Warming "Likely" Man Made

Jerry1

Megatron Star!
#1
Looks like we're screwed no matter what we do...

Warming 'likely' man-made, unstoppable By SETH BORENSTEIN
10 minutes ago



PARIS - The world's leading climate scientists said global warming has begun, is "very likely" caused by man, and will be unstoppable for centuries, according to a report obtained Friday by The Associated Press.

The scientists — using their strongest language yet on the issue — said now that world has begun to warm, hotter temperatures and rises in sea level "would continue for centuries" no matter how much humans control their pollution. The report also linked the warming to the recent increase in stronger hurricanes.

"The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice-mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that is not due to known natural causes alone," said the report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — a group of hundreds of scientists and representatives of 113 governments.

The phrase "very likely" translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by man's burning of fossil fuels. That was the strongest conclusion to date, making it nearly impossible to say natural forces are to blame.

What that means in simple language is "we have this nailed," said top U.S. climate scientist Jerry Mahlman, who originated the percentage system.

The 20-page report, which was due to be officially released later in the day, represents the most authoritative science on global warming.

The new language marked an escalation from the panel's last report in 2001, which said warming was "likely" caused by human activity. There had been speculation that the participants might try to say it is "virtually certain" man causes global warming, which translates to 99 percent certainty.

The panel predicted temperature rises of 2-11.5 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2100. That was a wider range than in the 2001 report.

However, the panel also said its best estimate was for temperature rises of 3.2-7.1 degrees Fahrenheit. In 2001, all the panel gave was a range of 2.5-10.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

On sea levels, the report projects rises of 7-23 inches by the end of the century. An additional 3.9-7.8 inches are possible if recent, surprising melting of polar ice sheets continues.

But there is some cold comfort. Some, but not all, of the projected temperature and sea level rises are slightly lower than projected in a previous report in 2001. That is mostly due to use of more likely scenarios and would still result in dramatic effects across the globe, scientists said.

Many scientists had warned that this estimate was too cautious and said sea level rise could be closer to 3-5 feet because of ice sheet melt.

Nevertheless, scientists agreed the report is strong.

"There's no question that the powerful language is intimately linked to the more powerful science," said one of the study's many co-authors, Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria, who spoke by phone from Canada. He said the report was based on science that is rock-solid, peer-reviewed, and consensus.

"It's very conservative. Scientists by their nature are skeptics."

The scientists wrote the report based on years of peer-reviewed research and government officials edited it with an eye toward the required unanimous approval by world governments.

In the end, there was little debate on the strength of the wording about the role of man in global warming.

The panel quickly agreed Thursday on two of the most contentious issues: attributing global warming to man-made burning of fossil fuels and connecting it to a recent increase in stronger hurricanes.

Negotiations over a third and more difficult issue — how much the sea level is predicted to rise by 2100 — went into the night Thursday with a deadline approaching for the report.

While critics call the panel overly alarmist, it is by nature relatively cautious because it relies on hundreds of scientists, including skeptics.

"I hope that policymakers will be quite convinced by this message," said Riibeta Abeta, a delegate whose island nation Kiribati is threatened by rising seas. "The purpose is to get them moving."

The Chinese delegation was resistant to strong wording on global warming, said Barbados delegate Leonard Fields and others. China has increasingly turned to fossil fuels for its huge and growing energy needs.

The U.S. government delegation was not one of the more vocal groups in the debate over whether warming is man-made, said officials from other countries. And several attendees credited the head of the panel session, Susan Solomon, a top U.S. government climate scientist, with pushing through the agreement so quickly.

The Bush administration acknowledges that global warming is man-made and a problem that must be dealt with, Bush science adviser John Marburger has said. However, Bush continues to reject mandatory limits on so-called "greenhouse" gases.

But this is more than just a U.S. issue.

"What you're trying to do is get the whole planet under the proverbial tent in how to deal with this, not just the rich countries," Mahlman said Thursday. "I think we're in a different kind of game now."

The panel, created by the United Nations in 1988, releases its assessments every five or six years — although scientists have been observing aspects of climate change since as far back as the 1960s. The reports are released in phases — this is the first of four this year.

The next report is due in April and will discuss the effects of global warming. But that issue was touched upon in the current document.

The report says that global warming has made stronger hurricanes, including those on the Atlantic Ocean, such as Hurricane Katrina.

The report said that an increase in hurricane and tropical cyclone strength since 1970 "more likely than not" can be attributed to man-made global warming. The scientists said global warming's connection varies with storms in different parts of the world, but that the storms that strike the Americas are global warming-influenced.

That's a contrast from the 2001 which said there was not enough evidence to make such a conclusion. And it conflicts with a November 2006 statement by the World Meteorological Organization, which helped found the IPCC. The meteorological group said it could not link past stronger storms to global warming.

Fields — of Barbados, a country in the path of many hurricanes — said the new wording was "very important." He noted that insurance companies — which look to science to calculate storm risk — "watch the language, too
So, looks like there's gonna be runs on kayaks in the near future.....

What do you have to say about that ANT??? Okay pookie.....
 

Bunny™

The mod who didn't
Staff member
#3
So it doesn't matter what we do to stop it now?
SWEET.

Time to buy that old Dodge Polara I've had my eye on.
Emissions laws be damned!
 

tar_baby

Rush Limbaugh
#4
goddamn give me a fucking break....for those liberal hippie global warming extremists if there is nothing we can do...why even write about it and waste our time with it...the earth goes in cycles for christs sake...and glacier mass is increasing in the south pole (i think im right on this one but i might not be...hehe...just gotta put that in)
 

Myhairygrundle

Screw you guys, I'm going home.
#5
Right, and Santa Claus came down my chimeny and left me presents when I was a kid.

I don't believe it and never will. Much more powerful forces were here before us and will be long after I am gone. Many forest fires, volcanos, and dinosaur farts were present before.

Wasn't there some panic in the 70's about "global cooling?"



.
 

Angelfuck

Part of the Ronnie B. crowd
#6
the way I understand it, the hole in the ozone = greenhouse gases = melting icecaps = greenhouse gases. if the hole gets bigger the process quickens. yes we are fucked but Ive seen predictions of anywhere from 5-56" on the sealevel in the next 200 years... we all know the earth will survive but Im not sure what the consequences are for humankind

heres a quote from an expert
The threat of severe global climate imbalance and localized climate chaos will continue to accelerate as fossil-fueled civilization continues down its current consumptive-oriented path. Methane from termites, cows, garbage dumps and rice paddies threaten to inevitably unleash compacted methane currently locked in polar ice. Reckless burning of fossil fuels unleashing long-cycle carbon dioxide is only the catalyst. Remember that "short-cycle" carbon dioxide is okay -- local combustion / conversion of plant-life that was alive the previous season -- only releases C02 "in balance" with the C02 that was inhaled by the living biomass/plant.
notice it doesnt say anything about reversing it
 

bethm1b

person of interest
#7
People say "end of the human race" like it's a bad thing. The plants and animals wont miss us one little bit. Look at the bright side, 1.3 billion dead muslims.
 
#10
Educated human, science guy checking in here...

The global warming and ozone are 2 diff issues....The ozone hole is actually recovering, and is smaller now than it was just a few years ago because the US led by example and others followed suit and banned cfc's etc...

GLOBAL WARMING IS HAPPENING...I am so fucking sick of people saying "Dude it's cyclical...Dude, in the 70's they said we have global cooling..." well in the 70's did we have Micro processors? Hi res landsat satellites? Arcti Ice core studies that span 600,000 years? Global communication and weather monitoring? ETC...

Here is a challenge for you all, everyone who says that global warming is not happening, See the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" Don't hide behind the excuse that it is a political movie, or some sort of liberal douche film, it is not. It is not a michael moore personal agenda driven style movie, It is a factual documentary about global warming as presented by Al Gore, a very learned man who is uber knowledgeable when it comes to the CO2 and global warming connection.

IF you can watch that movie, and not be retarded about it, and still deny that global warming is occurring then come back. But, bear in mind that you can't watch the movie saying "Fuck this, this is bullshit/I'm bored" the movie is not only based on, but ingrained with scientific truth and proof of global warming. Take a look at the astounding rise in CO2 levels that will occur over the next 50 years...


and exhale....

Seriously, I have no political offiliation, and I hate it when people mix up politics with science...Science is ALWAYS correct, politicians are not.


Oh and seeing as it is 90% likely the US govt will 90% commit to doing something about it ;)
 

tar_baby

Rush Limbaugh
#11
i already posted facts that refuted gore's bullshit movie...its in one of the other threads

but of course the global warming people dont like to deal with facts because that proves them wrong
 

BIV

I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.
#12
What are all of these global warming idiots going to say when the weather is back to normal in 15 years?

They like to talk about facts, show all these idiot charts, crunch the numbers but miss the most obvious facts of all; we saw the same weather patterns 30-35 years ago, and again 30-35 years before that....and 30-35 years before that.

But keep telling yourself the sky is falling...I'm shopping for a new SUV.
 
#13
TreeFortRichard said:
Here is a challenge for you all, everyone who says that global warming is not happening, See the movie "An Inconvenient Truth"
Based on the responses to this thread, the movie's title is perfect.
 
#14
Seth Borenstein is the same reporter that writes most of these "sky is falling" environmental articles. In fact I've never seen him write anything else.

Edit: Google his name and you'll see numerous doomsday articles. It's probably how he gets his stuff sold. We all know the media loves scaring the shit out of people. Fuck him.
 
#15
We still don't know one way or the other. Best to decrease our CO2 and CH4 releases in an economically efficient manner and not panic. People are loosing thier heads on both sides of the issue, there is an optimal and safe compromise.
 
#16
Warming 'likely' man-made, unstoppable
Unstoppable? Oh well, might as well enjoy the ride. I'll go sign the papers on the Hummer after lunch...
 

TrybalRage

Registered User
#17
TreeFortRichard said:
GLOBAL WARMING IS HAPPENING...I am so fucking sick of people saying "Dude it's cyclical...Dude, in the 70's they said we have global cooling..." well in the 70's did we have Micro processors? Hi res landsat satellites? Arcti Ice core studies that span 600,000 years? Global communication and weather monitoring? ETC...

Here is a challenge for you all, everyone who says that global warming is not happening, See the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" Don't hide behind the excuse that it is a political movie, or some sort of liberal douche film, it is not. It is not a michael moore personal agenda driven style movie, It is a factual documentary about global warming as presented by Al Gore, a very learned man who is uber knowledgeable when it comes to the CO2 and global warming connection.

IF you can watch that movie, and not be retarded about it, and still deny that global warming is occurring then come back. But, bear in mind that you can't watch the movie saying "Fuck this, this is bullshit/I'm bored" the movie is not only based on, but ingrained with scientific truth and proof of global warming. Take a look at the astounding rise in CO2 levels that will occur over the next 50 years....
Did we cause the last ice age? Did we cause the last ice age to end?

I can never take Al Gores advice on anything, much less the environment. There is nothing in his education that gives him any validity on the subject. He's simply a big name pushing a view. Fuck Al Gore.

If global warming is happening, and I'm not saying it's not, it has little to do with us. A report came out awhile back that the fucking RAINFORESTS were contributing to a significant amount of CO2 emmissions. So spare me. Scientists agree that at one point on this planet, it was much much warmer, and much much cooler than it is now. To think we caused it, or can stop it is just another example of how fucking pompous we are as a species.
 

ruckstande

Posts mostly from the shitter.
Donator
#18
Since we can't stop it, I'm going to start campaigning for McDonald's and Burger King to bring back the styrofoam boxes. Those were wonderful.
 

Buster H

Alt-F4
Wackbag Staff
#19
abudabit said:
We still don't know one way or the other. Best to decrease our CO2 and CH4 releases in an economically efficient manner and not panic. People are loosing thier heads on both sides of the issue, there is an optimal and safe compromise.
you never disappoint me sir.

Anyone who says that global warming is ABSOLUTELY caused by humans is an idiot.

Anyone who is it is ABSOLUTELY not happening is an idiot as well.

I am not a climatologist, but I have been working in the engineering world for 20 years. My mind does not allow me to make a decision on either front yet. Hell, even the climatologists cannot agree 100%. Given that, what would be wrong with trying to reduce the amount of C02 and CH4 (methane) releases?

I am not, nor would I have tell everyone to buy a hybrid, but I do try to conserve when I can.
 
#20
TreeFortRichard said:
Educated human, science guy checking in here...

The global warming and ozone are 2 diff issues....The ozone hole is actually recovering, and is smaller now than it was just a few years ago because the US led by example and others followed suit and banned cfc's etc...

GLOBAL WARMING IS HAPPENING...I am so fucking sick of people saying "Dude it's cyclical...Dude, in the 70's they said we have global cooling..." well in the 70's did we have Micro processors? Hi res landsat satellites? Arcti Ice core studies that span 600,000 years? Global communication and weather monitoring? ETC...

Here is a challenge for you all, everyone who says that global warming is not happening, See the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" Don't hide behind the excuse that it is a political movie, or some sort of liberal douche film, it is not. It is not a michael moore personal agenda driven style movie, It is a factual documentary about global warming as presented by Al Gore, a very learned man who is uber knowledgeable when it comes to the CO2 and global warming connection.

IF you can watch that movie, and not be retarded about it, and still deny that global warming is occurring then come back. But, bear in mind that you can't watch the movie saying "Fuck this, this is bullshit/I'm bored" the movie is not only based on, but ingrained with scientific truth and proof of global warming. Take a look at the astounding rise in CO2 levels that will occur over the next 50 years...


and exhale....

Seriously, I have no political offiliation, and I hate it when people mix up politics with science...Science is ALWAYS correct, politicians are not.


Oh and seeing as it is 90% likely the US govt will 90% commit to doing something about it ;)
Old posts. Read them.

Also, I am not going to watch Al Gore, he has no expertise in the field except his agenda.

beylorussian54 said:
A highly heated argument we hear about almost everyday is air pollution. Environmentalists say that factories, cars, and other combustible engines and machines are polluting are air with increase CO2 and other gases that hurt the ozone, causing global warming (another topic that will be discussed further on). However, studies have shown that SO2 has decreased 80% since 1962, CO levels are down 75% since 1970, NO is down 38% since 1975, and that ground level ozone has decreased 30% since 1977. Environmentalists want us to believe that we are highly affecting the Earth by putting all these gases into it, but that is not the case. However, the biggest issue of the today is global warming. Global warming caused by the consumption of fossil fuels is not as large of a catastrophe as believed. The actual measured temperatures are not increasing as fast as models say they should be, any increase is more than likely to be at the low side of the predictions, and no one believes that can cause a disaster. Also, even if temperatures were to increase exponentially, it will be less costly to adapt to the changes. Most studies have found that it would cost $5 trillion to adapt completely to global warming over the next century. However, cutting back the use of fossil fuel emissions (as suggested by the Kyoto Protocol) is an estimated price of $107 to $274 trillion over the same time period. In conclusion, environmentalists overstate facts in order to get people to submit to their ideas. Although the threat of all the before mentioned things are real, they are not as bad as environmentalists want you to believe they truly are.
byelorussian54 said:
I am not denying that particules released from natural sources (methane gas from cows, volcanoes, etc..) have an effect, but it is not to the degree that environmentalists say it is. Here is something I wrote a while back on this topic.


Look at this chart closely. The Earth is not getting hotter. This is nothing new. The Earth's temperature has always flucated.
byelorussian54 said:
The slight increase in hurricane activity is not due to a global warming. It is a cycle as this image will show. You can see how much it varies in just this small time period.


I have a problem with one thing you said. Katrina like chances. The city of New Orleans was unprepared for a Catagory 5. If it was up to me, people would not live in New Orleans because it is not a suitable or practical place to live in. Katrina was 902 mbar's. Out of the 10 most powerful Atlantic hurricanes, 6 have occured before 2000 and 5 have occured before 1990.

Katrina like chances, sir? Katrina might have been the most costly, but it was no where near the most powerful.
byelorussian54 said:
Oh, OK, sure, no problem.


As you can see, there is a slight increase in the amount, but is not something overwhelming (I compared 1950-1965 to 1990-2005).
 

Buster H

Alt-F4
Wackbag Staff
#21
ready for this one? There are some theories that global warming could send us into another ice age.

With a rapid increase in polar ice cap melting, it will add a great deal of fresh water to the northern Atlantic. This increase in fresh water interrupt the flow of the gulf stream. It is responsible for keeping areas like england
The ocean currents like the gulf stream are what keep alot of the northern Atlantic from being covered in ice. London is actually farther north than the continental US. It is at the same latitude as some of the Alution Islands in Alaska. It is not bitter cold there because of the gulf stream. If it were to be interrupted, the north east coast of the US and Western Europe would have winters that are twice as long and twice as cold.

Here's a snippet of the actual process:

If the climate system’s Achilles’ heel is the Conveyor, the Conveyor’s Achilles’ heel is the North Atlantic. An influx of fresh water into the North Atlantic’s surface could create a lid of more buoyant fresh water, lying atop denser, saltier water. This fresh water would effectively cap and insulate the surface of the North Atlantic, curtailing the ocean’s transfer of heat to the atmosphere.

An influx of fresh water would also dilute the North Atlantic’s salinity. At a critical but unknown threshold, when North Atlantic waters are no longer sufficiently salty and dense, they may stop sinking. An important force driving the Conveyor could quickly diminish, with climate impacts resulting within a decade.
 

ruckstande

Posts mostly from the shitter.
Donator
#22
What information are all of these so called "experts" or "authorities" gathering their results from? I'm reading byelorussian54's chart and to me it seems pretty cut and dry. Hurricanes happen and some were better and some were worse than they are now. Temperature also hasn't fluctuated that much according to the chart. To me it seems like that's just life. So what estimates do the doom and gloom scientists have to say in contrast. I know we contribute, I can't argue that fact because we do, but I don't believe we are any better or any worse than we have been at any point in history.
 

Ndugu

Registered User
#23
Buster H said:
ready for this one? There are some theories that global warming could send us into another ice age.

With a rapid increase in polar ice cap melting, it will add a great deal of fresh water to the northern Atlantic. This increase in fresh water interrupt the flow of the gulf stream. It is responsible for keeping areas like england
The ocean currents like the gulf stream are what keep alot of the northern Atlantic from being covered in ice. London is actually farther north than the continental US. It is at the same latitude as some of the Alution Islands in Alaska. It is not bitter cold there because of the gulf stream. If it were to be interrupted, the north east coast of the US and Western Europe would have winters that are twice as long and twice as cold.

Here's a snippet of the actual process:
Hoo hoo, you're rippin' off Dennis Quaid.
 
#24
umm...I would like to know how they located, tracked and measured atlantic hurricanes in the 1800's? I am sure that their data is spot on....You know how accurate the 1865 anemometer was...the belief that the anemometer was uniformly accurate reguardless of the size of the cup used resulted in a near 60% error rate for wind speeds measured in the 19th century. Today's wind speeds are accurate...

And for those who debate the credentials of Al Gore, see the movie, he tells you his credentials...
 

Bill

Registered User
#25
ruckstande said:
I'm reading byelorussian54's chart and to me it seems pretty cut and dry. Hurricanes happen and some were better and some were worse than they are now.
Global warming is not supposed to cause more hurricanes. It's supposed to cause the hurricanes that do occur to be stronger than they would have been had global warming not taken place.

The number of high intensity hurricanes (which includes typhoons & cyclones, which are different names for hurricanes when they occur in other parts of the world) has been growing year after year. 2006 saw more category 5 storms than ever before. Luckily for the US, they occurred near Asia & Australia, not the US.

Rather than rewriting the same stuff that I've written before, here's an old post of mine discussing this.

If you look a few posts down from the one in that link, you will see that the person that I was discussing this with, followed up and researched my claims and agreed that this was, in fact, correct.
 
Top