The issue is diversified enough and serious enough to warrant its own thread. According to a BBC article:
The world cannot afford to wait before tackling climate change, the UK prime minister has warned.
A report by economist Sir Nicholas Stern suggests that global warming could shrink the global economy by 20%.
But taking action now would cost just 1% of global gross domestic product, the 700-page study says.
Tony Blair said the Stern Review showed that scientific evidence of global warming was "overwhelming" and its consequences "disastrous".
International response
The review coincides with the release of new data by the United Nations showing an upward trend in emission of greenhouse gases - a development for which Sir Nicholas said that rich countries must shoulder most of the responsibility.
And Chancellor Gordon Brown promised the UK would lead the international response to tackle climate change.
The BBC's Nick Robinson said that, while the Stern Review did not recommend specific tax rises, upping the cost of flying - both people and goods - and driving was on the agenda of all three main political parties.
Environment Secretary David Miliband said the Queen's Speech would now feature a climate bill to establish an independent Carbon Committee to "work with government to reduce emissions over time and across the economy".
The report says that without action, up to 200 million people could become refugees as their homes are hit by drought or flood.
"Whilst there is much more we need to understand - both in science and economics - we know enough now to be clear about the magnitude of the risks, the timescale for action and how to act effectively," Sir Nicholas said.
"That's why I'm optimistic - having done this review - that we have the time and knowledge to act. But only if we act internationally, strongly and urgently."
Mr Blair said the consequences for the planet of inaction were "literally disastrous".
"This disaster is not set to happen in some science fiction future many years ahead, but in our lifetime," he said.
"Investment now will pay us back many times in the future, not just environmentally but economically as well."
"For every £1 invested now we can save £5, or possibly more, by acting now.
"We can't wait the five years it took to negotiate Kyoto - we simply don't have the time. We accept we have to go further (than Kyoto)."
Large risks
Sir Nicholas, a former chief economist of the World Bank, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "Unless it's international, we will not make the reductions on the scale which will be required."
He went on: "What we have shown is the magnitude of these risks is very large and has to be taken into account in the kind of investments the world makes today and the consumption patterns it has."
The Stern Review forecasts that 1% of global gross domestic product (GDP) must be spent on tackling climate change immediately.
It warns that if no action is taken:
* Floods from rising sea levels could displace up to 100 million people
* Melting glaciers could cause water shortages for 1 in 6 of the world's population
* Wildlife will be harmed; at worst up to 40% of species could become extinct
* Droughts may create tens or even hundreds of millions of "climate refugees"
Indeed. The effects of global warming is dangerous and everyone wonders what will happen. Our climate has actually been improving since the 70's but it's just now people are going nuts over it. If you think about it... in the 60's there were nothing about energy and pollutate effienacy. And it was during the time where smog was recreated by the numberous factories that sprung up in the cold war. Also heating of the planet may be natural not manmade. Pollutants from the pervious statements may have clouded the sun's rays and thus it would have been cooler. Millions of years ago it has showned that the Earth was plenty warmer and everything was fine. Of course now our over development on the coast would be dangerous if the ocean went back to it's orignal level. I'm not imposing that we shouldn't stop fixing our global energy concerns. I'm just stating that it just might be futile and determined by our ever changing planet.
I'm not sure where th rising sea levels are happening. This is a very broad article. Global warming is real, but it is accurate that climate fluctuates greatly in a large span of geological time.
Submergent coastlines are all over the world. It doesn't mean the world is coming to an immediate end. We need to know some specific problems in specific areas of the globe before we start saying "OMG we are doomed! END OF THE WORLD"
Ice caps melting.. okay.. where ? Why? How do we fix it? Instead this sensationalism of global warming fear takes over.
I don't think there is enough ice to make a really substancial impact flood wise. And even if there is enough its not going to kill everyone. People talk about how fragile our ecosystem is. It is not as fragile as people believe it to be. Resilient would be the word I would use. After a while the ecosystem and life in general would adapt.
Basically anyone ranting or raving about dramatic changes in climate really need to think about what they're saying. In fact, that graph that is shown by Chaplain118, similar to other shown by enviromentalists can be used to impeach them. How long has the earth been around? How long have we been able to accurately gauge the annual temperatures? We have 150 years of concrete data on temperature, and 2000 or so years of reconstructed temperature. Even if climatologists can reconstruct the probable temperature from carbon dioxide data going back to 750,000 years ago, that's still just 750,000/4,567,000,000,000 years (4.567 billion being the current accepted age of the Earth). That's only 0.000001642% of all the temperature data. To claim that we know and can predict the trend seems a bit far fetched.
Yes, we do know that there are certain things that we as humans have done to the enviroment to aid in warming. CFCs, smog, "greenhouse gasses" and the like. This is not to say that we shouldn't look for alternatives. But make no mistake, enviromentalists and alarmists are politicians and in furtherance of their goal will make these sorts of claims that we're headed to a catastrophe. Back in the 1970's, it was all the rave to shout about how we were headed for an ice age. Now, 30 years and change later, we're headed towards a global E-Z-Bake oven. It's interesting politically to watch the flip/flop.
To be perfectly frank (and this may seem a bit of a fatalist position) but I don't really care if we have an ice age or a microwave oven. By the time it comes about, I expect to be dead for several millenia. Because if the Earth has taught us nothing else, things take time to change.
Basically anyone ranting or raving about dramatic changes in climate really need to think about what they're saying. In fact, that graph that is shown by Chaplain118, similar to other shown by enviromentalists can be used to impeach them. How long has the earth been around? How long have we been able to accurately gauge the annual temperatures? We have 150 years of concrete data on temperature, and 2000 or so years of reconstructed temperature. Even if climatologists can reconstruct the probable temperature from carbon dioxide data going back to 750,000 years ago, that's still just 750,000/4,567,000,000,000 years (4.567 billion being the current accepted age of the Earth). That's only 0.000001642% of all the temperature data. To claim that we know and can predict the trend seems a bit far fetched.
You don't need the history of the Earth. You don't use the data to prove the point, you use the data to create a model. The model proves the point. All you need to know is to have an understanding of how the climate works. Once you have that you can extrapolate where it's going to go into the future. What you're doing is a logical fallacy called "argument from ignorance."
Now, 30 years and change later, we're headed towards a global E-Z-Bake oven. It's interesting politically to watch the flip/flop.
The idea of global cooling was based on concerns over a completely seperate and unrelated phenomenon, namely reflective particulate matter being released into the atmosphere. It has nothing to do with politics. Which, by the way, brings us to the problem of motive. What possible motive would a group have to invest all this time, energy, and money towards raising the alarm over a problem that doesn't exist? It's not like there aren't 100 different environmental drums you could beat instead.
You don't need the history of the Earth. You don't use the data to prove the point, you use the data to create a model. The model proves the point. All you need to know is to have an understanding of how the climate works. Once you have that you can extrapolate where it's going to go into the future. What you're doing is a logical fallacy called "argument from ignorance."
Yes, you do use the data to create a model, but if you're only able to examine a small percentage of the overall data, then your extrapolation is going to have huge margins of error.
What possible motive would a group have to invest all this time, energy, and money towards raising the alarm over a problem that doesn't exist?
Because what it boils down to is "if you give a mouse a cookie, he's going to want a glass of milk." This cause is the most sensational out of any of the others. If you fully concede the point without reasoned arguement, then other subjects come up such as conservation of less-than-threatened species, prohibition to logging, etc. by people with more background in the Sierra Club, Earth First, and Green Peace than in the scientific community. There are scientists out there who are doing the work who still remain open-minded to the issue.
"In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear system, and therefore that the prediction of a specific future climate is not possible. Rather the focus must be on the probability distribution of the system's possible future states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions."
Yes, you do use the data to create a model, but if you're only able to examine a small percentage of the overall data, then your extrapolation is going to have huge margins of erro
No it's not because the extrapolation isn't based on just the graphs. The graphs tell people how things work (i.e. temperature changes correlate to CO2 emmisions.) Then they figure out that "Hey, if we increase our levels of CO2 too drastically we're going to increase the temperature." It's not about the direction, it's about the causes for it going in that direction.
This cause is the most sensational out of any of the others.
It's sensational because a lot of people are beating that drum. They're beating that drum because it's important.
If you fully concede the point without reasoned arguement, then other subjects come up such as conservation of less-than-threatened species, prohibition to logging, etc.
Slippery-slope fallacy. Just because people concede to one point doesn't mean they'll concede to others. Still not a sufficient motive.
by people with more background in the Sierra Club, Earth First, and Green Peace than in the scientific community.
You'd be surprised how often people from those organizations come from the scientific community. You know how a lot of universities offer majors in Environmental Science? Where do you think the graduates go to?
"In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear system, and therefore that the prediction of a specific future climate is not possible. Rather the focus must be on the probability distribution of the system's possible future states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions."
That comes from page 64 on a tecnical summary submitted to the IPCC, The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and is current as of 2001.
My main problem with global warming is all the alarmist hype for polictical gain. I don't believe that the earth is doomed. However, I'm all for getting off of fossile fuels.
Their fourth major report (over 500 authors and several groups analising different areas of the issue) is due in about a years time. Their last major report, in 2001, was the sign that a scientific concensious on the issue had been formed. find it and more recent, special reports here.
In fact, that graph that is shown by Chaplain118, similar to other shown by enviromentalists can be used to impeach them.
Firstly, you can't impeach an environmentalist or scientist because they don't hold office. They provide scientific knowledge and data to those who are in office, who then decide on how to do it.
The tests on a scientist are rather more stringent than for a politician. They must be able to self examine and test their ideas in detail before they are going to get any attention at all from serious bodies.
How long has the earth been around?
About 4.5 billion years, give or take a few million.
How long have we been able to accurately gauge the annual temperatures?
Accurately and anual? About 1-2000 years. File does not exist. Note the explosion in recent times.
We have 150 years of concrete data on temperature, and 2000 or so years of reconstructed temperature.
Erm... at least 1000 of those reconstructed years are as solid as the 'concrete' instrumental data. The 2000 years are a very good model of the data.
Even if climatologists can reconstruct the probable temperature from carbon dioxide data going back to 750,000 years ago, that's still just 750,000/4,567,000,000,000 years (4.567 billion being the current accepted age of the Earth).
Erm, out by a factor of 1000. 4.567 billion is 4.567x10^9, or 4,567,000,000 years.
We have this data for the last 12,000 years. That is since the last ice age by the way. Note how the recent temperature increase doesn't even register on the near side of the graph, as it is so quick it would be actualy on the axis.
Admitedly, this is only a small fraction of the life of the earth. However, it is the relevant portion. The warm period we live in.
Far more interestingly, to me and most scientists, we can model the exact reasons that the climate is chaning. Lets take that first 150 year graph and work out what changes we would expect to see from several different factors. First take the natural ones, like solar activity, then add in human ones like greenhouse gases. Add in some dimming factors, like volcanic activity or human emmitted sulphates, and you get this graph; That is what we call a 'good fit' to the prediction. It suggests that we can accurately work out what effect CO2 has on the environment.
This idea is backed up by data like this; And is made frightening by data like this; You had an argument?
But make no mistake, enviromentalists and alarmists are politicians
No, they aren't. They are just ignored.
Gag orders on scientists who want to discuss global warming are disturbingly common. Congress has ignored or downplayed scientific data, manufacturing doubt about the accuracy of their own reports to allow it to be ignored.
Back in the 1970's, it was all the rave to shout about how we were headed for an ice age. Now, 30 years and change later, we're headed towards a global E-Z-Bake oven. It's interesting politically to watch the flip/flop.
Yes, it is nice to see how our scientific instruments have improved enough to allow us to see how things are really going.
I'm not questioning your data (really!) But, where are you graphs from?
I know they link back to wiki, but who put them there, who collected the data, who generated the graphs, etc... These are questions we ask about most any other data people present here without a source. I think it's fair to ask if of this data.
right now I'm not going back and looking up every single one of those graphs, but the ones I know are generally from well known scientific sources.
I know the first graph labled "holocene temperature variations" is a summary of about 20 major climate change studies using various methodologies over the past 20 years or so. Each line represents a different study and the bold black line is the average of the studies. I believe that graph itself was generated by a government source, IPCC or NOAA.
The figure labled "global climate change attribution" is from an article published in the journal of climate studies (cut and paste)
Meehl, G.A., W.M. Washington, C.A. Ammann, J.M. Arblaster, T.M.L. Wigleym and C. Tebaldi (2004). "Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Climate". Journal of Climate 17: 3721-3727.
The data sets from which the graphs were created can all be found from those pages if you are willing to go hunting. At least you can check the source.
It's less that I don't believe your stats and more that I want to use those graphs at a later date for similar conversations. That and I have a friend who just refuses to believe in global warming...
I don't believe in Global Warming as it is spelled out. True. Greenhouse gases have risen and it is getting a half degree warmer globally. BUT. I believe the hype is more for people to argue against Capitalist societies then Environmentalism. If the world was truly concerned with Global Warming it would send troops to Latin America and other places to prevent the clear cutting of rain forests. All those trees, thousands of acres, have been wiped out each decade. That is a lot of CO2 eating capability gone. Sure, it is the US's fault for Global Warming when the US requirements for emissions testing far and exceed anyone else's.
I have yet to see where Environmentalist can show me why we should conserve anything on this ball of rock in space. Look at a parking lot that has been abandoned for 10 years and explain why humans have to help Mother Nature. Personally, I think Humans should want to conserve the planet to save our own butts. Stop the motto of protecting the fish or the ice caps or what ever else but just tell people to stop polluting because if you don't your kids WILL be retarded and eventually you'll all die of Cancer. People taking the idea that man can save the planet gives man a whole lot more credit then he deserves.
If the world was truly concerned with Global Warming it would send troops to Latin America and other places to prevent the clear cutting of rain forests. All those trees, thousands of acres, have been wiped out each decade.
Much of that land is sold by the Brazilian government to private investors. Who are those private investors? Farmers that are trying to provide food. Keep that in mind as well.
One of the common missconceptions is that rainforests reduce the amount of CO2. A mature forest is actualy CO2 neutral, in that it doesn't take any in, but it doesn't consume any either.
In trees, carbon is locked up during growth. During everyday life, little or no carbon is actualy stored. Most is re-emitted as CO2 during the night. When those carbon compounds formed by the tree are broken down, through decomposition, they tend to be released as CO2 again.
Young forests take in more carbon, locking it up in growth, but then only a limited amout compared to other stores.
The major issues with forest clearing are;
1) Loss of biodiversity. 2) It being replaced by high CO2 and Methane emitting industries (see Mexcello's point). 3) If the land is simply being cleared (ie, trees are left to rot or burned rather than used as timber), the CO2 locked up in them over many, many years is released in one go. Wood processed and kept as wood or paper is still carbon locked up, but burned or rotted it is dangerous.
