Thread: "Countdown to global catastrophe" according to international scientists

man this is some scary stuff....

Countdown to global catastrophe
Climate change: report warns point of no return may be reached in 10 years, leading to droughts, agricultural failure and water shortages
By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor
24 January 2005


The global warming danger threshold for the world is clearly marked for the first time in an international report to be published tomorrow - and the bad news is, the world has nearly reached it already.

The countdown to climate-change catastrophe is spelt out by a task force of senior politicians, business leaders and academics from around the world - and it is remarkably brief. In as little as 10 years, or even less, their report indicates, the point of no return with global warming may have been reached.

The report, Meeting The Climate Challenge, is aimed at policymakers in every country, from national leaders down. It has been timed to coincide with Tony Blair's promised efforts to advance climate change policy in 2005 as chairman of both the G8 group of rich countries and the European Union.

And it breaks new ground by putting a figure - for the first time in such a high-level document - on the danger point of global warming, that is, the temperature rise beyond which the world would be irretrievably committed to disastrous changes. These could include widespread agricultural failure, water shortages and major droughts, increased disease, sea-level rise and the death of forests - with the added possibility of abrupt catastrophic events such as "runaway" global warming, the melting of the Greenland ice sheet, or the switching-off of the Gulf Stream.

The report says this point will be two degrees centigrade above the average world temperature prevailing in 1750 before the industrial revolution, when human activities - mainly the production of waste gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), which retain the sun's heat in the atmosphere - first started to affect the climate. But it points out that global average temperature has already risen by 0.8 degrees since then, with more rises already in the pipeline - so the world has little more than a single degree of temperature latitude before the crucial point is reached.

More ominously still, it assesses the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere after which the two-degree rise will become inevitable, and says it will be 400 parts per million by volume (ppm) of CO2.

The current level is 379ppm, and rising by more than 2ppm annually - so it is likely that the vital 400ppm threshold will be crossed in just 10 years' time, or even less (although the two-degree temperature rise might take longer to come into effect).

"There is an ecological timebomb ticking away," said Stephen Byers, the former transport secretary, who co-chaired the task force that produced the report with the US Republican senator Olympia Snowe. It was assembled by the Institute for Public Policy Research in the UK, the Centre for American Progress in the US, and The Australia Institute.The group's chief scientific adviser is Dr Rakendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The report urges all the G8 countries to agree to generate a quarter of their electricity from renewable sources by 2025, and to double their research spending on low-carbon energy technologies by 2010. It also calls on the G8 to form a climate group with leading developing nations such as India and China, which have big and growing CO2 emissions.

"What this underscores is that it's what we invest in now and in the next 20 years that will deliver a stable climate, not what we do in the middle of the century or later," said Tom Burke, a former government adviser on green issues who now advises business.

The report starkly spells out the likely consequences of exceeding the threshold. "Beyond the 2 degrees C level, the risks to human societies and ecosystems grow significantly," it says.

"It is likely, for example, that average-temperature increases larger than this will entail substantial agricultural losses, greatly increased numbers of people at risk of water shortages, and widespread adverse health impacts. [They] could also imperil a very high proportion of the world's coral reefs and cause irreversible damage to important terrestrial ecosystems, including the Amazon rainforest."

It goes on: "Above the 2 degrees level, the risks of abrupt, accelerated, or runaway climate change also increase. The possibilities include reaching climatic tipping points leading, for example, to the loss of the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets (which, between them, could raise sea level more than 10 metres over the space of a few centuries), the shutdown of the thermohaline ocean circulation (and, with it, the Gulf Stream), and the transformation of the planet's forests and soils from a net sink of carbon to a net source of carbon."

source

So, you had to add fuel to the fire. Check out the Global Warming thread and see what that has evolved into. People are more interested in putting their heads in the sand than actually addressing these issues, or even considering the possibility of human induced climate change. These studies continue to indicate evidence to support the possibility of global warming, and yet the scientists that are doing research and releasing studies are just a bunch of quacks trying to make a buck.

Maybe if we just keep saying that it doesn't exist, it will go away.

Makes me mad to know how irresponsible and in denial so many people are, caring only about themselves and their generation.

Makes me laugh the measures these enviornmentalists go to in order to get more moola to spend!

Do they ever mention the fact that increased amounts of CO2 allow for an increase in the growth of all plant life, which thrives on CO2? And the fact that more plants equal less heat reflection from the sun?

Not to mention the fact that they have no proof whatsoever we are causing a catastrophe with global warming. The earth undergoes a regular series of intervals going from ice age to tropical climates. They do not know if this increase in temperature is just from the natural heating of our earth, reaching its maximum point after the previous ice age.

Nor do they acknowledge the fact that trying to create global warming may actually help to prevent another ice age from destroying our civilization in the future. The effects of the extreme cooling of the earth, coupled with the fact of our increase by global warming may keep our world thriving during these times!


I am not saying we should continue using coal power all the way. I am just acknowledging the fact that enviornmentalists function highly off of speculation and theory, and the difference we make in the climate will not be a big one. Solar and electric power are still important as alternatives to fossil fuels and air pollution, but by no means are we facing a horrible catastrophe in the near future.

Originally Posted by Gabo

I am not saying we should continue using coal power all the way. I am just acknowledging the fact that enviornmentalists function highly off of speculation and theory, and the difference we make in the climate will not be a big one. Solar and electric power are still important as alternatives to fossil fuels and air pollution, but by no means are we facing a horrible catastrophe in the near future.

Your opinion is based on what?

Originally Posted by Norrin Radd

Your opinion is based on what?

Facts presented in the rest of my previous post....

Originally Posted by Gabo

Makes me laugh the measures these enviornmentalists go to in order to get more moola to spend!

Do they ever mention the fact that increased amounts of CO2 allow for an increase in the growth of all plant life, which thrives on CO2? And the fact that more plants equal less heat reflection from the sun?

Not to mention the fact that they have no proof whatsoever we are causing a catastrophe with global warming. The earth undergoes a regular series of intervals going from ice age to tropical climates. They do not know if this increase in temperature is just from the natural heating of our earth, reaching its maximum point after the previous ice age.

Nor do they acknowledge the fact that trying to create global warming may actually help to prevent another ice age from destroying our civilization in the future. The effects of the extreme cooling of the earth, coupled with the fact of our increase by global warming may keep our world thriving during these times!


I am not saying we should continue using coal power all the way. I am just acknowledging the fact that enviornmentalists function highly off of speculation and theory, and the difference we make in the climate will not be a big one. Solar and electric power are still important as alternatives to fossil fuels and air pollution, but by no means are we facing a horrible catastrophe in the near future.

Interesting. In the same post the idea that the "we" has a noticeable impact on the environment (plant life mass increasing because of the "we") but in the same time rejection of the idea of a noticeable impact on the environment ("we" wont make the climate change).

Originally Posted by GeneralStark

People are more interested in putting their heads in the sand than actually addressing these issues, or even considering the possibility of human induced climate change.

The fact studies might be or not true is irrelevant.
The democratic question is: is it possible to take account of them?

Democratically speaking, admitting that human kind has induced a climate change implies the issue of responsibility. Who has done what.

It can be infered that those who are the biggest inducers might be those who benefited the most from that behaviour.
In the mass of the inducers, it is very likely that democratic people are the huge majority.

Now claiming the responsibility for a possible climate change is certainly not a reasonable choice.

If some tidy pacific islands are to disappear because of the rise of sea level, it is possible that they take action against those who are responsible for the sea level. Democratically speaking, it would even be legitimate.

On the contrary, denying everything is more valuable.
Not only one wont be drawn in the responsibility stuff but one can hope to get those who will suffer from the climate change pay to get a bettering of their situation.

If a country needs to build dams to negate the rise of the sea level, if one is pointed as responsible, one has to pay for the construction of the dams.
If one has turned down responsibility, one can hope to participate to the bids for the construction of the dams and be paid for the construction.

All in all, in a democratic context, there is a lot to earn to put someone in a situation you know he will be compelled to pay to go out of.

Originally Posted by Gabo

Facts presented in the rest of my previous post....

What facts? I only see opinions...

Originally Posted by GeneralStark

What facts? I only see opinions...

Do you have any facts?