Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)Thread (merg

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)Thread (merg

Unread postby Zardoz » Wed 24 Jan 2007, 01:22:15

Human-caused global warming is here, visible in the air, water and melting ice, and is destined to get much worse in the future, an authoritative global scientific report will warn next week.
"The smoking gun is definitely lying on the table as we speak," said top U.S. climate scientist Jerry Mahlman, who reviewed all 1,600 pages of the first segment of a giant four-part report. "The evidence ... is compelling." Andrew Weaver, a Canadian climate scientist and study co-author, went even further: "This isn't a smoking gun; climate is a batallion of intergalactic smoking missiles."

...As confident as scientists are about the global warming effects that they've already documented, they are as gloomy about the future and even hotter weather and higher sea level rises. Predictions for the future of global warming in the report are based on 19 computer models, about twice as many as in the past, Solomon said...

...The future is bleak, scientists said. "We have barely started down this path," said chapter co-author Richard Alley of Penn State University.

Sounds like the report is not going to make us feel better.
Last edited by Ferretlover on Tue 26 Jan 2010, 12:00:20, edited 3 times in total.
Reason: Merge thread.
"Thank you for attending the oil age. We're going to scrape what we can out of these tar pits in Alberta and then shut down the machines and turn out the lights. Goodnight." - seldom_seen
User avatar
Zardoz
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6323
Joined: Fri 02 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Oil-addicted Southern Californucopia

Re: IPCC report has 'smoking gun' on climate

Unread postby TreebeardsUncle » Wed 24 Jan 2007, 03:50:34

Have seen this on msnbc.com etc. It is still early days. What will be more useful, than past revelations, is a more narrow prediction for the range of the expected temperature rise for the remainder of this century.
TreebeardsUncle
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 683
Joined: Thu 15 Jun 2006, 03:00:00

Re: IPCC report has 'smoking gun' on climate

Unread postby Loki » Wed 24 Jan 2007, 03:59:19

This is just liberal scare-mongering designed to get the UN to take over our glorious republic. If I want the real truth about "global warming," I'll just listen to Professor Rush Limbaugh or Senator James Inhofe. They know more about the global ecosystem than all the Ph.D. climate scientists put together.

[this is sarcasm for you folks with no sense of humor]
User avatar
Loki
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 3509
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Oregon

Re: IPCC report has 'smoking gun' on climate

Unread postby americandream » Wed 24 Jan 2007, 06:30:46

I blame 'em folks in the third world...theres just too many of 'em exhaling them green house gases.

It seems kinda unfair see'in how I'm being expected to sacrifice my hard earned hummer 'cos of the buggers.
americandream
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 8650
Joined: Mon 18 Oct 2004, 03:00:00

The Official IPCC Summary Document Release

Unread postby Lore » Fri 02 Feb 2007, 13:47:30

I thought this was deserving of its own topic as it's one of the most important reports to be released since the last one (6) years ago and will be referred to for many posts to come. (21) Pages PDF Format.

LINK: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis

Webcast LINK: Presented by Co-Chairs
Last edited by Ferretlover on Sat 04 Apr 2009, 23:06:50, edited 3 times in total.
Reason: Merged with THE IPCC Thread.
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
Lore
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Fri 26 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Fear Of A Blank Planet

Re: The Official IPCC Summary Document Release

Unread postby turmoil » Fri 02 Feb 2007, 13:53:13

Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased
markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values
determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years (see Figure SPM-1). The global
increases in carbon dioxide concentration are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land-use change,
while those of methane and nitrous oxide are primarily due to agriculture. {2.3, 6.4, 7.3}


Carbon dioxide is the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas (see Figure SPM-2). The global
atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased from a pre-industrial value of about 280 ppm to
379 ppm3 in 2005. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2005 exceeds by far the natural
range over the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm) as determined from ice cores. The annual carbon
dioxide concentration growth-rate was larger during the last 10 years (1995 – 2005 average: 1.9 ppm per
year), than it has been since the beginning of continuous direct atmospheric measurements (1960–2005
average: 1.4 ppm per year) although there is year-to-year variability in growth rates.


The global atmospheric concentration of methane has increased from a pre-industrial value of about 715
ppb to 1732 ppb in the early 1990s, and is 1774 ppb in 2005. The atmospheric concentration of methane in
2005 exceeds by far the natural range of the last 650,000 years (320 to 790 ppb) as determined from ice
cores. Growth rates have declined since the early 1990s, consistent with total emissions (sum of
anthropogenic and natural sources) being nearly constant during this period. It is very likely6 that the
observed increase in methane concentration is due to anthropogenic activities, predominantly agriculture
and fossil fuel use, but relative contributions from different source types are not well determined. {2.3, 7.4}


The combined radiative forcing due to increases in carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide is +2.30
[+2.07 to +2.53] W m-2, and its rate of increase during the industrial era is very likely to have been
unprecedented in more than 10,000 years (see Figures SPM-1 and SPM-2). The carbon dioxide radiative
forcing increased by 20% from 1995 to 2005, the largest change for any decade in at least the last 200
years. {2.3, 6.4}


Significant anthropogenic contributions to radiative forcing come from several other sources. Tropospheric
ozone changes due to emissions of ozone-forming chemicals (nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and
hydrocarbons) contribute +0.35 [+0.25 to +0.65] W m-2. The direct radiative forcing due to changes in
halocarbons8 is +0.34 [+0.31 to +0.37] W m-2. Changes in surface albedo, due to land-cover changes and
deposition of black carbon aerosols on snow, exert respective forcings of -0.2 [-0.4 to 0.0] and +0.1 [0.0 to
+0.2] W m-2. Additional terms smaller than +0.1 W m-2 are shown in Figure SPM-2. {2.3, 2.5, 7.2}


Observed rate of sea level rise and estimated contributions from different sources. {5.5, Table 5.3}

(very interesting)

Recent trends, assessment of human influence on the trend, and projections for extreme weather events for
which there is an observed late 20th century trend. {Tables 3.7, 3.8, 9.4, Sections 3.8, 5.5, 9.7, 11.2-11.9}

(very interesting)

Paleoclimate information supports the interpretation that the warmth of the last half century is
unusual in at least the previous 1300 years. The last time the polar regions were significantly warmer
than present for an extended period (about 125,000 years ago), reductions in polar ice volume led to
4 to 6 metres of sea level rise. {6.4, 6.6}

uh oh... :roll:

It is very unlikely that climate changes of at least the seven centuries prior to 1950 were due to variability
generated within the climate system alone. A significant fraction of the reconstructed Northern Hemisphere
interdecadal temperature variability over those centuries is very likely attributable to volcanic eruptions and
changes in solar irradiance, and it is likely that anthropogenic forcing contributed to the early 20th century
warming evident in these records.


Models used to date do not include uncertainties in climate-carbon cycle feedback nor do they include the
full effects of changes in ice sheet flow, because a basis in published literature is lacking. The projections
include a contribution due to increased ice flow from Greenland and Antarctica at the rates observed for
1993-2003, but these flow rates could increase or decrease in the future. For example, if this contribution
were to grow linearly with global average temperature change, the upper ranges of sea level rise for SRES
scenarios shown in Table SPM-2 would increase by 0.1 m to 0.2 m. Larger values cannot be excluded, but
understanding of these effects is too limited to assess their likelihood or provide a best estimate or an upper
bound for sea level rise. {10.6}

Thats funny. They don't know how high sea level is going to rise so they just say it will progress linearly, even though the temperatures and ice melts have not. :!:

Contraction of the Greenland ice sheet is projected to continue to contribute to sea level rise after 2100.
Current models suggest ice mass losses increase with temperature more rapidly than gains due to
precipitation and that the surface mass balance becomes negative at a global average warming (relative to
pre-industrial values) in excess of 1.9 to 4.6°C. If a negative surface mass balance were sustained for
millennia, that would lead to virtually complete elimination of the Greenland ice sheet and a resulting
contribution to sea level rise of about 7 m. The corresponding future temperatures in Greenland are
comparable to those inferred for the last interglacial period 125,000 years ago, when paleoclimatic
information suggests reductions of polar land ice extent and 4 to 6 m of sea level rise.

:!:
"If you are a real seeker after truth, it's necessary that at least once in your life you doubt all things as far as possible"-Rene Descartes

"When you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains however improbable must be the truth"-Sherlock Holmes
User avatar
turmoil
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Fri 13 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Richmond, VA, Pale Blue Dot

Re: The Official IPCC Summary Document Release

Unread postby MrMambo » Fri 02 Feb 2007, 15:00:52

What a crappy layout. I thought this was meant for policy makers and leaders. They are often very visual people. They ought to redesign the document.
User avatar
MrMambo
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 170
Joined: Fri 22 Jul 2005, 03:00:00

Re: The Official IPCC Summary Document Release

Unread postby turmoil » Fri 02 Feb 2007, 15:07:51

MrMambo wrote:What a crappy layout. I thought this was meant for policy makers and leaders. They are often very visual people. They ought to redesign the document.

Yes, I would have put all the pictures on the last few pages at or near the top.
"If you are a real seeker after truth, it's necessary that at least once in your life you doubt all things as far as possible"-Rene Descartes

"When you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains however improbable must be the truth"-Sherlock Holmes
User avatar
turmoil
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Fri 13 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Richmond, VA, Pale Blue Dot

Re: The Official IPCC Summary Document Release

Unread postby Lore » Fri 02 Feb 2007, 15:11:08

MrMambo wrote:What a crappy layout. I thought this was meant for policy makers and leaders. They are often very visual people. They ought to redesign the document.


This is a Summary, they will be producing a (30) page Synthesis report this coming November for us business types.

If you have an hour, take the time to listen to the Webcast.

One interesting point of the report is that it does not factor in the impact of ice sheet melting since there is no model data that can account for their rapid decrease, so they just left it out. A factor that could say... add another 18' of water to the ocean levels.
Last edited by Lore on Fri 02 Feb 2007, 15:14:04, edited 1 time in total.
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
Lore
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Fri 26 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Fear Of A Blank Planet

Re: The Official IPCC Summary Document Release

Unread postby clv101 » Fri 02 Feb 2007, 15:12:36

This is interesting:

Based on current understanding of climate carbon cycle feedback, model studies suggest that to stabilise at 450 ppm carbon dioxide, could require that cumulative emissions over the 21st century be reduced from an average of approximately 670 [630 to 710] GtC to approximately 490 [375 to 600] GtC. Similarly, to stabilise at 1000 ppm this feedback could require that cumulative emissions be reduced from a model average of approximately 1415 [1340 to 1490] GtC to approximately 1100 [980 to 1250] GtC. {7.3, 10.4}


So that’s ~490 GtC to 2100 keeps us below 450ppm?

Say we have 1.5 trillion barrels of oil left (more than ASPO suggest and placing peak at least a decade out). That's 205 Gt and given than the carbon share is on average ~85% by mass we have 174Gt of carbon in the remaining oil. Gas... is less. Maybe oil and gas between them total some 250Gt C. That's barely half our allowance so we have a "margin" of 490 - 250 = 240Gt C.

Considering coal - According to BP statistical review 2005 world coal consumption was 2929.8 million tonnes of oil equivalent. One tonne of oil is equivalent to 1.5 tonnes of hard coal and 3 tonnes of lignite. Call it an average of 2 which gives us ~6Gt C per year from coal. With a budget of 240 Gt C after all the oil and gas are burnt, we can continue with 2005 coal burn for some 40 years.

This should show us where to focus our attention - burn all the oil and gas, it's going to be depleting anyway. Our mission to save the world is to stop coal expansion and new build within a decade and to be off coal by the 2nd half of the century (at the end of life of coal infrastructure built this decade). Now that doesn't actually seem all that hard does it? I mean, I'm sure we could reduce electricity consumption dramatically within that time... and we have many alternative (wind, wave, nuclear, solar, geothermal, biomass etc) ways of generating electricity.

The long and the short of it is that all the scary IPCC scenarios are based on imaginary fossil fuel resources - they are mutually exclusive of the peak oiler's understanding of the world. I'd say pick one, you can't have peak oil and the IPCC's A1F1 scenario.
"Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen." The Emperor (Return of the Jedi)
The Oil Drum: Europe
User avatar
clv101
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Wed 02 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Bristol, UK

Re: The Official IPCC Summary Document Release

Unread postby turmoil » Fri 02 Feb 2007, 15:21:56

clv101,

So far they only suggest caps for CO2. What about Methane, Carbon Monoxide, and N20? Since most of the Methane comes from agriculture is a cap even an option? Would organic agriculture even cancel out all the methane from the permafrost melt anyway?

It seems like their scenarios try to make it seem like everything is happening linearly. Temperature increases are accelerating rapidly according to Nasa's measurements (linked below).

This would make sense since Methane as well as all the other gases have been increasing since the beginning of the industrial era, and are all increasing rapidly. There hasn't been this much Methane in the atmosphere for a long time.

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic26650.html
Last edited by turmoil on Fri 02 Feb 2007, 17:06:33, edited 3 times in total.
"If you are a real seeker after truth, it's necessary that at least once in your life you doubt all things as far as possible"-Rene Descartes

"When you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains however improbable must be the truth"-Sherlock Holmes
User avatar
turmoil
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Fri 13 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Richmond, VA, Pale Blue Dot

Re: The Official IPCC Summary Document Release

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Fri 02 Feb 2007, 16:27:00

What about Methane


the second draft of the actual report points to their view there is no evidence for increasing methane .....as I remember it has been decreasing to a growth rate of zero but I need to find the reference.

Just some comments from my quick read of the release for policy makers and some of the things I've picked up from gradually making my way through the draft 2 of the report:

- the terms likely, most likely etc. are defined as having probability equivalents in the direction to contributors. In reading through that section an important note is that there are two portions to that analysis...1. direct measurements and calculations of statistical variation and 2. a level of confidence statement that is requested of contributors. I've dug around quite a bit and I can't find what value is given to each but it strikes me the risk is that when any contributor is asked the question..."..and so, how confident are you in your findings and conclusions" they are very unlikely to give any other answer than "very confident" which of course could skew the results dependant on how much weight is aportioned that. Hopefully I can find more clarity with continued reading.
-the policy statement reads as if there is little uncertainty in many of the areas but going through chapter 2 Changes in Atmospheric constituents and in radiative forcing it notes that
RF for cloud-albedo has a very low level of scientific understanding and that other processes related to aerosol-cloud interactions remain highly uncertain
and
there is a very low level of scientific understanding of these processes.
The net effect on RF of land-cover changes have a very low level of scientific understanding.
Uncertainties regarding solar RF remain large because of the lack of direct observations and understanding of solar variability mechanism on long time scales.
The spatial pattern of RF's for ozone, aerosol direct effect, aerosol-cloud interactions and land-use have considerable uncertainties.

note that you aren't suppossed to quote from the document, but what the hey
- a good chunk of increased attribution to CO2 is at the expense of decreased attribution to solar effects. I spent a bit of time in the solar part of the document and what worries me is there are a number of papers dealing with solar and cosmic rays that have been published since TAR that are seemingly ignored. An example would be:
De Jager, C. 2005. Solar forcing of climate. 1: Solar variability. Space Science Reviews 120: 197-241. where they state:
never during the past ten or eleven millennia has the sun been as active in ejecting magnetized plasma as during the second half of the twentieth century

In the draft IPCC report introduction they do state:
More research to investigate the effects of solar behavior on climate is needed before the magnitude of solar effects on climate can be stated with certainty

The solar piece is something I'd like to look into further, which means getting ahold of some of the papers they reference. Bedtime reading
-there will be a large delay in any official scientific critique of the document because all of the climate scientists (outside the IPCC) who had access to the draft document were required to sign a release indicating they would not quote or reference material. The actual research document won't come out until May and apparently will be edited to adhere to the policy statement (that is pretty bizarre but it is what the IPCC site indicates). This does have the risk of creating a bunch of "you said this then.....and now you say this" accusations.

Haven't made up my mind what all of this means yet. Definitely a lot more evidence pointing towards warming climate and some of it's affects but I'm not sure what all has exactly changed in terms of the reliability of the attribution studies since TAR. Should be interesting reading and will no doubt open up all sorts of debate.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7685
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 03:00:00

Re: The Official IPCC Summary Document Release

Unread postby TreebeardsUncle » Fri 02 Feb 2007, 16:50:11

Ok.
Take a look at one of these simpler summaries such as:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02 ... index.html

Note the following quotes and note that "very likely" here means a statement is being made with 90% confidence.:
*****
Report: Humans 'very likely' cause global warming

(CNN) -- Global warming is here and humans are "very likely" the blame, an international group of scientists meeting in Paris, France, announced Friday.

"The evidence for warming having happened on the planet is unequivocal," said U.S. government scientist Susan Solomon, who also is a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

In a 21-page report for policymakers, the group of climate experts unanimously linked -- with "90 percent" certainty -- the increase of average global temperatures since the mid-20th century to the increase of manmade greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

The report noted that 11 of the last 12 years have ranked among the 12 warmest years on record [How likely is that?]with the oceans absorbing more than 80 percent of the heat added to the climate system. Add in the melt-off of glaciers and sea ice and sea levels are rising.

The IPCC predicted global temperature increases of 1.8 to 4 degrees Celsius (3.2 to 7.1 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100 and sea levels to rise between 7 and 23 inches (18 and 58 centimeters) by the end of the century. (Watch how rising sea levels could affect San Francisco )

"An additional 3.9-7.8 inches (10-20 centimeters) are possible if recent, surprising melting of polar ice sheets continues," the report stated.

Defining 'likely'

The 2001 report found that the 1990s were "very likely" the warmest decade on record. It also said that most of the observed warming over the last 50 years was "likely due to increases in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activities."

The authors defined "likely" as between 66 percent to 90 percent probable, and "very likely" as a 90 to 99 percent.


**** End quotes.

Now how hard is that. They are stating most of their results with at least 90% confidence.


And, if China etc burn through coal reserves at increasing rates, then global warming will continue to accelerate. Sounds like we got a bunch of poo-poohing deniers here.
TreebeardsUncle
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 683
Joined: Thu 15 Jun 2006, 03:00:00

Re: The Official IPCC Summary Document Release

Unread postby Zardoz » Fri 02 Feb 2007, 17:53:54

I channel-surfed this morning. All the MSM TV organizations went huge on this. Most ran multipart features with lots of detail. It got their attention, big time.

They all featured the 90% certainty aspect.
"Thank you for attending the oil age. We're going to scrape what we can out of these tar pits in Alberta and then shut down the machines and turn out the lights. Goodnight." - seldom_seen
User avatar
Zardoz
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6323
Joined: Fri 02 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Oil-addicted Southern Californucopia

Re: The Official IPCC Summary Document Release

Unread postby dohboi » Fri 02 Feb 2007, 17:57:17

Then there's this from NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/02/scien ... ref=slogin]NYTimes[/url]

The IPCC seems to have set itself some strange guidelines for what data can be accepted in their assessment--nothing published after 2005! The most startling data about Greenland icemelt has come out since then.

This makes the report vastly understate the best current knowledge about likely ocean rise.

Of course, the whole conensus nature of the report makes it's cconclusions essentially equivalent to those of its most optimistic (pollyannish, oil corp.-influenced?) member.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: The Official IPCC Summary Document Release

Unread postby Lore » Fri 02 Feb 2007, 18:44:12

If you take the time to listen to the webcast, a couple of these questions are answered.

Solomon, co-chair, verbally defined "very likely" as 90%.

The factors of the ice sheets melting was addressed as not having enough current data to be given a place in the report, so they were noteably left out.

They more or less said that you can imagine a pretty close scenario by historical data, or if your born today in 2007 an appropriate baby shower gift, if you lived on the coast, would have been a snorkle.
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
Lore
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Fri 26 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Fear Of A Blank Planet

Re: The Official IPCC Summary Document Release

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Fri 02 Feb 2007, 20:32:40

how how hard is that. They are stating most of their results with at least 90% confidence.


you missed my point ....part of the probablistic "word value" comes from actual statistical analysis the other part comes from a statement of comfort level from the author. As I said it is very unlikely any author will say his own conclusions are unlikely so it comes down to how much value they attach to each part of the probablistic assessment. As I said I'm still digging through the draft release of the actual research.

In case you still don't understand if an equal weighting was given to both the statistics and comfort level then a 70% statistical mean based on estimated errors in the measturements could be brought to 80% if the author felt very confident in his conclusions. Alternatively something that was 50% statistical mean could be brought to the likely category by an author who felt very confident in his conclusions....coin toss to likely is a worry. Not saying this is the weighting or that this happened....its a concern though and something I want to understand.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7685
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 03:00:00

Re: The Official IPCC Summary Document Release

Unread postby turmoil » Fri 02 Feb 2007, 20:42:05

[smilie=new_microwave.gif]
"If you are a real seeker after truth, it's necessary that at least once in your life you doubt all things as far as possible"-Rene Descartes

"When you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains however improbable must be the truth"-Sherlock Holmes
User avatar
turmoil
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Fri 13 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Richmond, VA, Pale Blue Dot

Re: The Official IPCC Summary Document Release

Unread postby Zardoz » Sat 03 Feb 2007, 00:51:25



Drew Shindell, a climate expert at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said at a House of Representatives hearing on climate science on Tuesday that part of the problem was the difficulty of making firm scientific statements about a field in which research was moving fast.

Dr. Shindell, who emphasized that he was speaking as an individual, said, “The melting of Greenland has been accelerating so incredibly rapidly that the I.P.C.C. report will already be out of date in predicting sea level rise, which will probably be much worse than is predicted in the I.P.C.C. report.”

James McCarthy, a climate expert at Harvard who was a leader in the 2001 assessment, noted in an e-mail message that the panel’s report could be changed until the moment it was made public. Nevertheless, he said he worried that unless its discussion of sea level rise was altered, the panel would so underestimate the problem that it would look “foolishly cautious and maybe even irrelevant” on the issue.


It really is obsolete already, on the day it is published.

Once again, we're going to get an assessment of the situation that way underestimates the speed with which all this is going down. It's happening so fast the scientific community simply cannot keep up with it.
"Thank you for attending the oil age. We're going to scrape what we can out of these tar pits in Alberta and then shut down the machines and turn out the lights. Goodnight." - seldom_seen
User avatar
Zardoz
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6323
Joined: Fri 02 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Oil-addicted Southern Californucopia

FOX Fans rag on IPCC report

Unread postby Zardoz » Sat 03 Feb 2007, 11:44:32

They aren't buying it. They know the score. They know we puny little monkeys can't possibly do any harm to this great big world: Speakout!
What do YOU think — Is global warming a threat, and if so, what should the world's nations do about it? Here's what some FOX Fans are saying:
"The only thing man-made about global warming is the name." — Mike (North Carolina)
"...There is proof that the planet has warmed and cooled several times and that was not caused by human intervention. To say this is caused completely by man is irresponsible science." — Jerry (Dale, IN)

"You have 113 countries supporting scientists with political agendas. If man actually caused global warming, then we can fix it. But they say we can't. Global warming is a natural cycle, and mankind will adapt as we always have!" — Chris

"I am tired of hearing words like global warming and greenhouse gases. I am tired of college professors beating it into the heads of students. Global warming is an opinion! How do scientists know that it is not a natural occurrence? I think this is a major hoax by scientists to bring home a paycheck!" — Jason (Diamond Bar, CA)

"How did ice ages and warming of the Earth occur before man even existed? Furthermore, if it is happening and we can't stop it, then why cut greenhouse gases at all?" — Peter

"I am absolutely not concerned about global warming, any more than the global cooling which is causing abnormally frigid conditions in geographical areas where these cold temps generally do not occur." — Arlen

"I do not believe global warming is anything the human race can control. Anyone who has done any reading at all knows the Earth has gone through changes several times and there were no automobiles, power plants, etc. when those changes occurred. I think this is just another way the Left is trying to change the way we live. If they want to change the way they live, that is their business. I will not change the way I live." — K.L. (Manchester, MD)

"Global warming is the biggest hoax yet on mankind. It is junk science, pure and simple. The earth goes through periodic heating and cooling periods, and this is no exception." — Jay (Ohio)

Damn those grant-grubbing junk scientists and their left-wing, tree-hugging, owl-loving, peer-reviewing, pinko faggot Kommie political agendas! Glad to see some of us aren't fooled!
Last edited by Ferretlover on Sat 04 Apr 2009, 23:02:46, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Merged with THE IPCC Thread.
"Thank you for attending the oil age. We're going to scrape what we can out of these tar pits in Alberta and then shut down the machines and turn out the lights. Goodnight." - seldom_seen
User avatar
Zardoz
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6323
Joined: Fri 02 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Oil-addicted Southern Californucopia

Next

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 84 guests

cron