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

Originally posted by loam
You said something, either in this thread or another, to the effect that this impending climate crisis was in fact previously known and explains much in the way of the political choices being made in the Middle East...in other words, it's all about grabbing the world's resources to survive what may be coming.

I see hoarding as an instinctive primal response by those who don't believe in American ingenuity to overcome obstacles, some might call it neo-fatalism.

So we think they are nuts, while they think it's about gathering nuts.



Guns: War is about increasing the military industrial complex.
Drugs: Afghanistan is about securing 6000+ tonnes/yr of opium
Oil: Iraq is about securing 200 billion barrels of oil.
Money: Predatory capitalism is about dominating countries for profit.

The next nut= Report: US plans strike against Iran

The Psychology of . . . Hoarding
That compulsion, scientists now theorize, is a natural and adaptive instinct gone amok. Elsewhere in the animal kingdom, the instinct to hoard offers clear evolutionary advantages.

Humans appear to be the only species that takes hoarding to pathological excess. In extreme cases, compulsive hoarders may fill their houses so full of stuff that they can no longer use the bed, the table, or even entire rooms.

Making war and pillaging is our current solution to climate change. Don't like it? Then I urge you to vote based on your principles and become conscious consumers.

[edit on 1-2-2007 by Regenmacher]

Well, today is the day.... As soon as the report is available, I will post it here.

In the meanwhile:

U.N. says there's no stopping global warming

In the strongest language it has ever used, a United Nations panel says global warming is "very likely" caused by human activities and has become a runaway train that cannot be stopped.

The warming of Earth and increases in sea levels "would continue for centuries … even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized," according to a 20-page summary of the report that was leaked to wire services.

...

More...

The phrase "very likely" indicates a 90% certainty. The last IPCC report, issued five years ago, said it was "likely" that human activity was at fault, indicating a certainty of 66%.

Many scientists had argued during the editing process that the report should say it is "virtually certain" that human activities are causing global warming. That would indicate a 99% certainty.

But the change was strongly resisted by China, among other nations, because of its reliance on fossil fuels to help build its economy.

And here is the worst part:

But a new study reported Thursday in the online version of the journal Science said that the IPCC report actually significantly underestimated both the extent of warming and the extent of the rise in sea levels.

Please let this be poor reporting....

A few exeprts from a CNN story discussing the report release with quotes from some of it's authors:

Officially releasing a 21-page report in Paris on the hows and the what of global warming -- though not telling the world what to do about it -- the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change gave a bleak observation of what is happening now and an even more dire prediction for the future.

emphasis mine.

I hope somebody has a plan to succesfully control the entire planets climate.

And the report said no matter how much civilization slows or reduces its greenhouse gas emissions, global warming and sea level rise will continue on for centuries.....

"This is just not something you can stop. We're just going to have to live with it," co-author Kevin Trenberth, director of climate analysis for the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, said in an interview

I don't get it. We can cause it, but we can't stop it?

But wait...A loophole, we can minimize the effects, apparently....

Scientists do worry that world leaders will take that message in the wrong way and throw up their hands, Trenberth said. That would be wrong, he said. Instead, the scientists urged leaders to reduce emissions and also adapt to a warmer world with wilder weather.

"The point here is to highlight what will happen if we don't do something and what will happen if we do something," co-author Jonathan Overpeck at 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."

Based on CNNs reporting so far, my first reaction is the report is a piece of crap, but I'll read the whole thing before making a final decision.

One more gem...

"You make a difference on hundred of years time frame, but this is the future of the planet," Trenberth told The Associated Press. "We have to adapt to it."

One other observation, these US scientists don't seem to be muzzled as often asserted.

A senior U.S. government scientist, Susan Solomon, said as the report was released, "There can be no question that the increase in greenhouse gases are dominated by human activities."

CNN Story

[edit on 2/2/2007 by darkbluesky]

David Deming wrote an article that is most inetersting and not a widley circulated idea, it does not disclaim glbal warming but states that it is a process that is taking place over a much longer period of time then the current groups of scientist are looking at ( about the 1800's to today) like the last 10,000 years not 200. what happens within a 200 year peried is meaningless for any type of analysis other then that 200 year period. time is a human creation, the earths temperatures have been changing for hundreds of thousands of years so why now do we get worried?

Humans are not all might and in controll of everything, as much as we like to think we are. Also the kyoto protocal was designed to punish the capitolist nationts that were already operating and help bring other undeveloped countries up to speed, with the money of the "rich" countries.

the report by David Deming says basicly this,


The temperature rise seen in meteorological measurements of the last 140 years is a recovery from a cold period in the 19th century.

Even after the modest 1.0ºF global warming of the last 140 years, present-day global temperatures remain cooler by about 1.0ºF than they were when the Vikings settled Greenland in medieval times.

For more than 7,500 of the last 10,000 years, temperatures have been higher than today.

For at least 5,000 of the last 10,000 years, the mean planetary temperature was about 1.5ºF warmer than today.

for more info visit www.ncpa.org...

Here is the 21 page summary of the Report provided for policy makers.

Climate Change Assessment Report Summary

The Nonsense of Global Warming provides at least one single statement refuting this scam of problem-reaction-solution:

The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo alone put more pollution into the atmosphere than the entire history of man. Consider that a moment. Most geologists and indeed, most scientists in the U.S. do not accept the idea that global warming resulting from human activities is a viable theory -because most have an appreciation for the kind of power inherent in natural systems. Conversely, most biologists do accept the idea of man-caused global warming and quote scientists in other fields, without understanding those other fields sufficiently to make a logical judgment as to whether the studies were reasonable in their methods and claims. They simply take it on faith that the scientists propounding global warming are correct in their methods and assumptions. Geologists point to a period of much warmer weather prior to the Little Ice Age of 1350-1850 A.D., in which it was possible to farm in most of Scandinavia, Canada and even in Greenland (the name was not a joke). It is too cold to farm in Greenland, northern Canada and all but the southern tip of Scandinavia. Historians speak of times in the distant past when the earth was much warmer than now, such as prior to the fifth century A.D. or the 11th century B.C., when northern Europe was similar to the Mediterranean in overall climate. Imagine shirtsleeve weather in the Baltic in winter.

What is the scam? To tax global warming

So, what is global warming? It is the belief that man has caused the average atmospheric temperatures to increase by his adding of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by the burning of carbon-based fuels like petroleum, coal and wood.

So as above "The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo alone put more pollution into the atmosphere than the entire history of man," is a dead letter to the entire Al Gore version of global warming fiction, and refutes the UN report.

To boot MIT notes:

Pluto is undergoing global warming, researchers find

The current solar cycle is largely responsible for the problem.
As usual the dumbed down population will openly accept this junk science, but it is more of the same imposition by authority into a theater of the absurd.

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Here is the 21 page summary of the Report provided for policy makers.

Climate Change Assessment Report Summary

So much to wade through....

But, I think these charts are disturbing enough.

Originally posted by SkipShipman
The Nonsense of Global Warming provides at least one single statement refuting this scam of problem-reaction-solution:

The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo alone put more pollution into the atmosphere than the entire history of man…

…

So as above "The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo alone put more pollution into the atmosphere than the entire history of man," is a dead letter to the entire Al Gore version of global warming fiction, and refutes the UN report.

What kind of dribble are you peddling?

INFLUENCE ON THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT:

Volcanic eruptions can enhance global warming by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. However, a far greater amount of CO2 is contributed to the atmosphere by human activities each year than by volcanic eruptions. Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons/year, whereas other sources contribute about 10 billion tons/year. The small amount of global warming caused by eruption-generated greenhouse gases is offset by the far greater amount of global cooling caused by eruption-generated particles in the stratosphere (the haze effect). Greenhouse warming of the earth has been particularly evident since 1980. Without the cooling influence of such eruptions as El Chichon (1982) and Mt. Pinatubo (1991), described below, greenhouse warming would have been more pronounced.

Link.

Originally posted by SkipShipman
To boot MIT notes:

Pluto is undergoing global warming, researchers find

The current solar cycle is largely responsible for the problem.
As usual the dumbed down population will openly accept this junk science, but it is more of the same imposition by authority into a theater of the absurd.

The only “junk science” I see are your convenient, unsupported conclusions about such observations.

Pluto, the coldest and most distant planet in the solar system, is getting a dose of global warming. In 1989 it reached its closest point to the sun, causing bits of its icy surface to evaporate into a slight atmosphere. Last summer, Pluto passed directly in front of two stars, allowing two teams of astronomers to study this tenuous shroud of gas. Observations of the distorted starlight showed that Pluto’s nitrogen-rich atmosphere—although still frigid with temperatures between -274°F to -391°F, depending on the altitude—is distinctly warmer than it was when last observed in 1988. The atmospheric pressure has doubled, too. Since the planet has been moving away from the sun for the past 14 years, the results come as a surprise. “The most likely explanation is thermal lag,” says MIT astrophysicist James Elliot, one of the team leaders. “On Earth, the days are longest in the northern hemisphere near the end of June, but the hottest month is July. Similarly, Pluto may not reach maximum surface temperature until a decade or so from now.” Astronomers hope they will be able to get a close view of Pluto’s enigmatic environment before things cool down and the atmosphere begins to collapse. Despite constant threats from budget-slashing administrators, NASA’s New Horizons mission is on schedule for launch in 2006, with a Pluto flyby anticipated for 2015.

Link.

See also, Global Warming is Real: And It’s Happening on Mars, for the many mechanisms likely (and uniquely) in play for each planet.

Comparing apples to oranges is hardly a compelling dismissal of what is likely happening here.

Theater of the absurd, indeed.


[edit on 2-2-2007 by loam]

Since ATS is a conspiracy oriented internet forum let me throw out something here in that might spur some converstaion. If the Moderators think I should start a new thread for this, please let me know.

This Pluto discussion has reminded me of of some thoughts I've had in the past regarding GW, especially when reading Muaddibs thread About the "whole solar system undergoing global warming"

Here's a link if you need a refresher;www.abovetopsecret.com...

Heres my conspiracy angle:

The governments of the world have clear evidence that global warming is caused by the sun, it will get quickly out of control, and there is absolutely nothing that we can do about it. If this was known by the masses, imagine how fast and complete the collapse of civilized society would be. It would be in everyone's interest to cover up this fact until it cant be denied, or until some kind of defense or escape could be divised.

Citing the old favorite: "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one."

Which is simpler? The source of all heat and energy driving the earths climate (Sol) is delivering more heat and energy? Or the global warming runaway greenhouse theory:

We burn hydrocarbons, release more carbon than the carbon sinks of the planet can absorb, the liberated carbon produces more CO2 which traps radiational heat, the oceans absorb 80% of the heat, and expand, but the plankton and diatoms don't increase in proportional numbers, on and on in more ways I don't understand.

Any thoughts?





[edit on 2/2/2007 by darkbluesky]

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Any thoughts?

I think many of us have played with those thoughts.

Scary thing is, I find them difficult to entirely dismiss.

Originally posted by loam
I think many of us have played with those thoughts.

Scary thing is, I find them difficult to entirely dismiss.

Not to go too far off topic, but that's always been my main point regarding this issue. I've never totally dismissed human influence on GW, and by no means deny GW is occuring, but the experts paint a picture of a slow acting, manageable, even eventually potentially reversable phenomena (at least with regard to the human caused component). Humans and most species will be able to adapt the the slow change.

I worry much more about the Sun, nearby stars, earth orbit crossing comets/asteroids, extreme volcanism.

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Any thoughts?

Since Pluto or other planets do not have years of ground observation data to correlate with these sporadic satellite observatons, then we are missing most the data needed to form a valid solar system warming hypothesis and even test it.

As for the ocean, calcification rates have decreased and acidification has risen due to a higher C02 influx and some of those results are growing dead zones and coral reefs dying off.

Report Warns about Carbon Dioxide Threats to Marine Life UCAR
Global Carbon Cycle NOAA

The most logical conclusion is to say that our interglacial period is cyclic and human activity has increased the amount of infrared radiation that is getting absorbed.

Originally posted by darkbluesky
...but the experts paint a picture of a slow acting, manageable, even eventually potentially reversable phenomena (at least with regard to the human caused component). Humans and most species will be able to adapt the the slow change.

Actually the evidence is changing that view as well...

See, for example, Rapid Climate Change.

I don't have a whole lot of time right now, but I could pull dozens of more recent findings on this topic.


[edit on 2-2-2007 by loam]

Originally posted by darkbluesky
I worry much more about the Sun, nearby stars, earth orbit crossing comets/asteroids, extreme volcanism.

Since those aspects are well beyond our control, then your worry is for naught. Deal with what you can effect change on.

Originally posted by loam

Originally posted by SkipShipman
The Nonsense of Global Warming provides at least one single statement refuting this scam of problem-reaction-solution:

The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo alone put more pollution into the atmosphere than the entire history of man…

…

So as above "The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo alone put more pollution into the atmosphere than the entire history of man," is a dead letter to the entire Al Gore version of global warming fiction, and refutes the UN report.

What kind of dribble are you peddling?

INFLUENCE ON THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT:

Volcanic eruptions can enhance global warming by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. However, a far greater amount of CO2 is contributed to the atmosphere by human activities each year than by volcanic eruptions. Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons/year, whereas other sources contribute about 10 billion tons/year. The small amount of global warming caused by eruption-generated greenhouse gases is offset by the far greater amount of global cooling caused by eruption-generated particles in the stratosphere (the haze effect). Greenhouse warming of the earth has been particularly evident since 1980. Without the cooling influence of such eruptions as El Chichon (1982) and Mt. Pinatubo (1991), described below, greenhouse warming would have been more pronounced.

Link.

By your argument if the volcanoes cool us, then so do our cars. But this is all about long run scenarios, not short term scenarios. Once the ash blocking things resolves to its CO2 component, there is no argument in what you state.

Your further comments ignore the fact that the solar cycle is responsible for more warming centuries ago, and that we are in a heliocentric period of increased solar output.

Your one word, "dribble," is an ad hominem dismissal without sufficient evidence. The fact that volcanic eruptions output far more substantial CO2 numbers than current CO2 output from automobiles is statistically significant. Just what do you mean by "dribble," anyway? Look at the big picture.

Originally posted by SkipShipman
Just what do you mean by "dribble," anyway?

Well, let’s start with your assertion (for a second time) that:

Originally posted by SkipShipman
The fact that volcanic eruptions output far more substantial CO2 numbers than current CO2 output from automobiles is statistically significant.

The source I provided clearly indicates:

…a far greater amount of CO2 is contributed to the atmosphere by human activities each year than by volcanic eruptions. Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons/year, whereas other sources contribute about 10 billion tons/year.

In other words, CO2 contribution by volcanoes is 1.10% of the total!

Originally posted by Regenmacher

Originally posted by darkbluesky
I worry much more about the Sun, nearby stars, earth orbit crossing comets/asteroids, extreme volcanism.

Since those aspects are well beyond our control, then your worry is for naught. Deal with what you can effect change on.

I should have been more concise. I "fear", or, "am concerned", that cataclysmic destruction of the Earths biosphere and its inhabitants is far more likely to be caused by those phenomena, than anthropogenic global climate change. And after all, it's very human to fear what you can't predict, and can't combat.

My concern arises from the notion that little, if anything, can be done to minimize the effects of the phenomena I mentioned.

I am completely unworried about the effects of human caused global warming. What? 23 inches of sea level rise in 93 years....possibly...?Or maybe as little as 7 inches accoridng to the experts? Hmphhh. Why should I worry about that? Deal with it? Yes, that's a different story, but worry?....Nah.

Originally posted by darkbluesky
I am completely unworried about the effects of human caused global warming. What? 23 inches of sea level rise in 93 years....possibly...?Or maybe as little as 7 inches accoridng to the experts? Hmphhh. Why should I worry about that? Deal with it? Yes, that's a different story, but worry?....Nah.

darkbluesky:

Your post made me just realize something...

You see the Global Warming assessments as having minimal impact on your life.

But what do you suspect a few billion lives in distress will do to the world?

It's not the weather you need to worry about...it's each other.

Get it?

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Hmphhh. Why should I worry about that? Deal with it? Yes, that's a different story, but worry?....Nah.

I suppose it's matter of perspective and if you are willing to lose it all in gambling with climate change. I don't think anyone is saying to worry either. I use the climate data to plan out a strategy in order to avoid obstacles and smooth out the road ahead.

Personally I would not rely on the government to meet my needs in the event of a weather catastrophe. New Orleans and Katrina would be a good example of what happened to folks who did this.





[edit on 4-2-2007 by Regenmacher]

Originally posted by loam

Originally posted by SkipShipman
Just what do you mean by "dribble," anyway?

Well, let’s start with your assertion (for a second time) that:

Originally posted by SkipShipman
The fact that volcanic eruptions output far more substantial CO2 numbers than current CO2 output from automobiles is statistically significant.

The source I provided clearly indicates:

…a far greater amount of CO2 is contributed to the atmosphere by human activities each year than by volcanic eruptions. Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons/year, whereas other sources contribute about 10 billion tons/year.

In other words, CO2 contribution by volcanoes is 1.10% of the total!

That's true, but humans have only been making their contribution for about 250 years and the rate of CO2 production by humans has been much, much lower for most of that time period. By contrast, volcanoes have been producing CO2 for the entire 4.6 billion year history of the planet.

Even if one assumes that humans have been producing CO2 at a constant rate of 10B tons yearly for 250 years, it would still only take 23,000 years of volcanic production to match that produced in all of human history. But again, this would be a gross overestimate of the amount of CO2 humans have produced, and its much more likely that it would take only a few thousand years for volcanoes to match our production.