Scientists Agree - We are Ruining the World

Narz

keeping it real
Joined
Jun 1, 2002
Messages
30,601
Location
Haverhill, UK
http://www.theage.com.au/news/natio...scientists-warn/2007/01/26/1169788693774.html

We're ruining Earth, scientists warn
Jo Chandler
January 27, 2007

DROUGHTS will be longer, flooding rains will be rarer but heavier. Cyclones will hit harder. Violent storms and extreme heatwaves will strike more frequently. Evaporation will suck up scarce inland water. Sea levels will creep up half a metre. Oceans will be so acidic that in some places shells and reefs will dissolve.

And humanity, not nature, will be to blame.

This is the assessment of the state of the planet according to what is possibly the most reviewed document in history.

Containing contributions from 2500 scientists, citing 6000 reports and reviewed by 750 experts operating under a United Nations banner, the first part of the report will be released on Friday after line-by-line consensus is reached on its conclusions.

The most important paragraph in the 1200-page report is the strength of the scientific statement on the question that has most inflamed climate change sceptics — what is driving global warming — according to internationally recognised climate expert Dr Graeme Pearman, a former CSIRO chief of atmospheric research.

"It makes a much stronger statement about unequivocal evidence of air and ocean temperature rises, of the melting of snow and ice and the raising of sea levels, and that the effect is from human activities," he said. The report says the human influence on climate is at least five times that of any natural variation of the sun.

"Everyone realises that climate has varied in the geological past for a number of reasons, and one of them is that the output of the sun is not constant," Dr Pearman said. "But this report looks seriously at the evidence for that being the cause of this current warming, and is quite strong that if there is a solar influence, it is only a small part."

Dr Pearman has just completed his own review of the draft fourth assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The report largely confirms findings outlined in the third assessment, in 2001, but improvements in the science have produced a more authoritative, and frequently bleaker, document to guide policymakers around the world.

The last report built projections mainly on the basis of two climate models; this paper cites results from 21 models. They allow new insight into processes such as how the carbon cycle and climate change interact.

"When you release carbon dioxide, how does it get cycled into the atmosphere, the oceans, and the living plants and animals of the earth? One of the unanimous agreements in this is that the efficiency with which the earth can take up carbon dioxide is likely to decrease in coming decades.

"That's something we didn't want to hear, because it means the carbon dioxide we release will stay with us. We are more sensitive to what we do than we thought we were in the past."

The report is not without good news. Concern that the cycle of deep-sea circulation was collapsing — the scientific scenario that underpinned the film The Day After Tomorrow — is eased by the findings. "The oceans are more stable and resistant to change than we thought," it says.

The report provides vital data on issues consuming policymakers around the world, including local questions such as water management, and whether agriculture should shift north to find water.

For Australia, the anticipated temperature rise hasn't changed, it's still the global mean — 2.5 to 3.5 degrees this century, assuming the world proceeds on a "business-as-usual" course.

But the report has much more rigorous rainfall projections.

"Regarding the southern part of the country, all the models seem to be agreeing that there will be a poleward movement of the high-pressure belt that dominates Australia's dry climate," Dr Pearman said.

"It means that the westerly storm belts that bring winter rain to the southern parts of the country are going to be further south and less effective."

Extreme events are more of a certainty — more heatwaves, broken by damaging deluges. What's not clear to scientists is the effect a warmer planet will have on the El Ninos that shape Australia's weather, "but we do know they will operate on a warmer and generally drier Australia".

The increasingly dry outlook in the south may fuel debate about capitalising on monsoon rains in the north.

But the report would suggest caution on that front, finding the rains may be fuelled by localised effects — such as pollution insulating South-East Asia, exaggerating the temperature variation with northern Australia and feeding the monsoon cycle. If Asia addresses pollution in a meaningful way, the monsoonal rainfall patterns may wane.

The report is likely to put other policy areas on the agenda. "We're already talking about water and agriculture, but coastal development is certainly another issue. Sea levels are rising … possibly higher than we thought. We are still developing huge communities that are very close to sea level. We need to be very cautious about those strategies and how we handle them."

Many questions of most immediate concern will not be addressed in the section of the report released next week.

Two further documents, relating to impacts, and then focusing on what might be done about them, will be published in April and May.

WHAT THE DRAFT UN REPORT SAYS

■ It is more than 90 per cent certain that human activities have caused global warming.

■ Global temperatures will rise by 2 to 4.5 degrees.

■ Earth will be increasingly unable to absorb rising carbon dioxide.

■ Sea levels could rise by between 20cm and 60cm in the next 100 years, and will continue to rise for 1000 years.

■ Snow will vanish from all but the highest peaks.

■ More extreme, violent weather.

In other words, alot of people are screwed. The good news is the ones who are screwed are the ones who deny this type of thing and are caught unawares. Natural selection is due back from her vacation any minute now. What is not sustainable will be eliminated. If humans survive the next couple hundred years, it will be because we've adapted and are living in a completely different way than we are now.

It's good to know the ocean is more resiliant than we once thought. It means that we (the past few generations) probably won't make the planet completely inhospitable (for future generations and those of us who live a long time).
 
The good news is the ones who are screwed are the ones who deny this type of thing and are caught unawares.
Not gonna happen. Most of us will have died of old age before the final results of this composite Doomsday scenario pan out.
 
How is 9/11 related to global warming?


Anyway, i'm somewhat.. skeptic. I know that humans as a whole are far from Earth friendly but whos to stay (in a 100% correct way) that this climate change didn't happened before? What if all this mess is just normal. That the climate will change, humans or not. I do, however, agree that we are certainly not helping it.
 
How is 9/11 related to global warming?
It's realted to people hating Americans' decadent lifestyle at the expense of the rest of the world (not saying it's justified but certainly not unexpected).

Anyway, i'm somewhat.. skeptic. I know that humans as a whole are far from Earth friendly but whos to stay (in a 100% correct way) that this climate change didn't happened before?
Climate change has happened before but not at the rapid rate it's happening now. Besides, saying "Well, if a hundred volcanos erupted at once it could be even worse so lets keep polluting" isn't really relivant (not saying that's what you're saying necessarily).

What if all this mess is just normal. That the climate will change, humans or not. I do, however, agree that we are certainly not helping it.
The carbon dioxide levels we're producing are not "normal" and wouldn't be produced otherwise.

Besides, even if it happened before it didn't effect humans before and it is effecting humans now therefore, if we can, we should do something about it. In a way, it's reassuring to realize we can wreck such havok, because it also means, with a bit of intelligence, perhaps we can use our great brains to try to reverse it (just as a person can destroy their liver with alcohol and fast food and then heal it with excersise and juicing for example).
 
How is 9/11 related to global warming?


Anyway, i'm somewhat.. skeptic. I know that humans as a whole are far from Earth friendly but whos to stay (in a 100% correct way) that this climate change didn't happened before? What if all this mess is just normal. That the climate will change, humans or not. I do, however, agree that we are certainly not helping it.

I can see that. After all the Earth is millions of years old and it seems that judging the entire climate pattern of the Earth on over 100 years of reliable temperature readings is like judging an entire persons life based on what they did during those 3 weeks in junior high.
 
I think this is actually the same article my press release covered in anoither thread. It basically says what most of us have known for years. And it's backed up by thousands of people.
 
How is 9/11 related to global warming?
As a matter of fact, 9/11 did give us a unique opportunity to observe global warming in action.

After the attack, the entire U.S. airline industry was grounded. For three days, jet exhaust was absent from the atmosphere, nationwide. The results were immediate--and completely unexpected.

You might guess that it would cool down as a result of less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Didn't happen. Or maybe you guessed that it got warmer (due to a lack of anti-greenhouse aerosols, less particulate matter to block sunlight, and no condensed vapor trails to reflect sunlight). Also didn't happen.

What really happened is, the days got warmer--and the nights got cooler. The temperature range expanded.

This runs counter to a common claim of global warming alarmists. They say global warming will not only produce warmer climate, but wilder climate with greater temperature shifts and more violent weather. Well, 9/11 was an example of the opposite happening.

Shows that we don't know our planet as well as we think......


Moving on to the wider issue: a lot of the environmental changes Narz described in the OP have been happening for centuries already. Even when the ocean level doesn't rise, the sea is always eroding steadily at our shorelines--and slowly destroying coastal housing. Venice is gradually sinking into the water. Entire towns and cities sprout at the bases of volcanoes--and then one day that volcano erupts and kills thousands. The inhabitants run away, then clean up and rebuild their city all over again--in the same place.

In the long term, we humans will keep doing what we've always been doing. We will adapt.
 
Three days doesn't drastically change the world's climate, especially considering that US only flights aren't terribly large in the scheme of things.
No, but those three days DID drastically change the climate in the United States. The variance was by something like two degrees Celsius. And not in a century--in THREE DAYS. That ain't chump change.
 
Wow, I really hope that was sarcastic or a joke. If everyone had that attitude, I'd hate to live in the future :hmm:
It's been the prevailing attitude of most humans for thousands of years. With limited wealth, unlimited human wants, and a whole host of problems plaguing us, some of our problems will be shoved onto the back burner because we simply don't have the knowledge or the resources to eliminate all of them at once.

Some of today's problems are simply going to have to be left to future generations, and that's the end of it.
 
I think the scientists are. I don't see how the evidence isn't clear enough.
I agree, I meant you're right that this is probably along the same lines as your thread (they can be merged I suppose).

Another relivant article about the global warming "confusion" : http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html

January 3, 2007

Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil’s Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science
Oil Company Spent Nearly $16 Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion
ExxonMobil Report
Read the Report
ExxonMobil Report (PDF)
Appendix C (PDF high resolution)
Appendix C (part 1)
Appendix C (part 2)
Appendix C (part 3) WASHINGTON, DC, Jan. 3–A new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue. According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.

"ExxonMobil has manufactured uncertainty about the human causes of global warming just as tobacco companies denied their product caused lung cancer," said Alden Meyer, the Union of Concerned Scientists' Director of Strategy & Policy. "A modest but effective investment has allowed the oil giant to fuel doubt about global warming to delay government action just as Big Tobacco did for over 40 years."

Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to "Manufacture Uncertainty" on Climate Change details how the oil company, like the tobacco industry in previous decades, has

raised doubts about even the most indisputable scientific evidence
funded an array of front organizations to create the appearance of a broad platform for a tight-knit group of vocal climate change contrarians who misrepresent peer-reviewed scientific findings
attempted to portray its opposition to action as a positive quest for "sound science" rather than business self-interest
used its access to the Bush administration to block federal policies and shape government communications on global warming
ExxonMobil-funded organizations consist of an overlapping collection of individuals serving as staff, board members, and scientific advisors that publish and re-publish the works of a small group of climate change contrarians. The George C. Marshall Institute, for instance, which has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil, recently touted a book edited by Patrick Michaels, a long-time climate change contrarian who is affiliated with at least 11 organizations funded by ExxonMobil. Similarly, ExxonMobil funds a number of lesser-known groups such as the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy and Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. Both groups promote the work of several climate change contrarians, including Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist who is affiliated with at least nine ExxonMobil-funded groups.

Baliunas is best known for a 2003 paper alleging the climate had not changed significantly in the past millennia that was rebutted by 13 scientists who stated she had misrepresented their work in her paper. This renunciation did not stop ExxonMobil-funded groups from continuing to promote the paper. Through methods such as these, ExxonMobil has been able to amplify and prop up work that has been discredited by reputable climate scientists.

"When one looks closely, ExxonMobil's underhanded strategy is as clear and indisputable as the scientific research it's meant to discredit," said Seth Shulman, an investigative journalist who wrote the UCS report. "The paper trail shows that, to serve its corporate interests, ExxonMobil has built a vast echo chamber of seemingly independent groups with the express purpose of spreading disinformation about global warming."

ExxonMobil has used the laudable goal of improving scientific understanding of global warming—under the guise of "sound science"—for the pernicious ends of delaying action to reduce heat-trapping emissions indefinitely. ExxonMobil also exerted unprecedented influence over U.S. policy on global warming, from successfully recommending the appointment of key personnel in the Bush administration to funding climate change deniers in Congress.

"As a scientist, I like to think that facts will prevail, and they do eventually," said Dr. James McCarthy, Alexander Agassiz Professor of Biological Oceanography at Harvard University and former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's working group on climate change impacts. "It's shameful that ExxonMobil has sought to obscure the facts for so long when the future of our planet depends on the steps we take now and in the coming years."

The burning of oil and other fossil fuels results in additional atmospheric carbon dioxide that blankets the Earth and traps heat. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased greatly over the last century and global temperatures are rising as a result. Though solutions are available now that will cut global warming emissions while creating jobs, saving consumers money, and protecting our national security, ExxonMobil has manufactured confusion around climate change science, and these actions have helped to forestall meaningful action that could minimize the impacts of future climate change.

"ExxonMobil needs to be held accountable for its cynical disinformation campaign on global warming," said Meyer. "Consumers, shareholders and Congress should let the company know loud and clear that its behavior on this issue is unacceptable and must change."
 
And what guarantee do we have that these scientists are correct? Because there's so many of them? I doubt that 2500 is a significant percentage of the total number of scientists studying the Earth in a planet of six billion. For all we know, this could just be a group of 'activist' scientists, who get their brownie points for forecasting the doomsday scenario we're all so afraid of.

Be honest, all of you: if the same group of scientists came out with this report, did everything the same, and said that "everything is okay, it's not going to be as bad as we thought, and the world just doesn't suck as much as you think," would any of you give a damn what they said? I doubt it, beause for some reason you seem to WANT things to suck.
 
Be honest, all of you: if the same group of scientists came out with this report, did everything the same, and said that "everything is okay, it's not going to be as bad as we thought, and the world just doesn't suck as much as you think," would any of you give a damn what they said? I doubt it, beause for some reason you seem to WANT things to suck.

If they come out next year, with evidence showing that earlier predictions were wrong, that would be great. All we have is the current scientific consensus, and so we should act accordingly.
 
Top Bottom