The debate on the causes of Global Warming is over...

[Lusted]

...or at least it will be when the UNs Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change releases its 4th Assesment Report on the 2nd of February. most of what will be in it is already known as a draft was posted on the internet back in April.

2500+ scientific expert reviewers, 800+ contributing authors and 450+ lead authorts from 130 countries have contributed to this report which has been worked on for 6 years.

This report will include statements like(most taken from Guardian article on it from yesterdays paper. These are either direct quotes from the report or paraphrased):

human activites since 1750 have very likely(>90%) exerted a net warming influence on climate

further emissions of greenhouse gases would be expected to change the climate of the 21st century

its is highly unlikely(<5%) that observed warming and ice loss are due to natural factors

The report is based on research and reviews already published, and for some scientists does not go far enough.

So the report will confirm the debate on global warming has mvoed on from whether humans are warming the planet, but instead on what the impacts will be and what we can do about it.

Now i know there are some on this forum who do not think humans are contributing to global warming, but if a UN report featuring work by thousands of scientists from around the globe cannot convince people that we are, then im not sure what can.

Global warming could have serious impact if temperatures rise by 3C or more over the next century. Predictions vary from model to model and from test to test, but temperatures could rise by as much as 5.8C(and remember a rise of even 1C can have a huge impact).

Here are some of the possible impacts global warming could have(taken from the Guardian, and based on various scenarios and models):

Mild Impact1C to 2C rise on pre-industrial levels.
Already increased by 0.7C since 1900 so we will be extremely lucky if we get away with a rise this small. Small glaciers in the Andes melt, and dry regions become much drier. Mediterranean countries, and parts of southern Africa and South America would have 20% to 30% less water availability. Up to 10 million more people affected by coastal flooding, and 40-60 million more exposed to malaria in Africa.

Significant Impact 3C rise on pre-industrial levels.
Serious droughts occur once a decade in Southern Europe. Betwen 1 and 4 bilion will suffer water shortages. Higher agricultural yields in US and UK, but sharp drop in the tropics putting 150-550 million people at risk of hunger. Between 1 and 170 million more people will be affected by coastal flooding. One study suggests between 20% and 50% of specis will face extinction.

On current trends temperatures will have risen by 3C by mid-century. This could result in 150-200 million climate refugees.

Strong Impact4C rise on pre-industrial levels.
Dry regions such as the Mediterranean and Southern Africa will suffer a 30% to 50% drop in water availability. Agricultural yields will drop by 15% to 35% in Africa, and 80 million more exposed to malaria. 7-300million more people exposed to coastal flooding. Half Artic Tundra will be lost. West Antartic ice sheet may collapse, leading to significant sea level rise.

Catastrophic Impact5C or more rise on pre-industrial levels.
(This is on top of all the previous things). Most Himalayan glaciers will disappear. 25% of Chinas population and millions of Indians will be deprived from water - melt water provides 70% of the water in the Ganges. Cities like London, New York and Tokyo will be threatened by sea level rises. Rising ocean acidity will disrupt fish stocks and ecosystems. Feedback effects kick in pushing global warming further.


Global warming is a big problem, and its our problem. If we do not act now to curb our carbon emissions, we could be experiencing the effects listed above by the end of the century.

[bdh]

Global warming is a big problem, and its our problem. If we do not act now to curb our carbon emissions, we could be experiencing the effects listed above by the end of the century.

I can tell you what the impact will be right now: mild. Fears of global warming have long been inflated particularly since all of the most apocalyptic models have been disproven. Its much more likely that the Earth is more stable than thought.

That, and the fact that such drastic rises in temperature would cause horrible economic decline, curbing consumption, and ultimately mitigating release of CO2.
Furthermore, the drastic change in climate would devastate herds of cattle which are the single greatest producer of greenhouse gases. Combine that with dwindling oil reserves and growing acceptance of nuclear power, I think things will be fine.

[Lusted]

I can tell you what the impact will be right now: mild. Fears of global warming have long been inflated particularly since all of the most apocalyptic models have been disproven. Its much more likely that the Earth is more stable than thought.

However a recent surge in atmospheric carbon dioxide since 2001 has triggered fears that positive feedback effects(seas, forests and soil less able to absorb CO2) may alredy be kicking in.

That, and the fact that such drastic rises in temperature would cause horrible economic decline, curbing consumption, and ultimately mitigating release of CO2.
Furthermore, the drastic change in climate would devastate herds of cattle which are the single greatest producer of greenhouse gases. Combine that with dwindling oil reserves and growing acceptance of nuclear power, I think things will be fine.

Even if all sources of emissions were frozen today average temperatures would still rise by 01.C a decade due to a lag in the global climate system.

[bdh]

However a recent surge in atmospheric carbon dioxide since 2001 has triggered fears that positive feedback effects(seas, forests and soil less able to absorb CO2) may alredy be kicking in.

Seas, forests, and soil less able to absorb CO2 isn't positive feedback. Positive feedback is the release of CO2 causing the release of more CO2. Such arguments haven't been proven.

Even if all sources of emissions were frozen today average temperatures would still rise by 01.C a decade due to a lag in the global climate system.

That, as well, is speculative.

The beauty of climate science is that it is all completely speculative. People don't even know how water vapor works yet.

[Lusted]

It may be speculative, but there is more and more and more evidence to back it up. Global warming is something we cannot ignore, and we cannot just hope that it will sort itself out. We are causing problesm for ourselves, we are going to have to fix them.

[Guderian]

What debate on global warming? I thought all climate scientists agreed that it was occurring already.

The IPCC released a report back in 2001, in which it stated global warming is definitely occurring and that it is most likely due to man made greenhouse gases. This report is backed by most environmental science organisations.

[Erik]

Now i know there are some on this forum who do not think humans are contributing to global warming, but if a UN report featuring work by thousands of scientists from around the globe cannot convince people that we are, then im not sure what can.

A lot of people, including the majority of Americans, still refuse to accept that evolution is real.
And there is much stronger scientific consensus about evolution than about global warming.
So I wouldn't count on this report making a big impact on the world opinion.

Most people have already taken their position years/decades ago.
Most of the left-wing have supported the theory of human induced global warming since long before we had any hard evidence/data.
And (possibly as a reaction) most of the right-wing has always claimed it's all just a hoax or a global left-wing conspiracy.
No report is going to change their positions because neither side is willing to admit that they were wrong.
Such is human nature.

[Last Roman]

A lot of people, including the majority of Americans, still refuse to accept that evolution is real.

actually if I may interject...that's not true, they are the minority (albeit a large minority)

[Zeffen]

actually if I may interject...that's not true, they are the minority (albeit a large minority)

"a large minority" i smell an oxymoron.

[Gwendylyn]

"a large minority" i smell an oxymoron.

49.9 % of a given population would constitute a "large minority". It is not an oxymoron. In terms of creationists, ~30% of the US population, or over 100 million, would certainly be a large minority.

[Last Roman]

"a large minority" i smell an oxymoron.

not at all. 48% of the population is still the minority, but a large one (as opposed to say 10%)

[JP226]

So... I can't stand envirofundamentalism. Is the climate suppose to be static in the first place? And because it's not, it's our fault?

[Lusted]

So... I can't stand envirofundamentalism. Is the climate suppose to be static in the first place? And because it's not, it's our fault?

1. The climate is not static, and there is a natural prcoess of global warming

2. But there is enough evidence to show that humanity is contributing to the process and pushing it further than it would happen naturally.

[Erik]

2. But there is enough evidence to show that humanity is contributing to the process and pushing it further than it would happen naturally.

True, but even if all global warming were natural I still think it's a good idea to counter it.

To compare:
What if scientists discovered that a giant asteroid is on course to hit and completely destroy the earth in 100 years time.
Would it be so wrong to invest a few billion in a way to deflect that asteroid and safe the world?
Even if the chance of succeeding isn't that good?

Following the logic of the "anti-environmentalists" it's totally wrong to deflect such asteroids because an asteroid hitting the earth is an entirely natural event and humans aren't to blame for it in any way.
They rather see the world destroyed than give up a few % of their GDP.
Maybe it's because I'm Dutch but this fatalistic line of taught seems very strange to me.

[JP226]

2. But there is enough evidence to show that humanity is contributing to the process and pushing it further than it would happen naturally.

And then if you include watervapor into the mix you find that their is hardly, if any human involvement in global warming.

[Tom Paine]

Of course,

2500+ scientific expert reviewers, 800+ contributing authors and 450+ lead authorts from 130 countries

have ignored that factor... or maybe they have looked at it fully and looked at the causes of the water vapour as well...

[Aristophanes]

I would like to believe that this report is factual, but the politicization of this issue, particularly at the UN, seems to preclude a balanced and wholistic approach to the question.

[JP226]

have ignored that factor... or maybe they have looked at it fully and looked at the causes of the water vapour as well...

well you want to play that game

During the past 2 years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition.
Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists (select this link for a listing of these individuals) who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate.

Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences (select this link for a listing of these individuals) make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth's plant and animal life.

Nearly all of the initial 17,100 scientist signers have technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data, and many are trained in related fields. In addition to these 17,100, approximately 2,400 individuals have signed the petition who are trained in fields other than science or whose field of specialization was not specified on their returned petition.

Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified. One name that was sent in by enviro pranksters, Geri Halliwell, PhD, has been eliminated. Several names, such as Perry Mason and Robert Byrd are still on the list even though enviro press reports have ridiculed their identity with the names of famous personalities. They are actual signers. Perry Mason, for example, is a PhD Chemist.

The costs of this petition project have been paid entirely by private donations. No industrial funding or money from sources within the coal, oil, natural gas or related industries has been utilized. The petition's organizers, who include some faculty members and staff of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, do not otherwise receive funds from such sources. The Institute itself has no such funding. Also, no funds of tax-exempt organizations have been used for this project.

The signatures and the text of the petition stand alone and speak for themselves. These scientists have signed this specific document. They are not associated with any particular organization. Their signatures represent a strong statement about this important issue by many of the best scientific minds in the United States.

This project is titled "Petition Project" and uses a mailing address of its own because the organizers desired an independent, individual opinion from each scientist based on the scientific issues involved - without any implied endorsements of individuals, groups, or institutions.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

[Guderian]

well you want to play that game



http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

Is there any way to validate any of those signatures?

Afaik the list of signatures is just a bunch of names with PhD next to em.

[Guderian]

Regarding water vapour...of course scientists are aware of it...jebus christ, do you think they are idiots?

Climate change is a natural process the earth goes through every couple of hundreds of thousand of years, the main greenhouse gas IS water vapour (everyone knows this, or should know it, I learnt it in highschool). But the problem the scientists are talking about now is that global temperatures are rising way too fast for it to be apart of the natural process. The conclusion scientists have come up with is that rising levels of Co2 in the atmosphere is what is responsible for the rising temps, as Co2 is also a greenhouse gas. Temps have risen faster during the industrial age than in the last 650,000 years before industrialisation...coincidence? I think not.