global warming worse than we thought?

[Kratos]

Climate experts: Risk of 'irreversible' shifts
'Worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories ... are being realized,' they warn

COPENHAGEN - Hundreds of leading climate scientists wrapped up a three-day conference with a warning Thursday that global warming is accelerating beyond the worst predictions and threatening to trigger "irreversible" shifts on the planet.

Attended by some 2,000 experts, the conference aimed at updating the findings of a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ahead of U.N. talks in December on a new global climate treaty.

"The worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realized," a team of scientists wrote in a concluding statement. "There is a significant risk that many of the trends will accelerate, leading to an increasing risk of abrupt or irreversible climatic shifts."

The IPCC predicted a sea level rise of 7 to 23 inches by the end of the century, which could flood low-lying areas and force millions to flee. But more recent research presented at the conference suggested that melting glaciers and ice sheets could help push the sea level up at least 20 inches, and possibly as much as 39 inches.

'Highly vulnerable'
"Recent observations show that societies are highly vulnerable to even modest levels of climate change with poor nations and communities particularly at risk," the statement said.

It noted that policy-makers already have a range of tools to mitigate global warming. "But they must be vigorously and widely implemented to achieve the societal transformation required to de-carbonize economies," it said.

The conclusions of the congress will be presented to politicians when they meet in Copenhagen in December to discuss a new global agreement on greenhouse gas emissions to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.

"We know from scientific evidence that climate change is a reality and that climate change will have damaging effects on the economy all over the world," said Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, one of the politicians attending the scientific conference. "Therefore we need an agreement and we need an agreement this year."

Recession an opportunity?
Earlier Thursday, British economist Nicholas Stern, the author of a major British government report detailing the cost of climate change, told the conference that the global recession presents an opportunity to build a more energy-efficient economy.

"Coming out of this we have got to lay the foundations for a low-carbon growth, which is going to be like the railways, like the electricity, like the motorcars, this is going to be over the next two, three decades the big driver in investment," Stern said.

Stern said green investments make sense because energy-efficient economies will be more sustainable in the future.

"We know from this crisis that if we postpone looking risk in the face, it will bite us much more deeply," he said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29658424/wid=18298287

[Kratos]

California counts costs from projected warming
$100 billion alone in property damage if sea levels rise 5 feet


SACRAMENTO, Calif. - From flooded coastlines to drought and wildfires, California can expect hundreds of billions of dollars in costs from global warming in the decades ahead, according to estimates being compiled for the state's interagency Climate Action Team.

The impact from warming could translate into annual costs and revenue losses throughout the economy of between $2.5 billion and $15 billion by 2050. A summary of cost analyses was presented to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's climate advisers.

Property damage caused by more devastating wildfires and sea level rise — the water damage alone is estimated at $100 billion in property loss by the end of the century — could push the costs far higher.

The projected financial toll comes from a compilation of 40 studies commissioned by the Climate Action Team. The final reports, which will be released at the end of March, are intended to provide a comprehensive snapshot of global warming's potential costs to property owners, businesses and state government.

If nothing is done globally to reduce emissions, the studies warn, hotter temperatures will lead to rising sea levels that will flood property in the San Francisco Bay area, lead to lower crop yields and water shortages, produce more intense wildfires and cause more demand for electricity to cool homes.

The studies were written by scientists from various disciplines based at California universities and research institutions. They include a range of costs from agriculture, wildfires, water supply, flooding and electricity demand.

480,000 along coast at risk
One of the 40 reports — a look at sea levels and erosion from waves — was released simultaneously with the cost summaries.

The study by the Pacific Institute estimates that a 5-foot rise in sea levels by 2100 would effect 480,000 people who live in areas at risk, causing $100 billion in property damage.

"An overwhelming two thirds of that property is concentrated on San Francisco Bay," the institute stated, adding that a 5-foot rise is possible if greenhouse gases increase at a pace regarded as a "medium-high" scenario. San Francisco and Oakland international airports are at risk of being under water, as are 3,500 miles of roads, 30 power plants and 29 wastewater treatment plants.

California could also lose 41 square miles of coastline by 2100 due to erosion, threatening the homes of 14,000 people, the report stated. People in San Mateo, Orange and Alameda Counties are most vulnerable.

"Coastal armoring is one potential adaptation strategy," the institute said. "Approximately 1,100 miles of new or modified coastal protection structures — such as dikes and dunes, seawalls, and bulkheads — are needed on the Pacific Coast and San Francisco Bay" to protect against flooding from a 5 foot sea level rise. "The cost of building new or upgrading existing structures is estimated to be at least $14 billion, with an additional $1.4 billion per year in maintenance costs."

The institute added that an "alternative to costly engineering projects" would be "non-structural" responses that "allow natural processes to work, and include a retreat from the most at-risk areas, or deciding not to rebuild flood-damaged properties."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29656274

[Kratos]

ok, so at the time of me posting the thread these are the top two stories, one and two on the MSN home page.

There is only one thing either of these stories are both lacking...evidence. They're both scare stories without any data whatsoever.

Ok, take the california story, #1 story on MSN news. It's just a story that California estimated the costs of what a 5 foot rise in sea level would cost. It doesn't say they expect sea level to increase by 5 ft or that they have any reason to think it will, just what it would cost.

The other story is about scientists who love to talk about the dangers of global warming decided it's not good. No sharing of the evidence. They're a bunch of hammers, of course everything looks like a nail. What is the data they're basing their opinion on? I'm more pissed that the media won't run a propper story on the subject so I can make up my own mind.

[xlxBigSexyxlx]

Both of my geology professors believe in global warming and its dangers, go figure.

But they aren't Al Gore crazy.

One works in Greenland in the summer drilling ice cores and what not.
He shows us data how CO2 and CH4 have increased rather rapidly. Granted the climate works in cycles, but industrialization and all that has def sped it up. And CO2 in the atmosphere last for thousands of years. Water vapor could be bad as well, but reason no one worries about it is because it last days, weeks tops in the atmosphere.

The other travels everywhere studying shorelines.
One example he showed us was Bermuda Beach in Galveston I believe. I forget the exact dates and numbers, but basically, under uniformitarism (The past is the key to the present), within 50 years, or was it 20, idk., that the Bermuda subdivision will be under water That is unless we find a way to stop or reduce it.

[Flagg]

I guess you're gonna be shit out of luck if you live by the coast.

The science behind global warming isn't that hard. CO2 increases the atmospheres ability to trap heat. Now look at Greenland. The ice is on land, not floating on the sea like the southpole so if any shelfs break off or there is run off from melt water, that adds volume and displaces the oceans. There is ice falling off of Greenland and into the oceans. It adds volume. This is known as the Archimedes Principle.

My belief on all this, is if you look at Paleomaps, we are due a increase in global temperatures around about now if you go by the patterns of the last 500 million years. However, I do think we've sped up the process by a good few thousand years.

Ice Core studies can go back as far as almost a million years. From those cores, scientists have determined that CO2 levels at most have only ever been 280 ppm in the last 1 million years. Today they are currently at 350 ppm and rising. We are adding tons of extra CO2 into the carbon cycle, carbon that has been trapped underground for millions of years. The atmosphere was never designed to hold a lot of CO2, that was the job of the oceans and vegetation and other carbon sinks, which we are also doing a good job of ruining through pollution and deforestation. Plants photosynthesise, we respire...take away too many plants, hmm...too much CO2, not enough O2. That's not good for everything else that needs oxygen.

Im not trying to sensationalise things, but that is simply the deal behind all this. People can go on about "We're destroying the planet" or "we're not destroying the planet". Well the latter are right. We cant kill the planet but we seem to do a good job of constantly finding ways to jeapordise our survival.

[Kratos]

first of all, you're big and you're sexy and I appreciate your response
I'm not an anti global warming fanatic
maybe it's happening and maybe it isn't, but why in main stream stories is there never any data? What's the temp change we're seeing? Sea level temps? give me something.
The stories are designed to scare and that's what pisses me off. News without specifics isn't news, it's opinion.
I don't deny Carbon is on the rise, but they don't know what the direct implications are.
Water vapor may be a green house gas, but who's to say it's insulating properties aren't canceled out. For example it sheilds out the sun via clouds and other means. Rain has a net cooling effect because where it comes from is so freakin cold. Proof please.
The problem in Bermuda beach from my understanding is errosion. They are trying to attribute the loss of sand to the increasing storm intersity from global warming. Connect the dots, but not a direct connection. First prove the storms are a result of global warming. In my parents neighborhood they have to dredge the cove every 10 years cause it silts in, has nothing to do with storm intensity, totally sheltered. Dirt and sand take the path of least resistance and sometimes that changes over the years.
IMO, nothing is going to stop CO2 rise short of a rapid reduction in the human population, so what's the point of throwing billions at the problem, if it is in fact a problem?

[Kratos]

I guess you're gonna be shit out of luck if you live by the coast.

The science behind global warming isn't that hard. CO2 increases the atmospheres ability to trap heat. Now look at Greenland. The ice is on land, not floating on the sea like the southpole so if any shelfs break off or there is run off from melt water, that adds volume and displaces the oceans. There is ice falling off of Greenland and into the oceans. It adds volume. This is known as the Archimedes Principle.

My belief on all this, is if you look at Paleomaps, we are due a increase in global temperatures around about now if you go by the patterns of the last 500 million years. However, I do think we've sped up the process by a good few thousand years.

Ice Core studies can go back as far as almost a million years. From those cores, scientists have determined that CO2 levels at most have only ever been 280 ppm in the last 1 million years. Today they are currently at 350 ppm and rising. We are adding tons of extra CO2 into the carbon cycle, carbon that has been trapped underground for millions of years. The atmosphere was never designed to hold a lot of CO2, that was the job of the oceans and vegetation and other carbon sinks, which we are also doing a good job of ruining through pollution and deforestation. Plants photosynthesise, we respire...take away too many plants, hmm...too much CO2, not enough O2. That's not good for everything else that needs oxygen.

Im not trying to sensationalise things, but that is simply the deal behind all this. People can go on about "We're destroying the planet" or "we're not destroying the planet". Well the latter are right. We cant kill the planet but we seem to do a good job of constantly finding ways to jeapordise our survival.

I know this stuff, but thanks for your response anyway.

[Kratos]

if they really wanted to reduce CO2 have every developed country thrown in a couple hundred mil and use it to farm kelp in the deep ocean...boom problem solved.

[xlxBigSexyxlx]

first of all, you're big and you're sexy and I appreciate your response
I'm not an anti global warming fanatic
maybe it's happening and maybe it isn't, but why in main stream stories is there never any data? What's the temp change we're seeing? Sea level temps? give me something.
The stories are designed to scare and that's what pisses me off. News without specifics isn't news, it's opinion.
I don't deny Carbon is on the rise, but they don't know what the direct implications are.
Water vapor may be a green house gas, but who's to say it's insulating properties aren't canceled out. For example it sheilds out the sun via clouds and other means. Rain has a net cooling effect because where it comes from is so freakin cold. Proof please.
The problem in Bermuda beach from my understanding is errosion. They are trying to attribute the loss of sand to the increasing storm intersity from global warming. Connect the dots, but not a direct connection. First prove the storms are a result of global warming. In my parents neighborhood they have to dredge the cove every 10 years cause it silts in, has nothing to do with storm intensity, totally sheltered. Dirt and sand take the path of least resistance and sometimes that changes over the years.
IMO, nothing is going to stop CO2 rise short of a rapid reduction in the human population, so what's the point of throwing billions at the problem, if it is in fact a problem?

haha Thanks buddy.

I agree with you. The media does use scare tactics.
And I can't give you proof, for I am a "noob" in this whole field.
But I'm getting there. Maybe not in global warming per-say, but in the environmental/geology field.

Currently my view on global warming is that of like yours. Do I see it as an issue? Yes, I do. But to what degree? Meh... I mean, I don't think its a we're all gonna die and destroy the planet type thing.

[Nooomoto]

Scientists and meteorologists can't consistently report accurate forecasts, yet somehow they are going to tell me what's going to happen X number of years from now?

On top of that, now there's a bunch of crap about a new ice age on the way.

http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=10046

Wait for Al Gore's next "documentary," and a slew of new awards for his "ground breaking" work.

[ray0414]

i think either GW istn happening or its greatly exxaggerated. they are going to use this crap to carbon tax the hell out of us. IF global warming is real, it doesnt matter cuase we are going to have bigger problems before GW has a chance to kill us, such as water supply and food issues in the next 10 years, a much bigger problem we should be dealing with NOW.

[Flagg]

i think either GW istn happening or its greatly exxaggerated. they are going to use this crap to carbon tax the hell out of us. IF global warming is real, it doesnt matter cuase we are going to have bigger problems before GW has a chance to kill us, such as water supply and food issues in the next 10 years, a much bigger problem we should be dealing with NOW.

Yeah, I think the human race is going to be in for some tough times this century. Global Warming is an issue, but it could also be something out of our control now. CO2 has a "lag" in the atmosphere of something like 30-50 years. In otherwords, even if everyone stopped using anything that gave off CO2 today, it would still take the atmosphere 30-50 years to readjust.

That said, we are going to face problems with energy. Then there is our ever increasing population that is pretty much responsible for all our problems today. Water is going to become an issue, food is going to become an issue. There needs to be better control on how we manage our resources. For instance it requires a thousand litres of water to produce 1 kilo of rice. Ridiculous amounts of water is used in irrigation, not to mention what is used in industry and in homes.

As for the "predicted figures" for climate in the future...it's usually extrapolated from increases in temp in the past. By looking 50 years in the past, they plot a graph and then follow the tragectory of what "might" the graph look like at the current rate, 50 years from now. I mean the 4th IPCC report is considered reliable and credible.

[Dizz28]

I guess you're gonna be shit out of luck if you live by the coast.

The science behind global warming isn't that hard. CO2 increases the atmospheres ability to trap heat. Now look at Greenland. The ice is on land, not floating on the sea like the southpole so if any shelfs break off or there is run off from melt water, that adds volume and displaces the oceans. There is ice falling off of Greenland and into the oceans. It adds volume. This is known as the Archimedes Principle.

My belief on all this, is if you look at Paleomaps, we are due a increase in global temperatures around about now if you go by the patterns of the last 500 million years. However, I do think we've sped up the process by a good few thousand years.

Ice Core studies can go back as far as almost a million years. From those cores, scientists have determined that CO2 levels at most have only ever been 280 ppm in the last 1 million years. Today they are currently at 350 ppm and rising. We are adding tons of extra CO2 into the carbon cycle, carbon that has been trapped underground for millions of years. The atmosphere was never designed to hold a lot of CO2, that was the job of the oceans and vegetation and other carbon sinks, which we are also doing a good job of ruining through pollution and deforestation. Plants photosynthesise, we respire...take away too many plants, hmm...too much CO2, not enough O2. That's not good for everything else that needs oxygen.

Im not trying to sensationalise things, but that is simply the deal behind all this. People can go on about "We're destroying the planet" or "we're not destroying the planet". Well the latter are right. We cant kill the planet but we seem to do a good job of constantly finding ways to jeapordise our survival.

Thank you for the statement in bold....


Algae accounts for 80% of the worlds O2 production.

[T-MOS]

^^^^ farking spammer

[rhino1]

I dont believe in "global warming"

I feel there are normal cyclical changes in the earths environment...and perhaps our actions have had a slight impact on the severity or whatever...but are we going to make the world end?

I doubt it.

[spywizard]

one small nuke would put enough dust in the atmosphere to cool the planet 2 degree..

or a volcano

doh..

[j4ever41]

i wonder how many years of man co2 emissions have been released into the atmosphere in the last day or 2 from the erupting volcano

[sloth9]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...xt=va&aid=5086

I like this guys stance, also what about those idiots in the north pole, who are stuck right now eating half rations because they already blown through 85 days worth of rations in 17 days, also what about the camera man with frostbite. This team was stupid for going to the north pole when Canada has been reporting record breaking lows in the weather all this time. They did all of this for global warming lol what a joke, now I feel sorry for them but lets be smart here. All for global warming in which the IPCC claims that a majority of scientists believe in it that is 90% but Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte's did a survey and only 45% out of 500 scientist believe in man made global warming. Sounds like a man made conspiracy to me. Now I dont know how many people the IPCC actually asked or surveyed I couldnt find numbers there, I do know that there are 30 members in the IPCC. I also found that the scientific community is scared to speak to the media because they take things and run with it or blow it out of proportion. Anyway this is just my 2 cents but I think it is all a big sham and people who will risk their life to prove it or to test it is not very common sense smart.