with climate change," he said in the column.

[Dizz28]

I don't know how anyone could say that global warming is not a real concern...

[

That is only your opinion and you're entitled to it. There is also conflicting evidence against this....Please read these threads.


Over 500 scientists published studies countering global warming fears...
'The Weather Channel' Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’
Gore gets a cold shoulder

Written by more than 2,500 top government-appointed scientists

and there is the problem. Independant researchers have mounting evidence against human induced Global Warming

[Fat Guy]

That is only your opinion and you're entitled to it. There is also conflicting evidence against this....Please read these threads.


Over 500 scientists published studies countering global warming fears...
'The Weather Channel' Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’
Gore gets a cold shoulder

I have read all of these threads before and they are lacking to say the least. I know you believe this is a partisan issue but the bottom line is it is not. The world majority of the scientific community has concluded through empirical review that it is an issue and will be a catastrophe if something is not done about it soon. These are the top scientific minds in the world saying this.

I repeat this is not a political issue. However, there are big money interest groups out there that want to turn it into a political issue because the bottom line is they have much to protect with all their profits and power made off of the world's consumption of fossil fuels. I understand why they put their best spin doctors on this issue but the evidence in this case is refutable. There is a reason the 2 top producing countries in the world of green house gas emission has not or will not likely sign the treaty… $$$

[Dizz28]

I have read all of these threads before and they are lacking to say the least. I know you believe this is a partisan issue but the bottom line is it is not. The world majority of the scientific community has concluded through empirical review that it is an issue and will be a catastrophe if something is not done about it soon. These are the top scientific minds in the world saying this.

I repeat this is not a political issue. However, there are big money interest groups out there that want to turn it into a political issue because the bottom line is they have much to protect with all their profits and power made off of the world's consumption of fossil fuels. I understand why they put their best spin doctors on this issue but the evidence in this case is refutable. There is a reason the 2 top producing countries in the world of green house gas emission has not or will not likely sign the treaty… $$$

I know....because it's crap...once again, you have your opinions...that's why America is a great country...you are afforded the opportunity to have your own personal views...even if they are wrong....lol

[Dizz28]

I have read all of these threads before and they are lacking to say the least. I know you believe this is a partisan issue but the bottom line is it is not. The world majority of the scientific community has concluded through empirical review that it is an issue and will be a catastrophe if something is not done about it soon. These are the top scientific minds in the world saying this.

I don't think so, scooter

that was one of the first threads I posted.

[gixxerboy1]

The Earth goes through cycles. Its a natural; process. We didn't destroy the Earth and the climate in 100 years of being industrialised.

Are we having an effect on some things. Yes. Should we make pollution better? Yes.

[Fat Guy]

I don't think so, scooter

that was one of the first threads I posted.

My name is not scooter... OK Dizzy?


And if you look up the term “MAJORITY” in the dictionary it means the greater part or number in a group. What that means for this article is the majority or greater number of top scientist have concluded that global warming is a real issue… but hey you believe what you want because I know you know something more, right?

And if you think I am taking some right wing rag piece written by Dennis Avery who is the senior editor of the Hudson Institute which is a corporate sponsored U.S. think tank… well I am not as easily led as you are then. I always follow the money trail…

Have a nice day Dizzy

[dece870717]

I think this is just another way of government scaring people, getting them all riled up, we end up cooperating with whatever they want us to do and then by doing so we just give away more of our freedom and they get more power/control.

[Fat Guy]

The Earth goes through cycles. Its a natural; process. We didn't destroy the Earth and the climate in 100 years of being industrialised.

Are we having an effect on some things. Yes. Should we make pollution better? Yes.

Gixxer The unbiased science is in and it concludes that this is not a natural process, like major fossil fuel industries would like the majority of people to believe or corporate sponsored authors Avery & Singer are saying. I think if you do some homework you will find what is real. Here is a link to counterpoint why this global warming process is not a natural process.


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...pable-hot-air/

I hope this helps

[soulstealer]

Personally I think people just need to stop and realise whats going on...

Is there a natural cycle of warms and cold snaps over periods including ice ages... YES they are caused by levels of CO2 and other gases which cause a chain reaction causing certain events....

Are we accelerating this process... YES by artificial production of these gases.... we are causing it to happen at an unbelievably fast rate.....

What happens when the polar ice caps melt and concentration of CO2 gas gets too high.... A GODDAMN ICEAGE!!! thats what happens.... then the earth slowly warms back up....

[Kärnfysikern]

One thing that concerns me about the hype is that we still do not know for sure if a warming will be bad. Who can say that the current climate is the best we can have?
As far as I know the climate models can not modell precipitation and cloud coverage. They also have very rough resolution. So they can not predict on a regional level what impact a warming will have on agriculture.

Europe was thriving during the medieval warm period, Im not convinced that a new warm period would be a bad thing.

[soulstealer]

One thing that concerns me about the hype is that we still do not know for sure if a warming will be bad. Who can say that the current climate is the best we can have?
As far as I know the climate models can not modell precipitation and cloud coverage. They also have very rough resolution. So they can not predict on a regional level what impact a warming will have on agriculture.

Europe was thriving during the medieval warm period, Im not convinced that a new warm period would be a bad thing.

I totally agree but the reason we bother with this is we are so arrogant that we thing "mother nature" is going to continue to let this happen and we'll super heat our planet or whatever...In my opinion its stupid... should we contribute to the warmth I say as little as possible... should we be worried not really...

[Tock]

Not being a climatologist, I don't know much about all this. But, it does seem to me that more scientists are certain that humans are effecting global warming than not. So, why not make a concerted effort to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, just in case they are correct? If, in the process, we find new and cheaper ways to produce and use energy, so much the better.

Actually, it makes sense for governments to subsidize research for renewable energy. It seems that the US government, anyway, is determined to spend taxpayer dollars on something, so it may as well be energy research instead of a war on Iran . . .

JMHO . . .

[Logan13]

I think this is just another way of government scaring people, getting them all riled up, we end up cooperating with whatever they want us to do and then by doing so we just give away more of our freedom and they get more power/control.

true.....

[Logan13]

I totally agree but the reason we bother with this is we are so arrogant that we thing "mother nature" is going to continue to let this happen and we'll super heat our planet or whatever...In my opinion its stupid... should we contribute to the warmth I say as little as possible... should we be worried not really...

this is constantly my point as well.

[j4ever41]

The report also predicts a rise in global warming of around 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade.

Hell am I suppose to worry about that? I don't thank so. If its even accurate.

[TexSavant]

There's no reason to believe that the earth will somehow spontaneously begin compensating for the greenhouse gasses we are adding. I agree that modest warming is not necessarily bad, but we dont know yet precisely how much we are contributing, (could be less, could be more...) and the most dangerous part is that there are certain "tipping points", where the process can accelerate itself.

From the Guardian , 11 August 2005.


Researchers who have recently returned from the region found that an area of permafrost spanning a million square kilometers - the size of France and Germany combined - has started to melt for the first time since it formed 11,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age.

The area, which covers the entire sub-Arctic region of western Siberia, is the world's largest frozen peat bog and scientists fear that as it thaws, it will release billions of tonnes of methane, a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere.

It is a scenario climate scientists have feared since first identifying "tipping points" - delicate thresholds where a slight rise in the Earth's temperature can cause a dramatic change in the environment that itself triggers a far greater increase in global temperatures.

The discovery was made by Sergei Kirpotin at Tomsk State University in western Siberia and Judith Marquand at Oxford University and is reported in New Scientist today.

The researchers found that what was until recently a barren expanse of frozen peat is turning into a broken landscape of mud and lakes, some more than a kilometer across.

Dr Kirpotin told the magazine the situation was an "ecological landslide that is probably irreversible and is undoubtedly connected to climatic warming". He added that the thaw had probably begun in the past three or four years.

Climate scientists yesterday reacted with alarm to the finding, and warned that predictions of future global temperatures would have to be revised upwards.

"When you start messing around with these natural systems, you can end up in situations where it's unstoppable. There are no brakes you can apply," said David Viner, a senior scientist at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

"This is a big deal because you can't put the permafrost back once it's gone. The causal effect is human activity and it will ramp up temperatures even more than our emissions are doing."



Here's the complete article http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0811-03.htm

Basically the thawing of permafrost begins a POSITIVE Feedback Loop. Thats the opposite of a Negative feedback loop, (Like your HPTA). The warmer it gets the more methane is released, which causes further warming, further thawing, and even more methane. In short, Its a vicious cycle.

We just dont know what will happen if we keep doing this. In the abscence of definitive proof, it is wise to err on the side of caution.

[Logan13]

From the Guardian , 11 August 2005.

[I]
Researchers who have recently returned from the region found that an area of permafrost spanning a million square kilometers - the size of France and Germany combined - has started to melt for the first time since it formed 11,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age.

This statement makes my point. Why is recovering from the last Ice Age necessarily a bad thing?

[TexSavant]

At the END of the last ice age, not the beginning. The permafrost did not exist DURING the ice age. When the glaciers above it began to melt, liquid water seeped into the ground beneath. The permafrost exists because the earth at that depth is COLDER than the surface, so the glaciers melted, the water descended and then froze again- keeping most of the methane trapped beneath just as it had been by the glacier. Now if the permafrost melts there is nothing to sequester the methane. The process that ended the last ice age came to a close and no more methane or carbon was released, so the earth reached its present apporximate homeostasis. UNTIL NOW....These peat bogs had NOT been releasing any more methane up to this point. This is because, while the warming has only occured to the tune of a degree or so GLOBALLY, it has risen 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 Farrenheit) in Siberia and the other arctic and sub-arctic regions.

The warming trend is more dramatic in these places.

[TexSavant]

Again, warming ISN'T necessarrily bad, but there is a distinct possibilty that it will have serious and irreversible consequences. Thus we should err on the side of caution, rather than corporate profit, because the kind of self-accelerating warming that a complete release of the methane and other sequestered grennhouse gases (carbon in the oceans, for one) can induce would be decidedly unprofitable for everyone.

[Dizz28]

Again, warming ISN'T necessarrily bad, but there is a distinct possibilty that it will have serious and irreversible consequences. Thus we should err on the side of caution, rather than corporate profit, because the kind of self-accelerating warming that a complete release of the methane and other sequestered grennhouse gases (carbon in the oceans, for one) can induce would be decidedly unprofitable for everyone.

What kind of car do you drive...please...please don't say you drive a big ass SUV or Truck

By the way...I know I've said this before but, Water Vapor is a more "potent" (i guess you can say) Greenhouse gas than Methane and CO2 combined

[Kärnfysikern]

Not being a climatologist, I don't know much about all this. But, it does seem to me that more scientists are certain that humans are effecting global warming than not. So, why not make a concerted effort to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, just in case they are correct? If, in the process, we find new and cheaper ways to produce and use energy, so much the better.

Actually, it makes sense for governments to subsidize research for renewable energy. It seems that the US government, anyway, is determined to spend taxpayer dollars on something, so it may as well be energy research instead of a war on Iran . . .

JMHO . . .

We already have a nice cheap, clean and efficient solution to the co2 and pollution problem. The real problem is that the solution isnt politicaly accepted.

[Dizz28]

We already have a nice cheap, clean and efficient solution to the co2 and pollution problem. The real problem is that the solution isnt politicaly accepted.

....what, don't leave me hangin....

Are you talking about hydrogen?

Or do you mean we should just get off our lazy ass and ride bikes like they do in some asian countries

[Kärnfysikern]

....what, don't leave me hangin....

Are you talking about hydrogen?

Or do you mean we should just get off our lazy ass and ride bikes like they do in some asian countries

Nuclear power. Start to replace coal on a massive scale with nuclear power. It is doable and it is much cheaper than any renewable. Nothing can lower polution as fast as doing that, except perhaps massive energy conservation but I doubt that will happen.

When electricity production is clean we can begin thinking about hydrogen, but since hydrogen has to be produced from electricity or by some kind of thermochemical process we first need the clean electricity supply before there is any point to even use hydrogen.

I bet offcourse that such a plan would meet heavy resistance from the fossile fuel industry.

[Dizz28]

Oh I see, for some reason I thought you were only talking about vehicle emissions

Yes I agree that Hydrogen or Electric vehicles only change the source of emissions

With nuclear power, there would be a limited amount of countries that America (Bush) would "approve" of having. But soon, we'll have no say so in the matter and it will be up to Russia who is allowed Nuclear power, lol

[Kärnfysikern]

Oh I see, for some reason I thought you were only talking about vehicle emissions

Yes I agree that Hydrogen or Electric vehicles only change the source of emissions

With nuclear power, there would be a limited amount of countries that America (Bush) would "approve" of having. But soon, we'll have no say so in the matter and it will be up to Russia who is allowed Nuclear power, lol

Well america is loosing, or I should say has lost, its lead completely when it comes to nuclear technology. France and Russia and Japan will be far more influential in the future since they are the ones selling and building the reactors and providing the enrichened fuel.

But there is no real problem with only a selection of countries having nuclear power. If USA, China, India and the EU commited to a massive expansion of nuclear power to replace coal that would make a HUGE difference. Say a goal of having 50%-60% of electricity from nuclear before 2040.

This is however a great projekt that the US is leading
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNEP
IMO the best thing that has happened during Bush's days. But its getting zero attention. The basic idea is a few trusthworthy countries commit to providing fuel and taking care of the waste from other countries.

I dont think there is anyway though to stop alot of countries from building nuclear power plants, aslong as they have signed the NPT. But if they also join GNEP it will be alot better.

[TexSavant]

Nuclear Power is a great option. I find it tragically hilarious that so many people are opposed to nuclear power when coal fired power plants kill 30-50,000 people every year in the northeast alone due to particulate emissions that cause cancer and a host of other health problems. They just got their asses sued of and lost on this basis. The power plants in ohio have to now pay the states of New York, New Jersey, and I think Pennsylvania as a result, to compensate for the cost of treating these people. Maybe I'm comfortable with it because I've actually toured parts of the Hanford Site. My dad worked there at the nuclear lab in the early 90's. Its essentially impossible for a chernobyl to happen the way US reactors are built. The Soviets were always compromising on safety, as the inefficiencies of their total command economy practiacally mandated it, or they'd never be able to keep up with western military spending, and as it turns out they still couldn't.

[TexSavant]

Oh I drive a Camaro, not the best, but not the wurst either. I get great mileage in 6th gear, but the lunatti cam has compromised my city mileage.

[Dizz28]

Oh I drive a Camaro, not the best, but not the wurst either. I get great mileage in 6th gear, but the lunatti cam has compromised my city mileage.

Late model V8's get fairly good gas mileage compared to some of the big SUV's and trucks. Around 18 city and 20+ highway. But I suppose the modifications would lower it to some degree, but not lower than a V8 Hummer that gets around 13/16

Anyway, like Karn said, if the larger more industrialized countries used Nuclear power we could significantly reduce emissions

[Logan13]

Late model V8's get fairly good gas mileage compared to some of the big SUV's and trucks. Around 18 city and 20+ highway. But I suppose the modifications would lower it to some degree, but not lower than a V8 Hummer that gets around 13/16

Anyway, like Karn said, if the larger more industrialized countries used Nuclear power we could significantly reduce emissions

I have a '68 camaro as well and would love to get 18 mpg..............

[Dizz28]

I have a '68 camaro as well and would love to get 18 mpg..............

that's why I said late model