PDA

View Full Version : Worst Than We Thought: failure to cut greenhouse gas emissions = devastating changes.


!<blocparty>!
Feb 2nd, 2007, 11:51 PM
Report warns of 4C rise by 2100
· Floods and food and water shortages likely

David Adam in Paris
Saturday February 3, 2007
The Guardian

The world's scientists yesterday gave their starkest warning yet that a failure to cut greenhouse gas emissions will bring devastating climate change within a few decades.
Average temperatures could increase by as much as 6.4C by the end of the century if emissions continue to rise, with a rise of 4C most likely, according to the final report of an expert panel set up by the UN to study the problem. The forecast is higher than previous estimates, because scientists have discovered that Earth's land and oceans are becoming less able to absorb carbon dioxide.

An average global temperature rise of 4C would wipe out hundreds of species, bring extreme food and water shortages in vulnerable countries and cause catastrophic floods that would displace hundreds of millions of people. Warming would be much more severe towards the poles, which could accelerate melting of the Greenland and west Antarctic ice sheets.
The report, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is written by hundreds of scientists across the world and has been approved by every government. It leaves little room for doubt that human activity is to blame. Achim Steiner, executive director of the UN Environment Programme, said: "February 2 2007 may be remembered as the day the question mark was removed from whether people are to blame for climate change."

The report itself said human activity was "very likely" to be responsible for most of the observed warming in recent decades, which means the scientists are 90% sure.

The new warning comes as world governments face increasing pressure to agree a new global deal to reduce emissions.

Susan Solomon, the co-chair of the IPCC working group that prepared the report, said: "If we keep emitting greenhouse gases at current rates we will see bigger changes this century than we did in the previous century. The amount of warming will depend on choices that human beings make."

The previous IPCC report, in 2001, said that failure to act could bring global warming of up to 5.8C by 2100.

Dr Solomon said yesterday's predictions painted a gloomier picture because scientists have discovered feedbacks in the global carbon cycle that are adding to the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Early estimates say this would be enough to raise temperatures by at least another 1C by 2100.

A 4C rise or higher this century would see the world warm almost as much in 100 years as it did during the 15,000 years since the end of the last ice age.

The IPCC panel stressed that such an outcome was not inevitable. A significant switch to "clean and resource efficient technologies" would cut expected temperature rises by half. But even their most optimistic scenario would see a likely increase in temperature of 2.4C over pre-industrial levels by 2100. The EU has defined any rise over 2C as "dangerous".

David Miliband, the environment secretary, said the report was "another nail in the coffin of the climate change deniers and represents the most authoritative picture to date, showing that the debate over the science of climate change is well and truly over". He added: "What's now urgently needed is the international political commitment to take action. This has been absent so far."

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2005116,00.html

----

Anyone here STILL denying we have anything to do with it, then?

Pureracket
Feb 3rd, 2007, 12:17 AM
We have lost 6 critical years in dealing with this issue, and most likely we'll lose at least 2 more. For those who think elections don't matter, there's something to chew on.

SelesFan70
Feb 3rd, 2007, 01:46 AM
:haha:

Veritas
Feb 3rd, 2007, 01:56 AM
I'm interested to know - what can we non-scientists/politicians do to minimise the "inevitable"? :confused:

Besides driving hybrid cars (or no cars at all) and restricting use of electricity to curb greenhouse emissions, I don't know what else I can do :confused:

Fingon
Feb 3rd, 2007, 02:11 AM
I'm interested to know - what can we non-scientists/politicians do to minimise the "inevitable"? :confused:

Besides driving hybrid cars (or no cars at all) and restricting use of electricity to curb greenhouse emissions, I don't know what else I can do :confused:

don't forget preventing solar activity, the UN will probably propose they do something about that.

I am still waiting for them to explain why the 2006 hurricane season was so light when they predicted it was going to be the worse ever.

!<blocparty>!
Feb 3rd, 2007, 11:30 AM
:haha:

Care to enlighten us? I'd love to hear why you think the worlds scientists are lying to us. :)

PamShriverRockz
Feb 3rd, 2007, 12:23 PM
Care to enlighten us? I'd love to hear why you think the worlds scientists are lying to us. :)

I'm intrigued too.....!

This is very scary. :o

<!Society!>
Feb 3rd, 2007, 12:24 PM
its scary to think were killing the planet the way we are.

but i honestly dont think that anyone is ever gonna stop and start listening until its too late. People arent seeing drastic enough evidence that the planet is changing, the uneducated people dont seem to realise what a 1 degree C tempterature rise means to the world.

Shonami Slam
Feb 3rd, 2007, 12:54 PM
I'm interested to know - what can we non-scientists/politicians do to minimise the "inevitable"? :confused:

Besides driving hybrid cars (or no cars at all) and restricting use of electricity to curb greenhouse emissions, I don't know what else I can do :confused:

go outside, enjoy the sun, plant a tree. that would meen the most for me personally.
other than that -check out

http://www.climatecrisis.net/takeaction/

a few easy to do steps, as well as some further-actions you might want to try.

Gerri
Feb 3rd, 2007, 10:16 PM
Care to enlighten us? I'd love to hear why you think the worlds scientists are lying to us. :)

Maybe he's got conclusive evidence to the contrary as to why we're warming up :shrug:

I'm interested to know - what can we non-scientists/politicians do to minimise the "inevitable"? :confused:

Besides driving hybrid cars (or no cars at all) and restricting use of electricity to curb greenhouse emissions, I don't know what else I can do :confused:

Stop eating meat and reduce/stop your air travel.

!<blocparty>!
Feb 3rd, 2007, 10:30 PM
I'm interested to know - what can we non-scientists/politicians do to minimise the "inevitable"? :confused:

Besides driving hybrid cars (or no cars at all) and restricting use of electricity to curb greenhouse emissions, I don't know what else I can do :confused:

You could buy a rainwater tank for your house (if you don't already have one - I noticed you have an Aussie flag ;)). Everyone could recycle sooooooo much more. Look how much unecessary waste is produced each day. Eating meat is another good one (unless it's free range and/or organic).

:o*should really be practicing what he praches here*:o

Fingon
Feb 4th, 2007, 02:33 AM
its scary to think were killing the planet the way we are.

but i honestly dont think that anyone is ever gonna stop and start listening until its too late. People arent seeing drastic enough evidence that the planet is changing, the uneducated people dont seem to realise what a 1 degree C tempterature rise means to the world.

the problem I see is that the issue is politicized, which means is has lost all credibility.

They are using a very known marketing technique, they say something you can't deny, then they tie a cause to it and ask you to act on the cause.

I'll try to explain what I mean.

I think many people have gone to those stupid marketing multilevel marketing sessions. In all of them they will start showing you that you are working a lot and not making much money while others work very little and make a lot of money.

Then they ask you, would you like to work less and earn a lot more money? the answer is obviousy yes and requires no explanation or justification.

But the fact that you want more money doesn't mean their methods will give you more money, but they don't tell you that, they concentrate in your wishes, and start paternalizing you. They say, see? what I say is exactly what you think so blah blah blah.

It's similar here. They start saying "Global warming is happening, the consequences of global warming are catastrophic", nobody denies that, it IS happening, but it doesn't mean that greenhouse gases are causing it.

Then when they go to the causes, they conveniently say that there is a high probability that global warming is man caused. Why? because they don't know. They generalize calling "scientists", but there is a large number of scientists who don't agree.

There are cases where they have invited known experts in certain areas, case in point, hurricanes, but then issue a report not supported by those experts, a lot of evidence is omitted.

Funny, they predicted the 2006 hurricane season was going to be the worst ever, they gambled, they assumed that because 2005 was very bad 2006 would be as well, and it resulted in one of the mildest ever. Translation, they know shit about what causes hurricanes, the oceans are as warm or warmer than last year, yet, the hurricanes behaviour was completely different, so there must be other factors that are obvioulsy more important than global warming.

They are promoting using alternate fuels, but to produce those alternate fuels they are desforastating big areas.

Some people talk about recycling, that's great, the problem is that they are not recycling everything we give them, and some recycling centres produce more pollution than they avoid.

when a scientist denies that greenhouse gases are causing global warming, they say they are paid by the oil companies, maybe.

But what about the multi-billion dollars to be spent in "cleaning", isn't there an economic interest also?

I've seen reports that said the US goverments silenced some scientists that warned about global warming. That's probably true but what about the scientists that think the sun is to be blamed that were also silenced?

I don't know, I am not a scientists but some times it seems they don't know much more than I do, in any case, abrupts changes in temperature have happened many times before, and the sun does look as a very important factor in Earth's climate.

Some years ago, the emphasis was in the ozone layer, the visions were as apocaliptic as they are now, they proposed among other things to stop using planes. Since that was obviously not going to happen they stop it, nobody cares about it now.

They don't care about deforestation, they don't care about overfishing, they don't care about hydroelectric dams covering natural habitats, now global warming is news, it's all they care about, in some cases they are damaging the environment to prevent global warming.

One final word, the greenhouse advocates mention dates well beyond our lifespan, they make prediction by 2100 when we all we dead.

In other words, we won't see any effects of the changes, but because they went so far in the future then we can't know can we? so keep doing it.

But one of the scientists that attributes global warming the the sun, not greenhouse gases, claims that Earth will enter a cold period (a mini glaciar) between 2015 and 2020, that much nearer. If that do happen, I hope the members of that UN committee have their tickets to Mars, because some people will be really pissed off at them.

Apoleb
Feb 4th, 2007, 02:35 AM
Care to enlighten us? I'd love to hear why you think the worlds scientists are lying to us. :)

I'm pretty sure he has absolutely no clue about global warming. It's just that the GOP told him that it's crap, and he ofcourse believed it.

Hachiko
Feb 4th, 2007, 02:51 AM
It's very scary.

Here's something else I found that we can do to help minimise the situation, even if it's only very slight.

http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m164/aranalatron/please.jpg (http://photobucket.com/)

¤CharlDa¤
Feb 4th, 2007, 03:12 AM
People saying that climate change isn't a problem are the ones making things worst. It's a very serious problem and everyone should unite to work on it. Even if the ultimate predictions are not true, can we really take any chances?

Glad the IPCC report is out. We've been waiting for it for a while. Some of my teachers participated in it, and they told us already that there wouldn't be any doubts with the conclusions of the report. Clearly some people still have some.

azinna
Feb 4th, 2007, 03:38 AM
Climate change is quite a serious problem, and thanks for 10 Things To Do above. But I'm not sure about the Killing The Planet rhetoric. Perhaps the anxiety we express for the planet is really, simply and selfishly a worry about our ability to remain on it as a species. My thinking is that the planet will kill us well before we do enough to kill it. Floods, food and water shortages, etc....reminds me of some of the stuff I imagined back when I was learning about dinosaurs and the Ice Age......

Dementieva_Dude
Feb 4th, 2007, 04:00 AM
Climate change IS a big issue. EVERY scientist doesn't have to agree for this to be true. Are there a variety of causes: yes. Is man a MAJOR part of the problem: Yes. People who say things like "but this year has been relatively normal in terms of weather" are not looking at the bigger picture.

Fingon
Feb 4th, 2007, 04:21 AM
Climate change IS a big issue. EVERY scientist doesn't have to agree for this to be true. Are there a variety of causes: yes. Is man a MAJOR part of the problem: Yes. People who say things like "but this year has been relatively normal in terms of weather" are not looking at the bigger picture.

it's not about taking this year as an example. They, the "scientists" that affirm greenhouse gases are causing climate change are the ones who said the hurricane season was going to be worse in 2006 than in 2005, and they were dead wrong, so how can we trust what they say will happen in 2100 if they just got one prediction totally wrong. When it suits them climate prediction is hard, when it suits them it is accurate.

Dementieva_Dude
Feb 4th, 2007, 04:24 AM
Climate prediction is about long-term forcasts. It's not about 1 year being different than they predicted. Yes the Atlantic Hurricane season was better in 2006 than in 2005, but was the Pacific one?

¤CharlDa¤
Feb 4th, 2007, 05:14 AM
it's not about taking this year as an example. They, the "scientists" that affirm greenhouse gases are causing climate change are the ones who said the hurricane season was going to be worse in 2006 than in 2005, and they were dead wrong, so how can we trust what they say will happen in 2100 if they just got one prediction totally wrong. When it suits them climate prediction is hard, when it suits them it is accurate.

Crap. As a future scientist in the climate change aspect, I feel like I need to praise for my church here.

I remember people saying: Scientists can't predict tomorrow's weather correctly. How could they predict the change in 100 years? The thing is, we are not looking at precise moments, but more at general trends. And the actual trends are simple: in the past years, the CO2 level dramatically increased and so did the weather. Does that mean that next year will be very hot compared to this year? Of course not. It just means that on average, it will be hotter.

I agree that this subject is very tricky though. It included economy, politics, etc.

But the facts are there. the IPCC is a group of scientists, the best out there, from all around the world. They aren't run by any organisation. They just regroup their results and analyse them together. You can either trust them, or don't. I just think that it's a lot more safe to trust them. But hey, for some people, the earth is still plane right?

¤CharlDa¤
Feb 5th, 2007, 03:24 AM
it's not about taking this year as an example. They, the "scientists" that affirm greenhouse gases are causing climate change are the ones who said the hurricane season was going to be worse in 2006 than in 2005, and they were dead wrong, so how can we trust what they say will happen in 2100 if they just got one prediction totally wrong. When it suits them climate prediction is hard, when it suits them it is accurate.

*cough* I love the fact you bad repped me to tell me to get an education.

Sadly it just happens I'm majoring in Environment - Atmospheric Sciences at McGill University. Too bad I really have NO IDEA of what I'm talking about :rolleyes:

What one person does, indeed, won't change the climate. But the grouping of the actions of people does have its effects, and it's been proven. If you don't believe it, it's your choice. But I'm still waiting for the facts from your side.

Tennis Fool
Feb 5th, 2007, 03:37 AM
I am a skeptic like Fingon. I've always believed "global warming" was all hype, even more so now that Al "I Created The Internet" Gore is on the bandwagon.

ZListCelebrity
Feb 5th, 2007, 05:32 AM
I had been doing all I can for recycling, losing less energy etc but all the wealthy families with kids I know drive 4x4s and don't care about anything... So, as a gay guy who won't leave an offspring, I began to think: "why should I care, if they don't care"

Marcus1979
Feb 5th, 2007, 05:46 AM
don't forget preventing solar activity, the UN will probably propose they do something about that.

I am still waiting for them to explain why the 2006 hurricane season was so light when they predicted it was going to be the worse ever.

What happened is El Nino developed. In El Nino seasons the ATlantic basin sees stronger than usual upper level wind shear that rips potential storms apart thus a greatly reduced figure of storms.

Also the Waters in the Atlantic espeically the Caribbean Sea and Atlantic just east of the Lesser Antilles was cooler than in 2005 and the depth of the warm water was also more shallow.

Add to that there was a strong SAL (Saharan Air Layer) in the eastern Atlantic last year which is a hostile environment for developing systems.

Its still inconclusive the role Global Warming is having on Hurricane seasons globally. i.e in 1933 there was a season as active as the 2005 season but the difference is not as many made landfall.

On the flipside while the Atlantic was quiet and non existant last year the Eastern Pacific was very much above average as that area is very favorable in El Nino Seasons. There is also a link between Active Western Pacific seasons (Asia) and El Nino also and last year countries lilke China and Phillipines were battered relentlessly similar to how they were in seasons like 2004 and 1997 which were also El Nino Seasons.

!<blocparty>!
Feb 5th, 2007, 12:22 PM
*cough* I love the fact you bad repped me to tell me to get an education.

Sadly it just happens I'm majoring in Environment - Atmospheric Sciences at McGill University. Too bad I really have NO IDEA of what I'm talking about :rolleyes:

What one person does, indeed, won't change the climate. But the grouping of the actions of people does have its effects, and it's been proven. If you don't believe it, it's your choice. But I'm still waiting for the facts from your side.

:haha:

Stop making sense. :p

I wonder where SelesFan is. :)

samsung101
Feb 5th, 2007, 03:22 PM
Actually, no one denies global warming exists. What the debate is about
is how fast it is growing, and what factor human beings have on it, and
what can human beings do right now to combat it? Seriously, it was
global freezing just a decade ago.


Bush never said it doesn't exist.
The scientists who disagree with the dire UN and Al Gore view of things,
don't say it doesn't exist.
They just have a different view of it, and what to do, and complain
about the economic pressures of scientists and thinktanks to go along
w/the dire global warming industry thoughts. It is a money making
school of thought, as well as an eco one.

For all the handwringing, the USA has done more to fight greenhouse
emissions that most of the nations that did sign on to the Kyoto Treaty,
as a nation ,and individual states.

'Everyone should unite', yes, that would include China, India, etc., right?

However, any and all treaties put forth like Kyoto EXCLUDE those nations.

Go to Walmart, it pretty much says 'made in China' on everything. The
fastest growing user of oil is, uh, CHINA. The fastest growing manufacturing
(and polluting) nation in the world, is China. India is right next to it.

How can we have any policy that restricts the USA, but doesn't take into
account China and India?


We should try to have a cleaner world, and do our part as nations
and as individuals. Just how to do it and in what way is the issue.

But, we should also do all we can to make sure we have the freedom
to do that in the future, and fight Islamic Fascist Terrorism seriously.
Otherwise, we won't need to worry about it very much, and we won't
have the freedoms to work on it.

It is not the #1 problem of the world. Sorry, Islamic Terrorism is the #1
problem. The largest oil producers in the world, creates quite a bit of
pollution right, what do they care about the Kyoto Treaty? They don't.

They're too busy putting billions into schools to teach Sharia Law, and
export terrorism around the world, and build mosques all over the world...
all the while, most Westerners are in angst over what we see in Happy
Feet and what our kids are being taught by eco-hyper teachers in school.

Dementieva_Dude
Feb 5th, 2007, 03:35 PM
It is not the #1 problem of the world. Sorry, Islamic Terrorism is the #1
problem. The largest oil producers in the world, creates quite a bit of
pollution right, what do they care about the Kyoto Treaty? They don't.

They're too busy putting billions into schools to teach Sharia Law, and
export terrorism around the world, and build mosques all over the world...
all the while, most Westerners are in angst over what we see in Happy
Feet and what our kids are being taught by eco-hyper teachers in school.

I beg to differ...even the "crafty" Islamic fundamentalists won't be able to use the world once we've used, abused and killed it. The environment is an issue for all people, and shoudln't be any less important than a percieved threat from one group of people to another

Warrior
Feb 5th, 2007, 05:28 PM
:haha:

:weirdo:

Kim's_fan_4ever
Feb 5th, 2007, 05:42 PM
I'm doing my best, saving energy, recycling etc but that's not enough, more people should start caring about our planet, if not the consequence will be very serious...

Timariot
Feb 5th, 2007, 06:25 PM
Funny, they predicted the 2006 hurricane season was going to be the worst ever, they gambled, they assumed that because 2005 was very bad 2006 would be as well, and it resulted in one of the mildest ever. Translation, they know shit about what causes hurricanes, the oceans are as warm or warmer than last year, yet, the hurricanes behaviour was completely different, so there must be other factors that are obvioulsy more important than global warming.


No.
"On December 5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_5), 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005), Klotzbach's team issued its first extended-range forecast for the 2006 season, predicting a well above-average season (17 named storms, 9 hurricanes, 5 of Category 3 or higher).[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Atlantic_hurricane_season#_note-Gray_Dec)"

By contrast, there were 26 storms in 2005.

North Atlantic was actually somewhat cooler in 2006 than 2005 (but still slightly warmer than usual, 2005 was record-warm). However, there were more dry Saharan air than expected, and La Nina was weaker than expected and replaced with El Nino.


One final word, the greenhouse advocates mention dates well beyond our lifespan, they make prediction by 2100 when we all we dead.


Yeah, who cares about future generations, screw 'em :rolleyes: I for my part wish that past generations would have had bit more oversight and left us some Moas, Great Auks and Thylacines.

Fingon
Feb 5th, 2007, 06:45 PM
*cough* I love the fact you bad repped me to tell me to get an education.

Sadly it just happens I'm majoring in Environment - Atmospheric Sciences at McGill University. Too bad I really have NO IDEA of what I'm talking about :rolleyes:

maybe, however, they way you expressed yourself wasn't of an educated person.

For my experience, majoring in a discipline hardly makes you an expert.

What one person does, indeed, won't change the climate. But the grouping of the actions of people does have its effects, and it's been proven. If you don't believe it, it's your choice. But I'm still waiting for the facts from your side.

if greenhouse gases are indeed responsible, the actions of a group of people will have zero effect, unless they compromise all the major industrialize powers, and this is were my major objections lie, Europe, Canada, the US, Japan are supposed to make major sacrificies while China, India and other major polluters are left out, and nobody seems to care about it, plus, they are ignoring the deforestation that is happening, partly because they are "trying " to prevent global warming.

I can't give you facts, I am not affirming that I know the causes of global warming, I am only saying that the conclusions are not as proven as they made them up to be, and I see in your attitude the same attitude I see in the UN bodies, they just don't listen, they are right everyone else is wrong.

if what some scientist say is true and in 10 years the Earth starts to cool, then they will have a lot of explanations to give.

But I forgot, they said there is a "high-probability", so, if they are wrong they will say they didn't say it was 100% certain.

for me it does look a bit as an attemt by the UN to assert itself as a decision maker, after the continous failures since its creation.

Fingon
Feb 5th, 2007, 06:51 PM
What happened is El Nino developed. In El Nino seasons the ATlantic basin sees stronger than usual upper level wind shear that rips potential storms apart thus a greatly reduced figure of storms.

Also the Waters in the Atlantic espeically the Caribbean Sea and Atlantic just east of the Lesser Antilles was cooler than in 2005 and the depth of the warm water was also more shallow.

Add to that there was a strong SAL (Saharan Air Layer) in the eastern Atlantic last year which is a hostile environment for developing systems.

Its still inconclusive the role Global Warming is having on Hurricane seasons globally. i.e in 1933 there was a season as active as the 2005 season but the difference is not as many made landfall.

On the flipside while the Atlantic was quiet and non existant last year the Eastern Pacific was very much above average as that area is very favorable in El Nino Seasons. There is also a link between Active Western Pacific seasons (Asia) and El Nino also and last year countries lilke China and Phillipines were battered relentlessly similar to how they were in seasons like 2004 and 1997 which were also El Nino Seasons.

so there are a huge number of factors that influence the developing of hurricanes. It's easy to find explanations afterwards but the fact remains that they predicted that the 2006 season was going to be worse than the 2005 season.

They can't predict 1 year ahead and they are predicting 90 years ahead? of course, they are saying they can predict it in the long term but not the short term, very convenient considering that none of us will live to see if it was true or not.

Dementieva_Dude
Feb 5th, 2007, 07:50 PM
maybe, however, they way you expressed yourself wasn't of an educated person.

For my experience, majoring in a discipline hardly makes you an expert.


if greenhouse gases are indeed responsible, the actions of a group of people will have zero effect, unless they compromise all the major industrialize powers, and this is were my major objections lie, Europe, Canada, the US, Japan are supposed to make major sacrificies while China, India and other major polluters are left out, and nobody seems to care about it, plus, they are ignoring the deforestation that is happening, partly because they are "trying " to prevent global warming.

I can't give you facts, I am not affirming that I know the causes of global warming, I am only saying that the conclusions are not as proven as they made them up to be, and I see in your attitude the same attitude I see in the UN bodies, they just don't listen, they are right everyone else is wrong.

if what some scientist say is true and in 10 years the Earth starts to cool, then they will have a lot of explanations to give.

But I forgot, they said there is a "high-probability", so, if they are wrong they will say they didn't say it was 100% certain.

for me it does look a bit as an attemt by the UN to assert itself as a decision maker, after the continous failures since its creation.

Do you want to risk the future of the human species on the fact that you might not trust scientists (who, by your own accounts are much more educated and reliable in this subject matter, than you are)?

The countries/regions that you listed -the USA, Canada, Japan and the EU - are thought be global leaders, and therefore are responsible for taking the first step in the fight against global destruction. If these countries want to be global leaders, they must do so when the decisions are difficult, and not just when it suits them.

And the idea of "global warming" is a bit of a misnomer - the correct idea is global climate change, meaning there will be a warming OR a cooling depending on where you live (along with a variety of other factors).

As for the idea that the UN is doing nothing to fight deforestation, you're partially correct - not enough is being done to prevent the large-scale destruction of old-growth forests - but does this mean that that we should just give up on the whole environmental effort? Put it this way...if you were starving and someone offered you some rice, would you turn it down because they didn't offer you filet mignon and a salad to go with it? You're using the same logic in terms of the environment

!<blocparty>!
Feb 5th, 2007, 07:55 PM
if greenhouse gases are indeed responsible, the actions of a group of people will have zero effect, unless they compromise all the major industrialize powers, and this is were my major objections lie, Europe, Canada, the US, Japan are supposed to make major sacrificies while China, India and other major polluters are left out, and nobody seems to care about it, plus, they are ignoring the deforestation that is happening, partly because they are "trying " to prevent global warming.


Earth: sacrificing just a year's growth over four decades would save it.

The world would have to give up only one year's economic growth over the next four decades to reduce carbon emissions sufficiently to stave off the threat of global warming, a report says today.
Consultants at PricewaterhouseCoopers offer a "green growth plus" strategy, combining energy efficiency, greater use of renewables and carbon capture to cut emissions by 60% by 2050 from the level reached by doing nothing. Nuclear energy, it says, can play a role, but it is not crucial.

"Our analysis suggests that there are technologically feasible and relatively low cost options for controlling carbon emissions to the atmosphere. Estimates suggest that the level of GDP might be reduced by no more than 2-3% in 2050 if this strategy is followed."

A shift to a much less carbon-intensive fuel mix would more than double the current non-fossil fuel primary energy share to about 30% by 2050. That alone would be sufficient to reduce carbon emissions by 25%.

http://www.wtaworld.com/showthread.php?t=265950

Marcus1979
Feb 5th, 2007, 10:01 PM
so there are a huge number of factors that influence the developing of hurricanes. It's easy to find explanations afterwards but the fact remains that they predicted that the 2006 season was going to be worse than the 2005 season.

They can't predict 1 year ahead and they are predicting 90 years ahead? of course, they are saying they can predict it in the long term but not the short term, very convenient considering that none of us will live to see if it was true or not.

When they make these predictions in early december some of the variables have not fallen into place yet.

During the Northern winter of 2005/06 we were on the verge of a La Nina of maybe it was as very weak one that point is debatable. Then on the back of that it spun into a El Nino which actually developed later than usual. Usually a El Nino will show early signs during the Northern Spring like March or April the 2006/07 event never showed signs till around June or July and set in around August and September when the Hurricane season is usually at its peak. There was no way of seeing this happen as its so rare. None of the computer models even picked this up.

Lord Nelson
Feb 5th, 2007, 10:44 PM
I'm interested to know - what can we non-scientists/politicians do to minimise the "inevitable"? :confused:

Besides driving hybrid cars (or no cars at all) and restricting use of electricity to curb greenhouse emissions, I don't know what else I can do :confused:

First of all it is not car pollution which is main contributor to global warming but cutting down of rain forest according to scientists. So main thing to do is have population control becasue rapid growing populations in jungles like in Indonesia and Madagascar are clearing away more land to settle. There then needs to eb population growth. Maybe we should allow this H1 virus to go forth to reduce the popualtion. :p

Also coal mines are far more polluting then fossil fuels. So these mines should be closed down. What do you want to be done? Did you know that nuclear energy emits very little CO2? So encourage Howard to set up nuclear plants for civilain use. India and China should also be encouraged to deal with the pollution. They will be most polluting nations within 10 years.

Marcus1979
Feb 5th, 2007, 10:57 PM
First of all it is not car pollution which is main contributor to global warming but cutting down of rain forest according to scientists. So main thing to do is have population control becasue rapid growing populations in jungles like in Indonesia and Madagascar are clearing away more land to settle. There then needs to eb population growth. Maybe we should allow this H1 virus to go forth to reduce the popualtion. :p

Also coal mines are far more polluting then fossil fuels. So these mines should be closed down. What do you want to be done? Did you know that nuclear energy emits very little CO2? So encourage Howard to set up nuclear plants for civilain use. India and China should also be encouraged to deal with the pollution. They will be most polluting nations within 10 years.

maybe so but when they go wrong they really go wrong with radiation effects and the area unlivable for 50 years or something

i.e chernobyl

even US has had issues with Nuclear in the past like i.e Three Mile Island (near Middletown, Pennsylvania)

altho nothing as bad as the chernobyl incident

Lord Nelson
Feb 5th, 2007, 11:27 PM
maybe so but when they go wrong they really go wrong with radiation effects and the area unlivable for 50 years or something

i.e chernobyl

even US has had issues with Nuclear in the past like i.e Three Mile Island (near Middletown, Pennsylvania)

altho nothing as bad as the chernobyl incident

Chernobyl went wrong becasue of poor supervision and archaic technology. Western technology is safer and management is much better. Aside from these 2 incidents there has been no other incidents and nations like France and U.S. have many nuclear plants for civilan use. So we should stop being so scared otherwise we won't be able to solve things.