So, what about having a bash at my question, either of you (Brian and/or Paul)? I'm not unconvinced that, given the desperately slow rate of natural change, that the man-made acceleration - if, indeed there is any - is not a new phenomenon at all, but one beginning some centuries ago, and only now beginning to make itself felt. Why, when everything else has taken millennia to change - and that's allowing for the blast-offs of some monstrously huge volcanoes which did EVENTUALLY change the world's weather systems (apparently!) - is global warming something that's supposedly changing the world within a mere couple of generations? The figuring doesn't seem to stand up, to me.
Carbon Ration Cards
- Thread starter Colin Phillips
- Start date
BrianH
At the Start
Oh dear, where do we start? OK, only in the twentieth century, mainly in the latter part, have the internal combustion engine, the jet engine, manufacturing processes, power stations, waste disposal, deforestation, land clearances and the burning of fossil fuels combined to increase the release of atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs), especially carbon dioxide.
The argument, and it's one to which I very much subscribe, is that the human-induced contribution to greenhouse gases has exacerbated that which is arrived at naturally.
PDJ is right when he says that there are scientists who disagree on global warming, though they are the minority. Where there is no disagreement is that the adding of carbon dioxide or methane to the Earth's atmosphere will result in warmer surface temperatures on Earth. The debate is all about the contribution of the processes I list in plaragraph one above and what the net effext will be when allowing for mitigating factors.
The following chart shows two thousand years of average surface temperatures on earth smoothed on a ten year scale. the unsmoothed 2004 temperature is given for reference.
Now, it may just be a coincidence that the activities I list at the Start of this posting, which all contribute to the creation of greenhouse gases - and no one disputes that - and all of which are unique to the last one hundred (perhaps one hundred and fifty) years occupy the same time in the world's history that we have the highest temperatures. To my mind, applying just a bit of logic maks that coincidence most unlikely.
But there are also high levels of volcanic activity registered during the 150 years (not even a blink of an eye in historical terms) - I won't go into the long, long list of monster eruptions, but when you consider that the ash from Mount St Helens alone still hasn't entirely settled to earth, then surely stratospheric ash must contribute to the greenhouse gas effect?
I'm afraid my own question hasn't been satisfactorily answered, so I'm going to remain agnostic rather than atheistic on the subject for now.
I'm afraid my own question hasn't been satisfactorily answered, so I'm going to remain agnostic rather than atheistic on the subject for now.
BrianH
At the Start
I recommend Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth" and/or the accompanying book. althoiugh dealing with the science of global warming and matters of a technical nature they are certainly not boring.
Incidentally, National Geographic wanted to test the assertions made by Gore so had the contents of the film analysed by independent scientists who had no axe to grind and confirmation was obtained that Gore was right (with the usual scientists' "probablys").
Incidentally, National Geographic wanted to test the assertions made by Gore so had the contents of the film analysed by independent scientists who had no axe to grind and confirmation was obtained that Gore was right (with the usual scientists' "probablys").
Colin Phillips
At the Start
So a mixture of denial and indifference, with only Brian seeming to care at all.
Brutally honest indifference from the Jones twins!!
It seems strange to me that people are prepared to accept the dangers of passive smoking but have an ostrich-like response when greenhouse gasses and global-warming is mentioned.
Personally speaking I don't think any government would be brave/foolish enough to adapt such a vote-losing policy. The freedom of movement that the car and cheap flights have given people, are a freedom that will not be given up easily, if at all.
I do fear for future generations but I don't know how people are going to be persuaded to stop being selfish when it comes to carbon consumption.
Brutally honest indifference from the Jones twins!!
It seems strange to me that people are prepared to accept the dangers of passive smoking but have an ostrich-like response when greenhouse gasses and global-warming is mentioned.
Personally speaking I don't think any government would be brave/foolish enough to adapt such a vote-losing policy. The freedom of movement that the car and cheap flights have given people, are a freedom that will not be given up easily, if at all.
I do fear for future generations but I don't know how people are going to be persuaded to stop being selfish when it comes to carbon consumption.
This is an issue which I don't feel has a balance of information going for it, Colin. Brian's usual attitude about anything he brings to a discussion is that his information is right and correct and we should believe him, and that counter-discussion is futile, since it won't be factual. I'd prefer to see several different points of view, including my own thoughts, spread out for discussion, rather than accept the word of one didact. Otherwise, we might as well leave the forum.
No-one concerning themselves with this issue has been able to give me a reply about historical carbon emissions and their potential to have created today's situation from, in fact, several centuries back. I'm assuming this is because either people don't know, or don't want to consider this as one part of a counter to the currently popular and fashionable argument 'for' global warming.
I find the rate of 'global' catastrophes far too easy to lay at the door of mainly carbon emissions, when they don't even make sense to do so. For example, the rapid and permanent deforestation of large parts of the globe. It doesn't need Einstein to realise that once those deforested parts receive monsoon rainfalls, with no root structures to hold the soil in place, the land will slip and any humans foolish enough to be living in its path will lose their villages and their lives in massive landslips. Answer: don't deforest. Keep rotating tree crops, just like farmers rotate their crops. Hardly need a Ph.D for that, do we? The stupid, avoidable, landslips have been lazily thrown into 'global warming patterns' along with factory and vehicular emissions. We're invited to believe that somehow even the tsunami - the product of eons-old tectonic plate manoeuvring - could be linked to too many Nissans on the roads of Kettering.
People have been losing their lives in their tens of thousands to massive earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tornadoes, floods, droughts and tidal waves, since time immemorial. You can go back to Biblical times for those, with nary a hint of global warming due to all those sky-blackening camp fires around the world, or the methane from their camels, cattle, sheep and horses - let alone the millions of farting, pooping bison and buffalo which once roamed free!
I'm not saying that every country in the world (hallo, America, can you hear us?) should not be making every effort to keep the world's air, waterways and seas as clean as possible. And recycling - something the poor of the world have been doing for centuries - is a 'good' thing, naturally. But I'm fed up with special interest lobbies trying to ally the vast array of natural cycles and events to the over-use of plastic bags and electricity. When there's a lot more light and a lot less heat to the issue, I may (or may not) find it more commanding. Right now, I don't like people peddling pernicious, pick 'n' mix points of view to suit their agendas.
No-one concerning themselves with this issue has been able to give me a reply about historical carbon emissions and their potential to have created today's situation from, in fact, several centuries back. I'm assuming this is because either people don't know, or don't want to consider this as one part of a counter to the currently popular and fashionable argument 'for' global warming.
I find the rate of 'global' catastrophes far too easy to lay at the door of mainly carbon emissions, when they don't even make sense to do so. For example, the rapid and permanent deforestation of large parts of the globe. It doesn't need Einstein to realise that once those deforested parts receive monsoon rainfalls, with no root structures to hold the soil in place, the land will slip and any humans foolish enough to be living in its path will lose their villages and their lives in massive landslips. Answer: don't deforest. Keep rotating tree crops, just like farmers rotate their crops. Hardly need a Ph.D for that, do we? The stupid, avoidable, landslips have been lazily thrown into 'global warming patterns' along with factory and vehicular emissions. We're invited to believe that somehow even the tsunami - the product of eons-old tectonic plate manoeuvring - could be linked to too many Nissans on the roads of Kettering.
People have been losing their lives in their tens of thousands to massive earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tornadoes, floods, droughts and tidal waves, since time immemorial. You can go back to Biblical times for those, with nary a hint of global warming due to all those sky-blackening camp fires around the world, or the methane from their camels, cattle, sheep and horses - let alone the millions of farting, pooping bison and buffalo which once roamed free!
I'm not saying that every country in the world (hallo, America, can you hear us?) should not be making every effort to keep the world's air, waterways and seas as clean as possible. And recycling - something the poor of the world have been doing for centuries - is a 'good' thing, naturally. But I'm fed up with special interest lobbies trying to ally the vast array of natural cycles and events to the over-use of plastic bags and electricity. When there's a lot more light and a lot less heat to the issue, I may (or may not) find it more commanding. Right now, I don't like people peddling pernicious, pick 'n' mix points of view to suit their agendas.
BrianH
At the Start
And, as posted in my previous item, deforestation is very much a part of the cause.
BrianH
At the Start
Not at all. If that's your interest you'll find plenty of data here:
Global Warming - A Paleo Perspective
There's a lot in there, including this:
"When one reviews all the data, both from thermometers and paleotemperature proxies, it becomes clear that the Earth has warmed significantly over the last 140 years. Global warming has occurred. Multiple paleoclimatic studies indicate that recent years, the 1990s, and the 20th century are all the warmest, on a global basis, of at least the last 1000 years. The most recent paleoclimate data reinforce this conclusion using longer records, new proxies, new statistical techniques, and a broader geographic distribution of paleo data.
There are, however, questions remaining concerning global warming. For instance, what caused the warming and what are the implications for the future? The answers to these questions are not simple.
There is considerable debate centered on the cause of 20th century climate change. Few people contest the idea that some of the recent climate changes are likely due to natural processes, such as volcanic eruptions, changes in solar luminosity, and variations generated by natural interactions between parts of the climate system (for example, oceans and the atmosphere). There were significant climate changes before humans were around and there will be non-human causes of climate change in the future.
Nevertheless, with each year, more and more climate scientists are coming to the conclusion that human activity is also causing the climate to change. First on the list of likely human influences is warming due to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Other human activities are thought to drive climate as well. As the ice-core data show, the increase in carbon dioxide is unprecedented and well outside the range of natural variations. The recent increase matches the increase calculated from the fossil fuel emissions. There is little doubt that these gases will contribute to global warming, and here too the paleo record provides invaluable evidence regarding how much temperature change accompanied changes in carbon dioxide over the past several hundred thousand years."
The italics are mine. Some of the extrapolation of data on the site may be surprising as it is run by the National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service which in turn is funded by the US Department of Commerce. Both the US government and American big business have, for their own good reasons, argued strongly that actions taken by commercial operations have had no adverse effect on the ozone layer and therefore do not contribute to global warming. NESDIS is funded by them yet doesn't seem to share their views 100%.
Brian, your italicised paragraph doesn't give a time scale, which is what I'm after. We can all posit that some warming-up of the planet may occur due to the burning of fossil fuels, BUT fossil fuels include coal, and coal has been burned and is still burned in vast quantities, as have non-fossil fuels such as wood, for a far longer period, of course. In fact, since the discovery of fire-making. The Industrial Revolution saw Britain's towns and cities choking on their thick, toxic smoke for decades, followed by the same throughout Europe and the New World. You can't tell me that those years (coupled with what appear to be sidelined considerations of methane from the millions of animals working throughout the same cities, as well as human methane from non-processed sewage) didn't have a more deleterious effect on the atmosphere (let alone human health) than today's unleaded petrol, surely? Think of all of the trains and ships belching out thick streamers of filthy, sooty muck for decade after decade, and then tell me that was not as harmful as today's factories ruled by Clean Air Acts. You had 'pea-soupers' of toxic fogs in London and other major cities where thousands died because of pneumonia, influenza and other respiratory illnesses, and you also had populations wracked by tuberculosis as a result of inhaling filth year in and out. I'd have thought that human health was a good indicator of the quality of air and the world in general, and that has certainly improved enormously, even for the most urban of dwellers.
What we're not told, as a balance to deforestation causing greenhouse gases, is that vast amounts of what were once scrub or poorly-vegetated large areas of land have, thanks to irrigation schemes, now been given over to the production of plants. We're not told that there are now thousands of miles of green crops being grown throughout the Middle East, that there's significant greenery introduced to the miles of suburbs in places like Las Vegas (once just desert), that there are now millions of acres of farmed, living plants, all contributing oxygen to the air, which weren't possible before the advent of mass-farming production values and irrigation systems. None of this gets advertised as a counter-balance to the high-profile hysteria over deforestation.
Logging has been going on in places like Myanmar (Burman teak forests) for ages, as it has in Canada, the USA, Thailand, India - and Scotland. Those forests are managed, and have always been, by Forestry Commissions. The trees are planted on a rotational basis so that there are always new trees growing to replace the felled ones. It's mostly in places like the greedy South Americas that logging has been done on a 'clearing only' basis. There's a loss of habitat to wild animals, of course, but I'm still not convinced that it's enough to cause an entire planet to heat up, when you consider the large amount of 'new greenery' which was not in place even 50 years ago. Working-class homes never had 'gardens', but you'd be hard-pressed to see any new building over the past 50 years which hasn't featured small gardens or communal ones for flats. Municipalities have seen the virtue of small parks and even now road verges are often kept untrimmed to assist wild life. So there is far more greenery in urban spaces now than ever before, all contributing to countering vehicular effluence.
What we're not told, as a balance to deforestation causing greenhouse gases, is that vast amounts of what were once scrub or poorly-vegetated large areas of land have, thanks to irrigation schemes, now been given over to the production of plants. We're not told that there are now thousands of miles of green crops being grown throughout the Middle East, that there's significant greenery introduced to the miles of suburbs in places like Las Vegas (once just desert), that there are now millions of acres of farmed, living plants, all contributing oxygen to the air, which weren't possible before the advent of mass-farming production values and irrigation systems. None of this gets advertised as a counter-balance to the high-profile hysteria over deforestation.
Logging has been going on in places like Myanmar (Burman teak forests) for ages, as it has in Canada, the USA, Thailand, India - and Scotland. Those forests are managed, and have always been, by Forestry Commissions. The trees are planted on a rotational basis so that there are always new trees growing to replace the felled ones. It's mostly in places like the greedy South Americas that logging has been done on a 'clearing only' basis. There's a loss of habitat to wild animals, of course, but I'm still not convinced that it's enough to cause an entire planet to heat up, when you consider the large amount of 'new greenery' which was not in place even 50 years ago. Working-class homes never had 'gardens', but you'd be hard-pressed to see any new building over the past 50 years which hasn't featured small gardens or communal ones for flats. Municipalities have seen the virtue of small parks and even now road verges are often kept untrimmed to assist wild life. So there is far more greenery in urban spaces now than ever before, all contributing to countering vehicular effluence.
BrianH
At the Start
Which is why I gave you a link to that particular site, which does. The clue is in the prefix "paleo".
The population of the world in the year 1850 was between 1,128,000,000 and 1,408,000,000 (these are the two extremes of scientific estimates. Heavy industry at this time was virtually unknown in most of Africa and Asia.
The population of the world at the beginning of the 21st century is 6,500,000,000 and heavy industry has spread world-wide.
Rainforests, sometimes referred to as the lungs of the planet, once covered 14% of the earth's land surface; now they cover a mere 6% and experts estimate that the last remaining rainforests could be consumed in less than 40 years. One and one-half acres of rainforest are lost every second with tragic consequences for both developing and industrial countries. I know Las Vegas quite well and the fact that they now have parks and gardens is, in the context of destruction of the rainforest, manly for commercial reasons, simply irrelevant.
But I seriously do suggest that you get hold of Al Gore's book and/or see his film as either would prompt a few questions in your mind.
So, Brian, the REAL reason for the global warming is the huge increase in the numbers of humans, then! - nothing to do with deforestation at all. I feel a eugenics moment coming on... :lol:
Brian, I plan to see the Gore film, but I also plan to keep my mind open to ALL ideas. Of course I know that large continents like Africa weren't even at the age of the wheel, for the most part, let alone the Industrial Revolution! But given that large parts of Africa remain very much as they were and that industries, such as they are, are very scattered, while its population is being decimated by AIDS, malaria, famines, wars, etc., I don't see that it's contributed much at all to 'global' warming.
I also know you know Las Vegas, but once again you conveniently skirt the issue of thousands of miles of once-desert lands now being 'greened', thanks, as I said, to irrigation systems which were previously impossible. For example, with some 36 desalination plants pumping water into it, Saudi Arabia has far more green on its map than before, and even the rather strange artificial islands created off Dubai's coast are green, and changing the local biosphere. So you can't just keep shuffling those green cards to the back of the pack because it suits a certain viewpoint.
What's interesting is that a lightly-industrialized society like Australia is going through the most godawful drought this year. What is it doing wrong, one wonders?
Anyway, that's me over and out on this, since it's beginning to get a bit like the North London Circular!
Brian, I plan to see the Gore film, but I also plan to keep my mind open to ALL ideas. Of course I know that large continents like Africa weren't even at the age of the wheel, for the most part, let alone the Industrial Revolution! But given that large parts of Africa remain very much as they were and that industries, such as they are, are very scattered, while its population is being decimated by AIDS, malaria, famines, wars, etc., I don't see that it's contributed much at all to 'global' warming.
I also know you know Las Vegas, but once again you conveniently skirt the issue of thousands of miles of once-desert lands now being 'greened', thanks, as I said, to irrigation systems which were previously impossible. For example, with some 36 desalination plants pumping water into it, Saudi Arabia has far more green on its map than before, and even the rather strange artificial islands created off Dubai's coast are green, and changing the local biosphere. So you can't just keep shuffling those green cards to the back of the pack because it suits a certain viewpoint.
What's interesting is that a lightly-industrialized society like Australia is going through the most godawful drought this year. What is it doing wrong, one wonders?
Anyway, that's me over and out on this, since it's beginning to get a bit like the North London Circular!
Colin Phillips
At the Start
An announcement today that the United States has recognised that the Polar Bear is an endangered species due to the fact that the sea ice that they live on and off is disappearing due to "global warming". They are being forced to spend more time on land and are starving to death because they have no access to their food supply.
It wouldn't do any harm for the visiting do-gooders to chuck 'em a few carcasses, then, would it? I was appalled to see Planet Earth's presenters 'tracking' one polar bear as he swam 100 kms 'only to die of starvation'. What absolute shit this is. There are loads of tourist ships with gawping hundreds on board, guzzling enough to feed the 5,000 - the answer is to ensure the animals get enough bloody feed before they hibernate, ffs. The tourist boats could easily send out small outboard craft to place the food, as could the helicopters which cheerfully tracked the polar bear to its doom. Maybe they even intruded enough into its life with their noise and disturbance that it kept trying to avoid the human trackers, too, and exhausted itself needlessly? I'm fed up with useless pontifications.
Maybe America would like to stop shooting its own bears and those which innocently ramble across from Canada, which are legally hunted for 'trophies'? Nah, thought not. They're making a political gesture towards something they'll do absolutely nothing about, Colin. The day that country signs the Kyoto protocols I'll believe their fine words mean something.
Maybe America would like to stop shooting its own bears and those which innocently ramble across from Canada, which are legally hunted for 'trophies'? Nah, thought not. They're making a political gesture towards something they'll do absolutely nothing about, Colin. The day that country signs the Kyoto protocols I'll believe their fine words mean something.
Okay, I decided to Google up 'Greenland' and see what I could find IN BRIEF. Thanks to Wikipedia, this:
Greenland is 81% covered by ice, the 'Green' bit probably referring to its southern parts which are very green in summer (and never covered by a glacier).
The land was first settled by Icelanders in 984 in the east and west, with habitation disappearing after 450 years. The southern fjords were lush and had a warmer climate, possibly due to the MEDIEVAL WARM PERIOD, and farming, hunting and trading being the communities' mainstays.
In the 15th Century there was widespread illness and famine as the land slipped into the LITTLE ICE AGE, and climatic conditions deteriorated.
The country is 836,109 square miles, having a coastline of 24,430 miles in length. (Brian, sorry, but against these facts 50 sq. miles of melt isn't very significant. We hack that much out of the UK's hedgerows to make new roads every so often, don't we?)
An analysis made between 1989-1993 by US and European climate researchers drilled into the summit of Greenland's Ice Sheet, obtaining a pair of 3.2km (2 mile) long ice cores. Analysis of the composition provided a revolutionary new record of climate change in the Northern Hemisphere, going back around 100,000 years. It illustrated that the WORLD'S WEATHER AND TEMPERATURE HAVE OFTEN SHIFTED RAPIDLY FROM ONE STABLE STATE TO ANOTHER.
In February 2006 researchers reported that Greenland's glaciers are melting twice as fast as they were five years ago, and monitoring at one location (Swiss Camp) found that the average winter temperature had risen almost 10 degrees.
-------------------------------
So, thanks to Wikipedia, I now find that my own suggestion that the swings and roundabouts of worldwide weather are not new phenomena, and not caused by us wickedly leaving our pcs and tvs on standby all night, is far from misjudged. The Greenland research supports the theory that the world's weather does indeed - and apparently more rapidly than I would have thought possible - whisk in and out of hot and cold, with attendant disturbances. However, with data stretching back an incredible 100 millennia, there is no doubt that the changes WERE NOT THE RESULT OF HUMAN INTERFERENCE.
As I said, I like to keep an open mind and I like to get in a slew of facts from various sources, Brian. You say your sources are right, and I say I'll be happy enough to view presumably unbiased and hopefully apolitical researchers, from both the USA (which was in governmental denial about climate change at the time) and Europe as being every bit as credible, if not more so.
Greenland is 81% covered by ice, the 'Green' bit probably referring to its southern parts which are very green in summer (and never covered by a glacier).
The land was first settled by Icelanders in 984 in the east and west, with habitation disappearing after 450 years. The southern fjords were lush and had a warmer climate, possibly due to the MEDIEVAL WARM PERIOD, and farming, hunting and trading being the communities' mainstays.
In the 15th Century there was widespread illness and famine as the land slipped into the LITTLE ICE AGE, and climatic conditions deteriorated.
The country is 836,109 square miles, having a coastline of 24,430 miles in length. (Brian, sorry, but against these facts 50 sq. miles of melt isn't very significant. We hack that much out of the UK's hedgerows to make new roads every so often, don't we?)
An analysis made between 1989-1993 by US and European climate researchers drilled into the summit of Greenland's Ice Sheet, obtaining a pair of 3.2km (2 mile) long ice cores. Analysis of the composition provided a revolutionary new record of climate change in the Northern Hemisphere, going back around 100,000 years. It illustrated that the WORLD'S WEATHER AND TEMPERATURE HAVE OFTEN SHIFTED RAPIDLY FROM ONE STABLE STATE TO ANOTHER.
In February 2006 researchers reported that Greenland's glaciers are melting twice as fast as they were five years ago, and monitoring at one location (Swiss Camp) found that the average winter temperature had risen almost 10 degrees.
-------------------------------
So, thanks to Wikipedia, I now find that my own suggestion that the swings and roundabouts of worldwide weather are not new phenomena, and not caused by us wickedly leaving our pcs and tvs on standby all night, is far from misjudged. The Greenland research supports the theory that the world's weather does indeed - and apparently more rapidly than I would have thought possible - whisk in and out of hot and cold, with attendant disturbances. However, with data stretching back an incredible 100 millennia, there is no doubt that the changes WERE NOT THE RESULT OF HUMAN INTERFERENCE.
As I said, I like to keep an open mind and I like to get in a slew of facts from various sources, Brian. You say your sources are right, and I say I'll be happy enough to view presumably unbiased and hopefully apolitical researchers, from both the USA (which was in governmental denial about climate change at the time) and Europe as being every bit as credible, if not more so.
BrianH
At the Start
I don't know how many times I have to stress that it's not my information, but with even George W Bush now converted I will continue with my missionary zeal. Please list your usual denials against today's report in alphabetical order of user names.
Humans blamed for climate change
Peter Walker and agencies
Friday February 2, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Global warming is "very likely" to have been caused by human activity, the leading international body studying climate change said in a report today.
The likelihood that the phenomenon has been created by the burning of fossil fuels and other actions is greater than 90%, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded in its fourth report.
In 2001, the body - which brings together 2,500 scientists from more than 30 countries - said global warming was only "likely", or 66% probable, to have been caused by humans.
Global warming is "unequivocal" fact and is likely to continue for centuries, the study found.
Environmental groups said the IPCC report showed urgent action was needed.
"If the last IPCC report was a wakeup call, this one is a screaming siren," Stephanie Tunmore, of Greenpeace, said.
The 21-page summary (pdf) of the findings, called Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, was formally agreed by the IPCC in Paris yesterday and released earlier today.
It steers clear of policy recommendations, instead providing a rigorously scientific assessment of the likely risks.
The report predicted that global average temperatures would rise by between 1.1C and 6.4C (2-11.5F) by 2100 - a slightly broader range than in the 2001 findings.
However, it said the best estimate was for increases of between 1.8C and 4C. In comparison, the world is currently around 5C warmer than during the last ice age.
The report predicts a rise of between 18cm and 58cm in sea levels by the end of this century, a figure that could increase by as much as 20cm if the recent melting of polar ice sheets continues.
"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level," the summary said.
The report said greenhouse gases were already responsible for a series of existing problems, including fewer cold days, hotter nights, intense heatwaves, floods and heavy rains, droughts and an increase in the strength of hurricanes and tropical storms.
The scale of such phenomena in the 21st century "would very likely be larger than those observed during the 20th century", it said, warning that no matter how much humanity reduces greenhouse gas emissions, global warming and sea level rises would continue for hundreds of years.
"This is just not something you can stop. We're just going to have to live with it," co-author Kevin Trenberth, the director of climate analysis for the US-based National Centre for Atmospheric Research, said.
"We're creating a different planet. If you were to come up back in 100 years, we'll have a different climate."
However, the scientists stressed this did not mean governments should accept the inevitable.
"The point here is to highlight what will happen if we don't do something and what will happen if we do something," another co-author, Jonathan Overpeck, of the University of Arizona, said.
"I can tell if you will decide not to do something, the impacts will be much larger than if we do something."
The environment minister, David Miliband, today said the study's findings were "another nail in the coffin of the climate change deniers".
"What's now urgently needed is the international political commitment to take action to avoid dangerous climate change," Mr Miliband said.
"This has been absent so far. If we are to succeed, we will require the engagement not just of environmental ministers but heads of state, prime ministers and finance ministers."
However, some countries at the frontline of the effects of global warming said they feared it might already be too late.
"The question is, what can we do now? There's very little we can do about arresting the process," Anote Tong, the president of Kiribati, a group of 33 Pacific coral atolls threatened by rising seas, said.
Bangladesh faces "increased level of drought, flooding and storms, especially in coastal belts, salinity and loss of land," Ainun Nisshat, the country's representative on the International Union for Conservation of Nature, said.
The head of the US delegation to the body said the report was a "comprehensive and accurate" presentation of the science.
Sharon Hays, the associate director of the White House office of science and technology policy, claimed George Bush's policy of slowing a rise in emissions rather than cutting them was working.
"The president has put in place a comprehensive set of policies to address what he has called the serious challenge of climate change," she told Reuters.
Climate change activists have lambasted Mr Bush for pulling out of the Kyoto protocol on greenhouse gas emissions, which he said was ineffective and harmful to the US economy. Instead, he has focused on investments in technologies such as hydrogen and biofuels.
BrianH
At the Start
And as an addendum to the above:
Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study
Ian Sample, science correspondent
Friday February 2, 2007
The Guardian
Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.
Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.
The UN report was written by international experts and is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science. It will underpin international negotiations on new emissions targets to succeed the Kyoto agreement, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft last year and invited to comment.
The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees.
The letters, sent to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere, attack the UN's panel as "resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work" and ask for essays that "thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs".
Climate scientists described the move yesterday as an attempt to cast doubt over the "overwhelming scientific evidence" on global warming. "It's a desperate attempt by an organisation who wants to distort science for their own political aims," said David Viner of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
"The IPCC process is probably the most thorough and open review undertaken in any discipline. This undermines the confidence of the public in the scientific community and the ability of governments to take on sound scientific advice," he said.
The letters were sent by Kenneth Green, a visiting scholar at AEI, who confirmed that the organisation had approached scientists, economists and policy analysts to write articles for an independent review that would highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC report.
"Right now, the whole debate is polarised," he said. "One group says that anyone with any doubts whatsoever are deniers and the other group is saying that anyone who wants to take action is alarmist. We don't think that approach has a lot of utility for intelligent policy."
One American scientist turned down the offer, citing fears that the report could easily be misused for political gain. "You wouldn't know if some of the other authors might say nothing's going to happen, that we should ignore it, or that it's not our fault," said Steve Schroeder, a professor at Texas A&M university.
The contents of the IPCC report have been an open secret since the Bush administration posted its draft copy on the internet in April. It says there is a 90% chance that human activity is warming the planet, and that global average temperatures will rise by another 1.5 to 5.8C this century, depending on emissions.
Lord Rees of Ludlow, the president of the Royal Society, Britain's most prestigious scientific institute, said: "The IPCC is the world's leading authority on climate change and its latest report will provide a comprehensive picture of the latest scientific understanding on the issue. It is expected to stress, more convincingly than ever before, that our planet is already warming due to human actions, and that 'business as usual' would lead to unacceptable risks, underscoring the urgent need for concerted international action to reduce the worst impacts of climate change. However, yet again, there will be a vocal minority with their own agendas who will try to suggest otherwise."
Ben Stewart of Greenpeace said: "The AEI is more than just a thinktank, it functions as the Bush administration's intellectual Cosa Nostra. They are White House surrogates in the last throes of their campaign of climate change denial. They lost on the science; they lost on the moral case for action. All they've got left is a suitcase full of cash."
On Monday, another Exxon-funded organisation based in Canada will launch a review in London which casts doubt on the IPCC report. Among its authors are Tad Murty, a former scientist who believes human activity makes no contribution to global warming. Confirmed VIPs attending include Nigel Lawson and David Bellamy, who believes there is no link between burning fossil fuels and global warming.
Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study
Ian Sample, science correspondent
Friday February 2, 2007
The Guardian
Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.
Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.
The UN report was written by international experts and is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science. It will underpin international negotiations on new emissions targets to succeed the Kyoto agreement, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft last year and invited to comment.
The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees.
The letters, sent to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere, attack the UN's panel as "resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work" and ask for essays that "thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs".
Climate scientists described the move yesterday as an attempt to cast doubt over the "overwhelming scientific evidence" on global warming. "It's a desperate attempt by an organisation who wants to distort science for their own political aims," said David Viner of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
"The IPCC process is probably the most thorough and open review undertaken in any discipline. This undermines the confidence of the public in the scientific community and the ability of governments to take on sound scientific advice," he said.
The letters were sent by Kenneth Green, a visiting scholar at AEI, who confirmed that the organisation had approached scientists, economists and policy analysts to write articles for an independent review that would highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC report.
"Right now, the whole debate is polarised," he said. "One group says that anyone with any doubts whatsoever are deniers and the other group is saying that anyone who wants to take action is alarmist. We don't think that approach has a lot of utility for intelligent policy."
One American scientist turned down the offer, citing fears that the report could easily be misused for political gain. "You wouldn't know if some of the other authors might say nothing's going to happen, that we should ignore it, or that it's not our fault," said Steve Schroeder, a professor at Texas A&M university.
The contents of the IPCC report have been an open secret since the Bush administration posted its draft copy on the internet in April. It says there is a 90% chance that human activity is warming the planet, and that global average temperatures will rise by another 1.5 to 5.8C this century, depending on emissions.
Lord Rees of Ludlow, the president of the Royal Society, Britain's most prestigious scientific institute, said: "The IPCC is the world's leading authority on climate change and its latest report will provide a comprehensive picture of the latest scientific understanding on the issue. It is expected to stress, more convincingly than ever before, that our planet is already warming due to human actions, and that 'business as usual' would lead to unacceptable risks, underscoring the urgent need for concerted international action to reduce the worst impacts of climate change. However, yet again, there will be a vocal minority with their own agendas who will try to suggest otherwise."
Ben Stewart of Greenpeace said: "The AEI is more than just a thinktank, it functions as the Bush administration's intellectual Cosa Nostra. They are White House surrogates in the last throes of their campaign of climate change denial. They lost on the science; they lost on the moral case for action. All they've got left is a suitcase full of cash."
On Monday, another Exxon-funded organisation based in Canada will launch a review in London which casts doubt on the IPCC report. Among its authors are Tad Murty, a former scientist who believes human activity makes no contribution to global warming. Confirmed VIPs attending include Nigel Lawson and David Bellamy, who believes there is no link between burning fossil fuels and global warming.
BrianH
At the Start
So you are happy to discount without question the opinion of 2,500 scientists in thirty countries who specialise in climatology that the probability of the current and serious global warming being caused by the burning of fossil fuels and other human actions is greater than 90%?
May I ask of someone who is prepared to oppose such strong evidence of probablity how successful a gambler you are?
I will exclude Lord Sam from the calculations.
May I ask of someone who is prepared to oppose such strong evidence of probablity how successful a gambler you are?
I will exclude Lord Sam from the calculations.
I find it strange that in 6 years, 25% of scientists have changed their minds. Has the evidence changed that much? Were they that ignorant before? Has their funding changed? Humanity has had an impact, I do not dispute that. Is it the only factor? No.
BrianH
At the Start
Admittedly the above items are long but you will read in them that those who were - and are - funded by vested interests (like the oil companies) rather than totally independently financed are those who want to make the same case as I think you are making.
The fact is that in all branches of science fresh impetus is given to research daily and six years is a bloody long time in this context.