World Scientists Near Consensus On Warming

[♦ nivek ♦]

January 30, 2007

World Scientists Near Consensus on Warming

By JAMES KANTER and ANDREW C. REVKIN

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/30/world/30climate.html

 

PARIS, Jan. 29 — Scientists from across the world gathered Monday to hammer out the final details of an authoritative report on climate change that is expected to project centuries of rising temperatures and sea levels unless there are curbs in emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases that trap heat in the atmosphere.

 

Scientists involved in writing or reviewing the report say it is nearly certain to conclude that there is at least a 90 percent chance that human-caused emissions are the main factor in warming since 1950. The report is the fourth since 1990 from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is overseen by the United Nations.

 

The report, several of the authors said, will describe a growing body of evidence that warming is likely to cause a profound transformation of the planet.

 

Three large sections of the report will be forthcoming during the year. The first will be a summary for policy makers and information on basic climate science, which is expected to be issued on Friday.

 

Among the findings in recent drafts:

 

¶The Arctic Ocean could largely be devoid of sea ice during summer later in the century.

 

¶Europe’s Mediterranean shores could become barely habitable in summers, while the Alps could shift from snowy winter destinations to summer havens from the heat.

 

¶Growing seasons in temperate regions will expand, while droughts are likely to ravage further the semiarid regions of Africa and southern Asia.

 

“Concerns about climate change and public awareness on the subject are at an all-time high,” the chairman of the panel, Rajendra Pachauri, told delegates on Monday.

 

But scientists involved in the effort warned that squabbling among teams and government representatives from more than 100 countries — over how to portray the probable amount of sea-level rise during the 21st century — could distract from the basic finding that a warming world will be one in which shrinking coastlines are the new normal for centuries to come.

 

Jerry Mahlman, an emeritus researcher at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., who was a reviewer of the report’s single-spaced, 1,644-page summary of climate science, said most of the leaks to the news media so far were from people eager to find elements that were the most frightening or the most reassuring.

 

He added in an interview that such efforts distracted from the basic, undisputed findings, saying that those point to trends that are very disturbing.

 

He noted recent disclosures that there is still uncertainty about the pace at which seas will rise because of warming and the melting of terrestrial ice over the next 100 years. That span, he said, is just the start of a rise in sea levels that will almost certainly continue for 1,000 years or so.

 

Many economists and energy experts long ago abandoned any expectation that it would be possible to avoid a doubling of preindustrial carbon dioxide concentrations, given the growth of human populations, use of fossil fuels, particularly coal, and destruction of forests in the tropics.

 

The report is likely to highlight the hazardous consequences of that shift by finding that reaching twice the preindustrial concentration of carbon dioxide will probably warm climate between 3.5 and 8 degrees Fahrenheit and by highlighting that there is a small but significant risk that such a buildup can produce even more warming.

 

One major point of debate in early drafts of the report is the projection of a smaller rise in sea level than the last report as scientists relying on computer models and field observations struggle to find a consensus. Some scientists say that the figures used in the coming report are not recent enough because they leave out recent observations of instability in some ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland.

 

Another possible point of contention during the four days of closed sessions in Paris this week may be assertions in early drafts of the report that the recent warming rate was blunted by particle pollution and volcanic eruptions.

 

Some scientists say the final report should reflect the assumption that the rate of warming in coming years is likely to be more pronounced than that of previous decades.

 

Achim Steiner, the executive director of the United Nations Environment Program, said the findings presented Friday should lead decision makers to accelerate efforts to slash carbon emissions and to help people in vulnerable parts of the world prepare for climate change.

 

“These findings should strengthen the resolve of governments to act now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and put in place the medium- to longer-term strategies necessary to avert dangerous climate change,” Mr. Steiner said.

 

In a new report issued Monday, his agency said the most recent evidence from mountain glaciers showed that they were melting faster than before.

 

In the past year, international concern over what to do about global warming has grown along with concrete signs of climate change. Even so, political leaders are still groping for ways to tackle the phenomenon. Europe has adopted a program that caps the amount of emissions from industrial plants.

 

But the world’s largest emitter, the United States, still is debating whether to adopt a similar policy, while developing countries like China are resisting caps on the ground that the industrialized countries contributed about 75 percent of the current volume of greenhouse gases and should make the deepest cuts.

 

Many experts involved in the intergovernmental panel’s process said there was hope that with a prompt start on slowing emissions, the chances of seeing much greater warmth and widespread disruption of ecosystems and societies could be reduced.

 

Outside experts agreed.

 

“We basically have three choices: mitigation, adaptation and suffering,” said John Holdren, the president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and an energy and climate expert at Harvard. “We’re going to do some of each. The question is what the mix is going to be. The more mitigation we do, the less adaptation will be required and the less suffering there will be.”

[neverclear5]

My idea on the emission caps is to decide on an emissions per person thing, and then assign each country their allowed level. Trying to cut current national levels by a certain percent, will seriousely hamper, and hense deter from compliance, nations which have only just started major industrial development, such as china. Telling an african nation with nothing larger than a couple of jeeps to cut it's emissions by 30% and keep them there would nover allow that nation to develop. That way, it would also leave poorer nations with excess emissions, allowing them to engage in carbon trading and up their economy a little.

[fxfighter]

I just want to ask this because I have not found this out myself yet.

 

When did scientists begin researching the effect pollution has upon the planet in relation to global warming and over what period of time has this been researched?

 

How do we know that global warming hasn't happened on a regular cycle over past millions of years and this isn't just something that is being repeated from said thousands/millions of years ago?

 

I do agree that human pollution has played a part in the rise of temperatures but I don't believe it is too the extreme of how the planet will become completely uninhabitable rather areas that were once habitable will switch places with those that currently aren't and visa versa.

[chefranden]

A bay by Kulusuk Greenland February 2, 2007

 

 

Notice anything odd?

[Dave]

I just want to ask this because I have not found this out myself yet.

 

When did scientists begin researching the effect pollution has upon the planet in relation to global warming and over what period of time has this been researched?

We have good records for the past 200 years or so. There are various ways to look back hundreds of thousands of years. The CO2 in the atmosphere has risen dramatically since humans have started to burn fossil fuels.

How do we know that global warming hasn't happened on a regular cycle over past millions of years and this isn't just something that is being repeated from said thousands/millions of years ago?

There are several ways. Ice cores, ocean sediment cores, and tree rings, are just two ways. There are more.

I do agree that human pollution has played a part in the rise of temperatures but I don't believe it is too the extreme of how the planet will become completely uninhabitable rather areas that were once habitable will switch places with those that currently aren't and visa versa.

That's not all that bad, is it? Those that live in Florida, and New York City, can just move to Northern Canada. The people in Bangladesh can just move to the Gobi Desert. Oh... wait.... we won't have any fuel left to drive the trucks and whatevers to get them there. Oh well..... too bad. Life's rough.

[Lightbearer]

There is hardly a consensus on global warming (or cooling?).

 

There are whole huge sites dedicated to it www.junkscience.com being one of them. Any critics are silenced, some people even suggesting they be tried as war criminals.

 

http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264568

 

With language like that it's no wonder people are afraid to question it. They would probally lose those big government tax-payer grants too.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070119/sc_nm/...ate_debate_dc_2

 

 

Honestly, ask yourself if you really want the government forcing you to leave a life they see fit base on science that may not even be true.

[Dave]

There is hardly a consensus on global warming (or cooling?).....

Nor is there consensus on evolution, or the Holocaust, or gravity.

[necrosmith]

It's ok.

 

Rush says global warming is a hoax because god won't let it happen.

 

I was worried there for a minute too.

[fxfighter]

That's not all that bad, is it? Those that live in Florida, and New York City, can just move to Northern Canada. The people in Bangladesh can just move to the Gobi Desert. Oh... wait.... we won't have any fuel left to drive the trucks and whatevers to get them there. Oh well..... too bad. Life's rough.

What's up with the sarcasm? I was merely expressing a partial counter-view.

 

It's not like climate change is something we haven't known about before global warming, people will make do where ever they move too and in relation to climate change - it has/will happen so unless someone finds a way of moving the earth off it's 4 degree tilt the inhabitants of this planet will have to continually be moving around to stay in the climate they're use too or adapt to the oncoming change.

 

Individual people aren't the issue when it comes to emission, it's businesses and large companies with their huge factories piping out fumes into the sky. A per person emission cap isn't going to help much with those factories making up for everyone else.

 

We have good records for the past 200 years or so. There are various ways to look back hundreds of thousands of years.

I can't find a whole lot of information that has any records dating back past 70k years that would actually be able to show the climate and habitat. The earth has cooled and warmed for millions of years.

 

There are several ways. Ice cores, ocean sediment cores, and tree rings, are just two ways. There are more.

Setting that aside, non of these methods prove anything going back over millions of years they are really only good up to around 70k years like I mentioned earlier in my post.

[Dave]

It's ok.

 

Rush says global warming is a hoax because god won't let it happen.

 

I was worried there for a minute too.

And Rush never lies.

[Dave]

That's not all that bad, is it? Those that live in Florida, and New York City, can just move to Northern Canada. The people in Bangladesh can just move to the Gobi Desert. Oh... wait.... we won't have any fuel left to drive the trucks and whatevers to get them there. Oh well..... too bad. Life's rough.

What's up with the sarcasm? I was merely expressing a partial counter-view.

I was also expressing a partial counter-view.

It's not like climate change is something we haven't known about before global warming, people will make do where ever they move too and in relation to climate change - it has/will happen so unless someone finds a way of moving the earth off it's 4 degree tilt the inhabitants of this planet will have to continually be moving around to stay in the climate they're use too or adapt to the oncoming change.

Apparently my sarcasm wasn't understood. Where are all these people going to move to? How are you going to shift billions of people around? It's a bit more complicated than just moving.

Individual people aren't the issue when it comes to emission, it's businesses and large companies with their huge factories piping out fumes into the sky. A per person emission cap isn't going to help much with those factories making up for everyone else.

I never mentioned anything about a per person cap... now that you mention it, it is not business and large companies that are driving the kids one block to play soccer.

I can't find a whole lot of information that has any records dating back past 70k years that would actually be able to show the climate and habitat. The earth has cooled and warmed for millions of years.

Does it matter? If you have an argument there, it escapes me.

Setting that aside.....

Uh... no. There is no setting that aside. Why do you want to set solid information aside? And I fail to see your argument here. 70k years isn't enough? Right now we have glaciers disappearing, ice caps melting, ocean temps rising, atmosphere temps rising, and millions of tons of CO2 being added to our atmosphere on a daily basis.... and you're worried about something long ago?

[Asimov]

A bay by Kulusuk Greenland February 2, 2007

 

 

Notice anything odd?

 

It's pretty.

[fxfighter]

Uh... no. There is no setting that aside. Why do you want to set solid information aside? And I fail to see your argument here. 70k years isn't enough? Wendyshrug.gif Right now we have glaciers disappearing, ice caps melting, ocean temps rising, atmosphere temps rising, and millions of tons of CO2 being added to our atmosphere on a daily basis.... and you're worried about something long ago?

Setting aside the fact you mentioned three but referred to them as 2 ways.

 

Didn't say anything relating to worrying about what happened before, I did say however that this won't be the first time the climate has changed in earths history.

 

I never mentioned anything about a per person cap... now that you mention it, it is not business and large companies that are driving the kids one block to play soccer.

Not everything I commented on is about you. Read the second post before commenting on that.

 

I was also expressing a partial counter-view.

Sarcasm isn't necessary in a response, I didn't mention anything about your point of view merely your use of sarcasm.

 

Apparently my sarcasm wasn't understood. Where are all these people going to move to? How are you going to shift billions of people around? It's a bit more complicated than just moving.

That will need to be figured out when the time comes and why should I have to make a suggestion of where people should move too, why not yourself?

So do you agree that people will have to move and that climate change has happened before?

 

Does it matter? If you have an argument there, it escapes me.

My argument is that changing climates and rising temperatures are nothing new in earths history, didn't say that this was a bad or good thing. I did also state that I agree that people are somewhat to blame to with the climate shifting but more along the lines of accelerated rather than out of the blue climate change, again - not saying anything about this being good or bad just stating information.

[Biggles7268]

that's a lot of co2

[neverclear5]

Individual people aren't the issue when it comes to emission, it's businesses and large companies with their huge factories piping out fumes into the sky. A per person emission cap isn't going to help much with those factories making up for everyone else.

 

Okay, and, as I said, each country gets an emission cap based on the number of people in it. Unless you're talking about space companies or companies from another dimension I fail to see how you get around companies existing in countries?

[neverclear5]

There is hardly a consensus on global warming (or cooling?).

 

There are whole huge sites dedicated to it www.junkscience.com being one of them. Any critics are silenced, some people even suggesting they be tried as war criminals.

 

Okay, did you read the article before the post? scientists nearing concensus on global warming. You understand there are website dedicated to everything, including biblical truth and the idea of a flat earth. Would you argue that there's no concensus on the shape of the earth?

[fxfighter]

Okay, and, as I said, each country gets an emission cap based on the number of people in it. Unless you're talking about space companies or companies from another dimension I fail to see how you get around companies existing in countries?

Ok, my misinterpretation - I thought that you were excluding companies and setting this back on people driving their cars half a block like was earlier mentioned by another member due to the wording of "per person thing". I agree with your idea.

[neverclear5]

Ok, my misinterpretation - I thought that you were excluding companies and setting this back on people driving their cars half a block like was earlier mentioned by another member due to the wording of "per person thing". I agree with your idea.

 

 

Lovely. Of course you would then need to do something to make sure companies didn't just move operations rather than reducing, or carbon trading. Also, if they did it on where the headquarters is they might try wierd technicalities and base themselves in india by building a shed with a server in it there. The problem with introducing new legislation is that theres always an adaption period in which loopholes are concurrently abused and then weeded out.

[neverclear5]

I've been ranting about global warming for a long time. Proof is finally hitting home

 

As an exercise, use google earth and pan around the world... zoom in and check out the spread of human populations. Its like a virus. Huge expanses of forests replaced by farms and towns. Spectacular (gulp)

 

but that doesn't have to mean planet destruction. If we just live clean and efficient then it doesn't matter how many of us there are.

[Dave]

Didn't say anything relating to worrying about what happened before, I did say however that this won't be the first time the climate has changed in earths history.

Which is irrelevant to the climate change going on right now. No one has ever said that the climate has not changed before. We have records of it doing so many times. Looking at those records and what's happening now, we see that this climate change has happened faster than any other change.

I was also expressing a partial counter-view.

Sarcasm isn't necessary in a response, I didn't mention anything about your point of view merely your use of sarcasm.

That will need to be figured out when the time comes and why should I have to make a suggestion of where people should move too, why not yourself?

So do you agree that people will have to move and that climate change has happened before?

It's just the way you cavalierly throw it out. Move half the worlds population, no big deal. The wars and economic upset, no big deal.

My argument is that changing climates and rising temperatures are nothing new in earths history....

That's not an argument since no one has made the claim the climate has not changed.

[scitsofreaky]

I've been ranting about global warming for a long time. Proof is finally hitting home

 

As an exercise, use google earth and pan around the world... zoom in and check out the spread of human populations. Its like a virus. Huge expanses of forests replaced by farms and towns. Spectacular (gulp)

 

but that doesn't have to mean planet destruction. If we just live clean and efficient then it doesn't matter how many of us there are.

Some destruction is inevitable because people take up space. Even at our most efficient some habitat destruction is going to happen to make room for us.

[Dave]

I've been ranting about global warming for a long time. Proof is finally hitting home

 

As an exercise, use google earth and pan around the world... zoom in and check out the spread of human populations. Its like a virus. Huge expanses of forests replaced by farms and towns. Spectacular (gulp)

Just look at that composite picture of the Earth lit up at night. That's a lot of energy and a lot of people.

[Dave]

Some destruction is inevitable because people take up space. Even at our most efficient some habitat destruction is going to happen to make room for us.

Part of the problem is that people like to live on flat land. We also grow our food on flat land. Something's gotta give.

[chefranden]

I've been ranting about global warming for a long time. Proof is finally hitting home

 

As an exercise, use google earth and pan around the world... zoom in and check out the spread of human populations. Its like a virus. Huge expanses of forests replaced by farms and towns. Spectacular (gulp)

 

I've read that nearly every spec of arable land is now under cultivation: Against the Grain: How Agriculture Has Hijacked Civilization

[SilentLoner]

but that doesn't have to mean planet destruction. If we just live clean and efficient then it doesn't matter how many of us there are.

 

Like thats going to happen. Especially in developing countries.

 

Not to mention people here who could live clean and efficient but dont bother with it.

 

Personally I believe that things need to be at an extreme before real change can occur.