U.N. climate report will shock the world! (RELEASED)

Originally posted by darkbluesky
But perhaps I should have said, almost every species that ever existed is now extinct.

No offense, but what an unhelpful point.

Do you happen to have a view on the rates of extinction or causation?


[edit on 26-1-2007 by loam]

Originally posted by loam

Originally posted by darkbluesky
But perhaps I should have said, almost every species that ever existed is now extinct.

No offense, but what an unhelpful point.

Do you happen to have a view on the rates of extinction or causation?


[edit on 26-1-2007 by loam]

I maintain it is not unhelpful. You, Forestlady, and many others must eventunally come to the realization that this planet, biosphere, ecosystem...or whatever other term you want to apply to it, is an incomprehensibley large and complex system that we haven't even begun to understand. For hundreds of years everyone KNEW the Earth was the center of the universe, until someone proved it wasn't.

Concensus, is not fact.

Back to the point in question.

Extinction is a fact of life. There are three primary causes.....cataclysim, climate change, competition (natural selection). It's extremley anthrocentric, IMO, to believe the humans should be expempted from being competetive. We evolved on the same planet under the same circumstances as the Polar Bears, Penguins, and the ######,
pasenger pigeon. I for one will not dispair because we have utilized the gift of oil to ascend to the top of the evolution ladder on this rock.

And by the way, someone will ensure all he bears, and the nuns, and all the other little furries will survive if the ice melts. That's because we're alot smarter than they are, and posess the quality of compasion. Something that no other species, that ever crowded out another, ever possesed.

Originally posted by darkbluesky
For hundreds of years everyone KNEW the Earth was the center of the universe, until someone proved it wasn't.

Concensus, is not fact.

I’ve never fully understood this argument.

Are you suggesting the science of today is the equivalent to the science of the past?

While I do not foreclose on the possibility that the climate change experienced today may well have a natural cause, is the argument you use above the only thing you are prepared to hang your hat on?

"We have been wrong before, so we MUST be wrong now..."

Originally posted by loam

"We have been wrong before, so we MUST be wrong now..."

Loam - Of course not...It's more like this....We've been wrong before...we might be wrong again.

Thats all I'm saying.

You and others seem to be commited to the idea that internal combustion engines and coal burnng power plants will spell the end of this planet. I say maybe...but probably not. This planet has sustained much greater forces.

I have faith in our survival instinct. Do you?

I can assure you that there is no scientific consensus on the Global Warming THEORY. I know and have spoken to several people who signed the "Oregon" petition. They, like I, INDEPENDENT scientists all, are still unconvinced that GW is caused by human activities., or that is anything more than a natural weather cycle such as the planet has experienced many times before throughout the ages. Not a single one of my colleagues at work and at other facilities believes in so-called "anthrogenic" Global Warming either. Many young scientists are fearful of stating what they believe is a lack of hard, valid evidence about G.W. for fear of censure by older scientists who do back the THEORY. Read the link posted below to consider the beliefs of other scientists who do not buy the GW bill of goods.

epw.senate.gov...

epw.senate.gov...

www.crichton-official.com...

www.opinionjournal.com...

[edit on 27-1-2007 by TheAvenger]

[edit on 27-1-2007 by TheAvenger]

[edit on 27-1-2007 by TheAvenger]

Originally posted by TheAvenger
I can assure you that there is no scientific consensus on the Global Warming THEORY. I know and have spoken to several people who signed the "Oregon" petition. They, like I, INDEPENDENT scientists all, are still unconvinced that GW is caused by human activities., or that is anything more than a natural weather cycle such as the planet has experienced many times before throughout the ages. Not a single one of my colleagues at work and at other facilities believes in so-called "anthrogenic" Global Warming either.

All that from someone who uses a flaming deathhead avatar ehh?

Your opinion assures nothing, especially when using Crichton as a reference. The current US administration is/was supporting big oil kook scientists and there's always a handful that will be bribed and bought off. That and hindcasting geologists are hardly experts in climatology and meteorology. None of those fringe kook pundits have climate modeling supercomputers or are making accurate forecasts either.

Maybe you better actually look up the term anthropogenic before referring to it and know that you only speak for yourself.





[edit on 27-1-2007 by Regenmacher]

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
It freaks me out much more than the prospect the Earth might have gained .8 degrees of heat in a 100 year period during its 120,000,000 years of existance.
[edit on 26-1-2007 by thisguyrighthere]

Ummm...you pretty well blew any crediblity you may have had by saying this. Every school child knows that the earth is 4 to 4.5 billion years old, unless they are of course a Creationist, but even then the number wouldn't be accurate according to Creationists.

If we don't screw it up, the Earth will be supported by enough sunlight to sustain life for another 4 billion years. So you could say Earth is middle-aged and is going through a mid-life crisis.

Originally posted by darkbluesky
I maintain it is not unhelpful. You, Forestlady, and many others must eventunally come to the realization that this planet, biosphere, ecosystem...or whatever other term you want to apply to it, is an incomprehensibley large and complex system that we haven't even begun to understand. For hundreds of years everyone KNEW the Earth was the center of the universe, until someone proved it wasn't.

Concensus, is not fact.

Back to the point in question.

nd by the way, someone will ensure all he bears, and the nuns, and all the other little furries will survive if the ice melts. That's because we're alot smarter than they are, and posess the quality of compasion. Something that no other species, that ever crowded out another, ever possesed.

You're preaching to the choir here, dude. I'm married to a biologist, have learned alot from him and continue to do so. Also, myself being Pagan, I have always known that everything is connected. Sort of a basic concept of Paganism.I'm not some school kid that you need to teach basic science to, so don't try teaching me elemental science because I probably know more about biology than you. That's kind of one of the things that Pagans study.

We don't know everything about how climate works, but we sure as hell know alot more than we did 40 years ago when the topic of GW first came out. Everything we've learned since then supports the original theory that our planet is heating up VERY rapidly, too quickly for life forms to adapt. That, right now, is why the extinction is happening right now. In fact, this present extinction has been underway now for quite awhile, long enough for us to know that this extinction is the most rapidly occurring one ever, by far. In that sense, it is already the largest extinction ever..

If we changed everything we're now doing tonite, we would still be in for at least another 30 years of ever-increasing rapid GW. If you're not aware of the extinction, why should I think you are a credible source?

And no, no one is conserving the polar bears and penguins, they're time is running out and they are rapidly disappearing. There are simply too many species endangered to preserve all of them. For more information, read "The Song of the Dodo". Do you know what the song of the dodo sounds like?...
No, no one does, because they have been extinct for over 100 years at least. And that, to me, is an extremely sad thing. They became extinct because of humans killing them off, they didn't do it because of any natural occurrence.

The extinction has already been set in motion and we can't do much about it for at least 30 years. That's alot of life that will be gone.

If we're smarter than animals, then why are we destroying our planet and the animals never have? Also, animals do have compassion. Doesn't sound like you've ever had a dog. They know when you're feeling down and come and comfort you. Meerkats have been shown to stop and wait for another meerkat who is ill or dying. They will stay with the animal until it's either better and able to travel or until it dies. As you can tell, I'm not so sure that humans are smarter than animals.

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Loam - Of course not...It's more like this....We've been wrong before...we might be wrong again.

Thats all I'm saying.

Yes, but which part might we be wrong about? From your posts it looked like you had already made that decision.

Regenmacher:


I would gladly compare scientific credentials with you to establish who is more qualified to assess Global Warming THEORY, but that would clearly be a waste of time since you already know everything.

Just continue your alarmist tactics as if I had made no comment, for I will make no further ones. Clearly, most on this thread are not interested in facts or truth regarding GW.

If only was I was half as smart as I thought I was when I was 18 years old.

[edit on 27-1-2007 by TheAvenger]

TheAvenger

I'm not quite sure who your post is aimed at, but thank you for your fine, dispassionate, irrefutable, scientific view.

Glad you cleared that up for me.

EDIT: Ah, I see now...Regenmacher. Point still stands.



[edit on 27-1-2007 by loam]

Originally posted by TheAvenger
Regenmacher:
I would gladly compare scientific credentials with you to establish who is more qualified to assess Global Warming THEORY, but that would clearly be a waste of time since you already know everything.

Just continue your alarmist tactics as if I had made no comment, for I will make no further ones. Clearly, most on this thread are not interested in facts or truth regarding GW.

If only was I was half as smart as I thought I was when I was 18 years old.

[edit on 27-1-2007 by TheAvenger]

Regenmacher is not being arrogant, he's simply stating what he believes (as do many others) about GW due to his in depth research. In addition, he's provided a multitude of sources for you to examine and think about. He never claimed to know everything. Just what kind of scientific credentials do you have anyway? I need to see something to establish your credibility, since at the moment, as far as I'm concerned, I can't see anything credible in your statement. I would love to be proven wrong, truly, I don't want to have to face the cataclysmic events ahead, so tell me your credentials and change my opinion, I would love to believe that everything will be OK.
How old are you anyway, you sound to me like someone in their early 20's, i.e. not much life or career experience. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I love to learn some thing new every day and I will stand humbly corrected, no #.

Originally posted by TheAvenger

Regenmacher:


I would gladly compare scientific credentials with you to establish who is more qualified to assess Global Warming THEORY, ...

Did you mean hypothesis ?

theory needing investigation: a tentative explanation for a phenomenon, used as a basis for further investigation
The hypothesis of the big bang is one way to explain the beginning of the universe.

The word theory refers to :

a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena

***

scientific principle to explain phenomena: a set of facts, propositions, or principles analyzed in their relation to one another and used, especially in science, to explain phenomena

Scientific credentials, you say?







[edit on 27-1-2007 by soficrow]

Originally posted by TheAvenger
I would gladly compare scientific credentials with you to establish who is more qualified to assess Global Warming THEORY, but that would clearly be a waste of time since you already know everything.

You didn't introduce any evidence to support your opinion other than a big oil, flip-flopping, hindcasting, cherry picking geologists and a sci-fi horror writer. This shows me you have little idea what climatology is or you wouldn't of used such nonsense as a reference.

The preponderance of data doesn't support those kook references and no person will gain any credibility from the scientific community by parroting the words of a corrupt notorious ignoramus like Jimbo Inhofe.


- Inhofe and Crichton: Together at Last! RealClimate
- Inhofe’s last stand RealClimate



Basic Climate Knowledge 101:
ETE: Remote Sensing: Temperature
EPA: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
WIKI: Global Dimming




[edit on 28-1-2007 by Regenmacher]

As many anticipate the report's release later this week, some details are already emerging...

www.ikzm-d.de..." border=0>

A chilling conclusion on global warming

The United Nations is poised to release a report on climate change so grim and so vast in scope that scientists involved in the six-year study say it will end the debate on global warming.

The report will say that global warming caused by human activity is no longer a theory. It is a fact.

...

[T]he report will ask and answer four basic questions:

• Can humans affect the climate system and, if so, what changes have been observed? The report will say that natural factors alone can no longer explain the changes seen in the second half of the 20th century, citing a new physical understanding of the climate system.
  
  
• How sure are we that humans are responsible for climate change? The report will say that it is a virtual certainty that humans have caused the change, meaning that the scientists are "99 percent" certain.
  
  
• How different will the climate be in the future? The climate, its chemical mix now substantially altered by higher concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, will continue to warm. Ice sheets will continue to melt, making sea levels rise.
  
  
• How has science changed our understanding of global warming since international efforts were launched in 1990? All the evidence has come together, scientists say, to form an internally consistent story.
  
  More...
  
  

Here's the real surprise...

Think the report might be too alarmist? Here's what top US Scientists say:

Melting ice means global warming report all wet, say some experts who warn it'll be even worse

Later this week in Paris, climate scientists will issue a dire forecast for the planet that warns of slowly rising sea levels and higher temperatures.

But that may be the sugarcoated version.

Early and changeable drafts of their upcoming authoritative report on climate change foresee smaller sea level rises than were projected in 2001 in the last report. Many top U.S. scientists reject these rosier numbers. Those calculations don't include the recent, and dramatic, melt-off of big ice sheets in two crucial locations:

They "don't take into account the gorillas — Greenland and Antarctica," said Ohio State University earth sciences professor Lonnie Thompson, a polar ice specialist. "I think there are unpleasant surprises as we move into the 21st century."

Michael MacCracken, who until 2001 coordinated the official U.S. government reviews of the international climate report on global warming, has fired off a letter of protest over the omission.

More...

In case you've forgotten, here's one of the things they are so animated about:

Greenland Ice Melt: See if this don't scare you!

See, also, Glacial earthquakes

I've long sat on the fence on this issue... But it's strating to look like that position is no longer reasonable.

Stay tuned... and hope for the best. It looks like we are going to need it.

Last warning: 10 years to save world

Scientists say rising greenhouses gases will make climate change unstoppable in a decade

THE world has just 10 years to reverse surging greenhouse gas emissions or risk runaway climate change that could make many parts of the planet uninhabitable.

The stark warning comes from scientists who are working on the final draft of a new report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

[edit on 29-1-2007 by loam]

climate change is unstoppable, unless man can do something to the sun, which he cannot, as far as we know.

mans impact will never be proven, because people that push that theory, do not include the sun and its cycles in there data. how can you not include what the sun does in your data. alright i accept that man does not have records of what the sun did over thousands of years, but it is still the main cause, of climate change on earth, whether algore likes it or not.

though some of the articles are fear mongering, i do believe something is going on, but like everyone says it is just a period of which the earth has done before and do again, until it is gone, when our sun dies or whatever.

quote from a sciencetist in this link
epw.senate.gov...

"Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future"

what is going on today is unknown to mdern civilisation, scientists just do not know what is going to happen, they cannot even predict 4-5 days ahead now, what chance 50 years.

in this article also they state that the sun is responsible for 50% of 20th century warming.
www.agu.org...

no one really knows where this is going, all we know is that is unpredictable.

[edit on 29-1-2007 by andy1033]

Originally posted by loam
Stay tuned... and hope for the best. It looks like we are going to need it.

Thanks Loam. I suspect Western leaders knew this all along considering the recent wars and strategic re-positioning of military forces is more in lines with hoarding and self-preservation. I suspect their solution will be much of the same in creating more war to remove the threat of large poverty stricken regions, secure resources and crush uprisings that will be a result of climate change.

Originally posted by Regenmacher

Originally posted by loam
Stay tuned... and hope for the best. It looks like we are going to need it.

Thanks Loam. I suspect Western leaders knew this all along considering the recent wars and strategic re-positioning of military forces is more in lines with hoarding and self-preservation. I suspect their solution will be much of the same in creating more war to remove the threat of large poverty stricken regions, secure resources and crush uprisings that will be a result of climate change.

Key findings of the IPCC's fourth assessment report

* Global temperatures continue to rise with 11 of the 12 warmest years since 1850 occurring since 1995. Computer models suggest a further rise of about 3C by 2100, with a 6C rise a distant possibility
* It is virtually certain (there is more than a 99 per cent probability) that carbon dioxide levels and global warming is far above the range of natural variability over the past 650,000 years
* It is virtually certain that human activity has played the dominant role in causing the increase of greenhouse gases over the past 250 years
* Man-made emissions of atmospheric aerosol pollutants have tended to counteract global warming, which otherwise would have been significantly worse
* The net effect of human activities over the past 250 years has very likely exerted a warming influence on the climate
* It is likely that human activity is also responsible for other observed changes to the Earth's climate system, such as ocean warming and the melting of the Arctic sea ice
* Sea levels will continue to rise in the 21st Century because of the thermal expansion of the oceans and loss of land ice
* The projected warming of the climate due to increases in carbon dioxide during the 21st Century is likely to cause the total melting of the Greenland ice sheet during the next 1,000 years, according to some computer forecasting models
* The warm Gulf Stream of the North Atlantic is likely to slow down during the 21st Century because of global warming and the melting of the freshwater locked up in the Greenland ice sheet. But no models predict the collapse of that warm current by 2100.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

there loads of likely and maybe in that statement, this is why the governments will never do anything. the sciencetists just cannot properly predict the outcome. you see how they say most likely, thats not enough to change anything.

the sciencetists need to be confident in there findings, or it is just a waste of time.

can we also ask what effect that the population increases will have in this century, whether or not co2 by man has an effect

also in that article they state it could have been worse but for aerosol releases by humans ahve prevented further warming, could this be what chemtrails are doing. people have speculated that chemtrails are there to do something like this, and reflect sunlight, interesting.

[edit on 29-1-2007 by andy1033]

I would treat all leaks on what the IPCC AR4 may - or may not - say with extreme caution. Even when the actual reports are released, I expect the media to "misquote out of context" a fair bit in order to generate more dramatic headlines. At a moment it's a bit like determining the plot of a movie from a 30 second trailer. Yes, the good guy gets shot and there's a car chase - but you don't yet know the context in which these events take place

Far, far better to wait until you get a chance to read the AR4 yourself (or at least, the Summary for Policy Makers - the full report will be pretty technical for anyone not a professor in atmospheric science etc) before drawing any conclusions or getting into any discussions.

Originally posted by andy1033
also in that article they state it could have been worse but for aerosol releases by humans ahve prevented further warming...

That phenom is called global dimming which has slowed the rise of global temps. The increased aerosols and dust also inhibit precipation and increases desertfication, which in turn reduces the amount of ariable land to grow crops on.