Dire Warming Report

[Guthrie]

time for you luddites to wake up and smell the Postum

LA Times

A new global warming report issued Friday by the United Nations paints a near-apocalyptic vision of Earth’s future: hundreds of millions of people short of water, extreme food shortages in Africa, a landscape ravaged by floods and millions of species sentenced to extinction.Despite its harsh vision, the report was quickly criticized by some scientists who said its findings were watered down at the last minute by governments seeking to deflect calls for action.

“The science got hijacked by the political bureaucrats at the late stage of the game,” said John Walsh, a climate expert at the University of Alaska Fairbanks who helped write a chapter on the polar regions.

Even in its softened form, the report outlined devastating effects that will strike all regions of the world and all levels of society. Those without resources to adapt to the changes will suffer the most, according to the study from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

“It’s the poorest of the poor in the world, and this includes poor people even in prosperous societies, who are going to be the worst hit,” said Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, which released the report in Brussels.

The report is the second of four scheduled to be issued this year by the U.N., which marshaled more than 2,500 scientists to give their best predictions of the consequences of a few degrees increase in temperature. The first report, released in February, said global warming was irreversible but could be moderated by large-scale societal changes.

That report said with 90% confidence that the warming was caused by humans, and its conclusions were widely accepted because of the years of accumulated scientific data supporting them.

In contrast, the latest report was more controversial because it tackled the more uncertain issues of the precise effects of warming and the ability of humans to adapt to them.

“When you put people into the equation, people who can adapt and respond and change their behavior, it adds another layer of complication,” said Gary Yohe, an economist at Wesleyan University who helped write the report.

But the report is also, in a sense, a more pointed indictment of the world’s biggest polluters - the industrialized nations - and a more specific identification of those who will suffer.

Thus, some nations lobbied for last-minute changes to the dire predictions. Negotiations led to deleting some timelines for events, as well as some forecasts on how many people would be affected on each continent as global temperatures rose.

An earlier draft, for example, specified that water would become increasingly scarce for up to a billion people in Asia if temperatures rose 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit - a point that previous studies have said is likely to be reached by 2100.

A table outlining how various levels of carbon dioxide emissions corresponded to increasing temperatures and their effects was also removed.

The actions were seen by critics as an attempt to ease the pressure on industrialized nations to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that are gradually warming the planet.

Several scientists vowed afterward that they would never participate in the process again because of the interference.

“Once is enough,” said Walsh, who was not present during the negotiations in Brussels but was kept abreast of developments with a steady stream of e-mails from colleagues. “I was receiving hourly reports that grew increasingly frustrated.”

The report paints a bleak picture, noting that the early signs of warming are already here.

Spring is arriving earlier, with plants blooming weeks ahead of schedule. In the mountains, runoff begins earlier in the year, shrinking glaciers in the Alps, the Himalayas and the Andes.

Habitats for plants and animals, on land and in the oceans, are shifting toward the poles.

Nineteen of the 20 hottest years on record have occurred since 1980, according to previous studies. The report said that more frequent and more intense heat waves were “very likely” in the future.

In some places, warming might seem like a good thing at first.

For example, worldwide food production is expected to increase with the first few degrees of temperature rise. For a time, an expanded fertile zone in the higher latitudes could offset losses in the tropics.

But at a certain point, crops everywhere will suffer as drought spreads. By mid-century, rising temperatures and drying soil will turn tropical forest to savanna in eastern Amazonia, the report predicts.

In North America, snowpack in the West will decline, causing more floods in the winter and reduced flows in the summer, increasing competition for water for crops and people.

California agriculture will be decimated by the loss of water for irrigation, experts have previously said.

Water will come more often around the world in its least welcome forms: storms and floods.

Rising temperatures will reconfigure coastlines around the world as the oceans rise. The tiny islands of the South Pacific and the Asian deltas will be overwhelmed by storm surges.

In the Andes and the Himalayas, melting glaciers will unleash floods and rock avalanches. But within a few decades, as the glaciers and snowpack decline, streams will dwindle, cutting the main water supply to more than a sixth of the world’s population.

Between 20% and 30% of the world’s species will disappear if temperatures rise 2.7 to 4.5 degrees, the report said.

Africa will suffer the most, with up to a quarter of a billion people running short of water by 2020, and yields from rain-fed crops falling by half in many countries. The continent could spend at least 5% to 10% of its gross domestic product to adapt to rising sea levels, the report said.

“Don’t be poor in a hot country, don’t live in hurricane alley, watch out about being on the coasts or in the Arctic, and it’s a bad idea to be on a high mountain,” said Stephen Schneider of Stanford University, one of the scientists who contributed to the report.

The Bush administration quickly made it clear that it would not be stampeded by the report into taking part in the U.N.’s Kyoto Protocol, which seeks to limit emissions of carbon dioxide. The U.S. withdrew from the protocol in 2001, saying it was too expensive and did not impose enough controls on developing nations.

“Each nation sort of defines their regulatory objectives in different ways to achieve the greenhouse reduction outcome that they seek,” said Jim Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, during a teleconference Friday from Brussels.

Sharon Hays, associate director of the White House Office of Science and Technology, noted in the same teleconference that “not all projected impacts are negative.”

Other governments, such as China, Russia and Saudi Arabia, had already expressed their displeasure with parts of the report by demanding changes - some of them seemingly minor in the grand scheme of climate change.

Panel member Yohe said that China and Saudi Arabia, for example, objected to a sentence that stated “very high confidence” that many natural systems were already being affected by regional climate changes, arguing that “very” should be removed.

After a long deadlock, U.S. delegates brokered a compromise that removed the reference to confidence levels.

The U.S. delegation opposed a section that said parts of North America could suffer “severe” economic damage from climate change.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said in a prepared statement that political agendas need to be left behind and quick action taken to cut emissions.

“Global warming is already underway, but it is not too late to slow it down and reduce its harmful effects,” she said. “We must base our actions on the moral imperative and the scientific record, free of political interference.”

Susanne Moser, a research scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., said the political changes to the report do not diminish the need for action.

“When you have it this black and white, it is very hard to deny the reality and continue to do nothing,” she said. “I don’t know how you do that if you have a moral bone in your body.”

[Rue]

Nothing is happening. The world is fine. I know this because tt snowed this morning. Al Goreis fat and fat people are always angry-he is angry because he lost to George Bush. Polar Bears are just fine. So is Greenland. David Suzuki is a liar. You can tell. He trys to look like Che Guevara.

[Guthrie]

none so blind as those who will not see

[B. Max]

time for you luddites to wake up and smell the Postum

“When you have it this black and white, it is very hard to deny the reality and continue to do nothing,” she said. “I don’t know how you do that if you have a moral bone in your body.”[/color]

What we have is retoric and no science, and it has nothing to do with morality. The UN would be last place on earth one would look for morality. Corruption yes, but not morality.

[Guthrie]

time for you luddites to wake up and smell the Postum

“When you have it this black and white, it is very hard to deny the reality and continue to do nothing,” she said. “I don’t know how you do that if you have a moral bone in your body.”[/color]

What we have is retoric and no science, and it has nothing to do with morality. The UN would be last place on earth one would look for morality. Corruption yes, but not morality.

That level of cognitive dissonance is extremely difficult to maintain.

[speaker]

That level of cognitive dissonance is extremely difficult to maintain.

I am worried that the IPCC's latest report will be interpreted as a need to prepare for the worst, (I recognize that there are governments and individuals that are trying to ignore the worst,) rather than as a need to reduce future impacts by having a positive net impact on green house gas levels. There are positives in comments such as those from Nancy Pelosi.

I haven't heard any response from Canadian officials yet. It's unfortunate that the report was issued just before the long weekend. Let's ensure that other new stories don't push this back out of the presses short memory.

[ScottSA]

Actually, the human threat is lessening. The last IPCC report put the confidence level that it was human caused at 100%, so we're moving downward to 90%. Far be it from me to figure out how they quantify something like that short of a vote, but at this rate, what with IPCC reports being published at the same rate as daily newspapers, we're gonna be at a 0% in no time. Time to light up the BBQ!

Hey Woody, you do know what "Luddite" means, right? They're the folks who wanted to wreck big smoke belching machinery. Sounds a bit more like the kind hearted Getbacktonature crowd than the evil Ihateearth crowd, doncha think?

[speaker]

Actually, the human threat is lessening. The last IPCC report put the confidence level that it was human caused at 100%, so we're moving downward to 90%. Far be it from me to figure out how they quantify something like that short of a vote, but at this rate, what with IPCC reports being published at the same rate as daily newspapers, we're gonna be at a 0% in no time. Time to light up the BBQ!

If one were to check out the info at the following address one would find that the scientists agreed that they have a 66% or better confidence level in human effect on global warming in the working group one report. (WG1).

http://www.ipcc.ch/index.html

This of course doesn't cover the fact that in each of the last couple of reports, at least, the scientists warnings have been compromised by the politicians operating on behalf of governments that are running scared of what is coming.

[ScottSA]

Actually, the human threat is lessening. The last IPCC report put the confidence level that it was human caused at 100%, so we're moving downward to 90%. Far be it from me to figure out how they quantify something like that short of a vote, but at this rate, what with IPCC reports being published at the same rate as daily newspapers, we're gonna be at a 0% in no time. Time to light up the BBQ!

If one were to check out the info at the following address one would find that the scientists agreed that they have a 66% or better confidence level in human effect on global warming.

http://www.ipcc.ch/index.html

This of course doesn't cover the fact that in each of the last couple of reports, at least, the scientists warnings have been compromised by the politicians operating on behalf of governments that are running scared of what is coming.

Well I've heard exactly the opposite from several scientists who reportedly demanded that their names be taken off the report because the conclusions were inserted after the fact by the framers of the report. If these governments are "running scared", as I imagine any government would in view of Kyoto, then why would they commission the reports in the first place?

[speaker]

It seems to me that the UN, a community of the nations of the earth, have commissioned these reports. It is more like a small handful of nations that are obstructing the full effects by requesting (demanding) that

90%> be downgraded, that the reports impact be softened. the question has got to be what benefit do these governments hope to get from that?

[Guthrie]

It seems to me that the UN, a community of the nations of the earth, have commissioned these reports. It is more like a small handful of nations that are obstructing the full effects by requesting (demanding) that

90%> be downgraded, that the reports impact be softened. the question has got to be what benefit do these governments hope to get from that?

Yes, that's the point of the article. The report is not too alarmist, quite the opposite, it is not sufficiently alarmist for the reality of the situation.

[speaker]

Yes, that's the point of the article. The report is not too alarmist, quite the opposite, it is not sufficiently alarmist for the reality of the situation.

That's my impression too. So what do they gain from this, are they trying to prevent panic? At a time when the scientists believe that action to prevent additional global warming is required, and in fact that we should be trying to adapt our civilization to live with the degree of changes that we can't prevent, some level of panic seems necessary.

The fact that they aren't trying to bring science forward showing that minimizing concern is more appropriate means that they accept the IPCC scientists conclusions. Perhaps it is only that the longer we can continue to milk the existing system the more toys we can get before we die. I guess.... depending on the toys, eh?

[ScottSA]

Ya'll are gonna feel foolish when you look back on this fad in ten years...of course by then you'll have convinced yourselves that you never really believed it was so bad at the time. Sort of like you've convinced yourselves now that you never really believed all that stuff about all men being rapists way back when it was trendy to leap on that silly bandwagon.

[Guthrie]

Yes, that's the point of the article. The report is not too alarmist, quite the opposite, it is not sufficiently alarmist for the reality of the situation.

... are they trying to prevent panic? ...

The fact that they aren't trying to bring science forward showing that minimizing concern is more appropriate means that they accept the IPCC scientists conclusions. Perhaps it is only that the longer we can continue to milk the existing system the more toys we can get before we die. I guess.... depending on the toys, eh?

I think you were right the first time - a handful of nations - oh hell, it's not a handful of nations, it's the Buschistas and their cohorts in the oil, coal, pollution and greed industries - and they are not concerned about panic, I mean, they live to create panic, they just don't want their tacitly accepted ownership of the energy industry challenged. New energy technologies threaten to take away the power of the Saudis and the Texans, they can't have that - and they are willing to risk the lives of all living things in pursuit of their avarice.

[speaker]

Ya'll are gonna feel foolish when you look back on this fad in ten years...of course by then you'll have convinced yourselves that you never really believed it was so bad at the time.

Well we can certainly hope so. But I am more worried about those people who are getting more toys (power). May the grapes of wrath be kind to them in their old age.

[rover1]

I think that all the arguing about whether or not something bad is happening is beside the point. I for one have believed that it is since at least 2002, but so what. The real question, which is being avoided, is whether or not anything significant can be done about it. The answer is, unfortunately is no, at least in the way that is suggested. To begin with, if all carbon emissions were stopped today, there would be no change in what is happening or about to happen in the next 15 to 20 years. Of course all carbon emissions cannot be stopped today or ever, and the amount of reduction required to halt the process, let alone reverse it are not physically or politically possible in the foreseeable future. Whether or not reductions can effect any significant mitigation in future outcomes is somewhat doubtful, but remains to be seen. Reasonable hope would reside in some sort of new technological discovery, and in adaptation.

[Guthrie]

I think that all the arguing about whether or not something bad is happening is beside the point. I for one have believed that it is since at least 2002, but so what. The real question, which is being avoided, is whether or not anything significant can be done about it. The answer is, unfortunately is no, at least in the way that is suggested. To begin with, if all carbon emissions were stopped today, there would be no change in what is happening or about to happen in the next 15 to 20 years. Of course all carbon emissions cannot be stopped today or ever, and the amount of reduction required to halt the process, let alone reverse it are not physically or politically possible in the foreseeable future. Whether or not reductions can effect any significant mitigation in future outcomes is somewhat doubtful, but remains to be seen. Reasonable hope would reside in some sort of new technological discovery, and in adaptation.

The answer is, unfortunately is no,

this simply is not true -- and the issue is not merely what happens, "in the next 15 to 20 years"

certainly, drastic measures are very much needed - and yes, we cannot prevent some damage to human societies - but the real way we must face this issue is not to give up - but to re-double our efforts to do what we can -- and explore the science with the put-a-man-on-the-moon urgency JFK sparked

[rover1]

I think that all the arguing about whether or not something bad is happening is beside the point. I for one have believed that it is since at least 2002, but so what. The real question, which is being avoided, is whether or not anything significant can be done about it. The answer is, unfortunately is no, at least in the way that is suggested. To begin with, if all carbon emissions were stopped today, there would be no change in what is happening or about to happen in the next 15 to 20 years. Of course all carbon emissions cannot be stopped today or ever, and the amount of reduction required to halt the process, let alone reverse it are not physically or politically possible in the foreseeable future. Whether or not reductions can effect any significant mitigation in future outcomes is somewhat doubtful, but remains to be seen. Reasonable hope would reside in some sort of new technological discovery, and in adaptation.

The answer is, unfortunately is no,

this simply is not true -- and the issue is not merely what happens, "in the next 15 to 20 years"

certainly, drastic measures are very much needed - and yes, we cannot prevent some damage to human societies - but the real way we must face this issue is not to give up - but to re-double our efforts to do what we can -- and explore the science with the put-a-man-on-the-moon urgency JFK sparked

I meant to say in any way known to science today. You are right that some new discoveries might be made.

Just what do you propose?

[Catchme]

Please do go to this thread there are some immediate ways we can get started.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....opic=8608&st=45

[Guthrie]

...

Just what do you propose?

I propose what I said, "to re-double our efforts to do what we can -- and explore the science with the put-a-man-on-the-moon urgency JFK sparked"

make it not just a national but an international priority - much CAN be done and all that is now necessary is the will to do it

[rover1]

With all respect, Guthrie, just trying without any chance of result, may be good for the soul, but it doesn't offer any chance of success, indeed it may be just wasting time that could be devoted to other important outcomes. I know that you wish to be helpful, but what you have suggested offers no solution, and is contrary to all the scientific evidence so far produced. I repeat, there is no scientifically accepted fix that will significantly reduce the damage already caused, or avert damage over the next 15 or so years, and there is no politically possible or scientific fix that will stop the increase in greenhouse gases ever. The best hoped for is a stabilisation perhaps around the year 2100. Even the stabilisation and at what level is in question. We would do better to try to improve some of our other environmental problems such as smog and pollution.

[Catchme]

We would do better to try to improve some of our other environmental problems such as smog and pollution.

They are all the same thing, how do you not get that?

[Guthrie]

With all respect, Guthrie, just trying without any chance of result, may be good for the soul, but it doesn't offer any chance of success...

so, you want a guarantee?? OK, here's your guarantee, if we simply continue on in the current manner, humanity will become extinct

quit kidding yourself -- we have some wonderful potentials but there has never been any undertaking by men that began with the assurance of a, "scientifically accepted fix" and what we have is much better a motivation, a scientifically accepted necessity

[White Doors]

We would do better to try to improve some of our other environmental problems such as smog and pollution.

They are all the same thing, how do you not get that?

They certainly are NOT the same thing. how could you not get that?

OK, here's your guarantee, if we simply continue on in the current manner, humanity will become extinct

hahahaha!!

They spy another meteor coming?

what nonsense!

Put the Star down and turn off the CBC. It will be ok.. there there..

[Guthrie]

We would do better to try to improve some of our other environmental problems such as smog and pollution.

They are all the same thing, how do you not get that?

They certainly are NOT the same thing. how could you not get that?

OK, here's your guarantee, if we simply continue on in the current manner, humanity will become extinct

hahahaha!!

They spy another meteor coming?

what nonsense!

Put the Star down and turn off the CBC. It will be ok.. there there..

says the guy who checks under his bed for terrorists