Quote :

" Report outlines global warming's effects POSTED: 11:28 p.m. EST, March 10, 2007 Story Highlights • Scientists' report will be released at April conference • Report says parts of world will have water shortages, others floods • Food production will increase at first, then famine will hit, report says Adjust font size: Decrease fontDecrease font Enlarge fontEnlarge font WASHINGTON (AP) -- The harmful effects of global warming on daily life are already showing up, and within a couple of decades hundreds of millions of people won't have enough water, top scientists will say next month at a meeting in Belgium. At the same time, tens of millions of others will be flooded out of their homes each year as the Earth reels from rising temperatures and sea levels, according to portions of a draft of an international scientific report obtained by The Associated Press. Tropical diseases like malaria will spread. By 2050, polar bears will mostly be found in zoos, their habitats gone. Pests like fire ants will thrive. For a time, food will be plentiful because of the longer growing season in northern regions. But by 2080, hundreds of millions of people could face starvation, according to the report, which is still being revised. The draft document by the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change focuses on global warming's effects and is the second in a series of four being issued this year. Written and reviewed by more than 1,000 scientists from dozens of countries, it still must be edited by government officials. But some scientists said the overall message is not likely to change when it's issued in early April in Brussels, Belgium, the same city where European Union leaders agreed this past week to drastically cut greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. Their plan will be presented to President Bush and other world leaders at a summit in June. The report offers some hope if nations slow and then reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, but it notes that what's happening now isn't encouraging. "Changes in climate are now affecting physical and biological systems on every continent," the report says, in marked contrast to a 2001 report by the same international group that said the effects of global warming were coming. But that report only mentioned scattered regional effects. "Things are happening and happening faster than we expected," said Patricia Romero Lankao of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, one of the many co-authors of the new report. The draft document says scientists are highly confident that many current problems -- change in species' habits and habitats, more acidified oceans, loss of wetlands, bleaching of coral reefs, and increases in allergy-inducing pollen -- can be blamed on global warming. For example, the report says North America "has already experienced substantial ecosystem, social and cultural disruption from recent climate extremes," such as hurricanes and wildfires. But the present is nothing compared to the future. Global warming soon will "affect everyone's life ... it's the poor sectors that will be most affected," Romero Lankao said. And co-author Terry Root of Stanford University said: "We truly are standing at the edge of mass extinction" of species. The report's findings The report included these likely results of global warming: # Hundreds of millions of Africans and tens of millions of Latin Americans who now have water will be short of it in less than 20 years. By 2050, more than 1 billion people in Asia could face water shortages. By 2080, water shortages could threaten 1.1 billion to 3.2 billion people, depending on the level of greenhouse gases that cars and industry spew into the air. # Death rates for the world's poor from global warming-related illnesses, such as malnutrition and diarrhea, will rise by 2030. Malaria and dengue fever, as well as illnesses from eating contaminated shellfish, are likely to grow. # Europe's small glaciers will disappear with many of the continent's large glaciers shrinking dramatically by 2050. And half of Europe's plant species could be vulnerable, endangered or extinct by 2100. # By 2080, between 200 million and 600 million people could be hungry because of global warming's effects. # About 100 million people each year could be flooded by 2080 by rising seas. # Smog in U.S. cities will worsen and "ozone-related deaths from climate (will) increase by approximately 4.5 percent for the mid-2050s, compared with 1990s levels," turning a small health risk into a substantial one. # Polar bears in the wild and other animals will be pushed to extinction. # At first, more food will be grown. For example, soybean and rice yields in Latin America will increase starting in a couple of years. Areas outside the tropics, especially the northern latitudes, will see longer growing seasons and healthier forests. Looking at different impacts on ecosystems, industry and regions, the report sees the most positive benefits in forestry and some improved agriculture and transportation in polar regions. The biggest damage is likely to come in ocean and coastal ecosystems, water resources and coastal settlements. Africa, Asia to be hardest hit The hardest-hit continents are likely to be Africa and Asia, with major harm also coming to small islands and some aspects of ecosystems near the poles. North America, Europe and Australia are predicted to suffer the fewest of the harmful effects. "In most parts of the world and most segments of populations, lifestyles are likely to change as a result of climate change," the draft report said. "Net valuations of benefits vs. costs will vary, but they are more likely to be negative if climate change is substantial and rapid, rather than if it is moderate and gradual." This report -- considered by some scientists the "emotional heart" of climate change research -- focuses on how global warming alters the planet and life here, as opposed to the more science-focused report by the same group last month. "This is the story. This is the whole play. This is how it's going to affect people. The science is one thing. This is how it affects me, you and the person next door," said University of Victoria climate scientist Andrew Weaver. Many -- not all -- of those effects can be prevented, the report says, if within a generation the world slows down its emissions of carbon dioxide and if the level of greenhouse gases sticking around in the atmosphere stabilizes. If that's the case, the report says "most major impacts on human welfare would be avoided; but some major impacts on ecosystems are likely to occur." The United Nations-organized network of 2,000 scientists was established in 1988 to give regular assessments of the Earth's environment. The document issued last month in Paris concluded that scientists are 90 percent certain that people are the cause of global warming and that warming will continue for centuries. Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed."

truth

3/12/2007 3:36:26 PM

prepare to be flamed

3/12/2007 3:38:43 PM

Quote :

"truth"

more like we'll see if its truth or not

Quote :

"By 2050, polar bears will mostly be found in zoos, their habitats gone"

wow i wonder if anybody told them about the fake caption

http://www.windstar.org/view_emagazine.php?id=98

control + f for "polar" and read that bullshit about "Polar Bears Drowning"

3/12/2007 3:40:05 PM

they left out millions of man hours lost by people worrying about global warming and arguing among co-workers.

3/12/2007 3:41:18 PM

^lol true

[Edited on March 12, 2007 at 3:43 PM. Reason : (btw there are like 1,000 threads on this already)]

3/12/2007 3:41:37 PM

^^it wouldn't be lost and would help save lives if boneheads like you took stuff like this seriously.

3/12/2007 3:53:00 PM

Quote :

"But by 2080, hundreds of millions of people could face starvation"

Dont hundreds of millions of people ALREADY face starvation?

Quote :

"The harmful effects of global warming on daily life are already showing up"

For example?

Stories like this just seem so one-sided...and the issue is not one-sided

[Edited on March 12, 2007 at 3:58 PM. Reason : .]

3/12/2007 3:55:35 PM

^that many MORE people. don't get it twisted.

ozone related deaths
changes in weather patterns
extinction of exotic plants

all examples of effects. the issue is pretty straight forward. you either acknowledge it or ignore it.

3/12/2007 4:03:50 PM

you should just allow unchecked immigration tree and ignore global warming. it is a compromise of beliefs and will solve itself.

3/12/2007 4:20:35 PM

I think we established long ago that TreeTwista either does not respond to rational argument, or just doesn't care about the effects of GW.

3/12/2007 4:25:10 PM

"But by 2080, hundreds of millions of people could face starvation"

well with the current growth rate in the world, I dont doubt this at all, and have nothing to do with global warming. However the COULD part I find humorous.

I dont doubt the earth is heating up and has for thousands of years, I just think a better argument is to lower pollution than to fight the "global warming" arguement with science that supports both sides and are inconclusive. Look if i market a drink that makes the sun rise if you drink it at around 630am... I dare scientists to prove me wrong. THe problem is actually proving the cause. And so far they havent done that

3/12/2007 4:47:24 PM

you can't conclusively prove science. it doesn't work that way.

3/12/2007 4:48:48 PM

Quote :

"well with the current growth rate in the world, I dont doubt this at all, and have nothing to do with global warming. However the COULD part I find humorous."

well the reason they say COULD face starvation is because their food will be gone. doesn't mean we won't give them food or they find food elsewhere but enough food to feed that many people will be GONE.

There is PROOF that earth is heating up at higher rates in the last 30 years.

3/12/2007 5:00:40 PM

Those graphs are really going to piss people off.

3/12/2007 5:12:27 PM

Two questions about the first graph:

1) Why are C02 levels lagging temperature changes if C02 causes temperature changes?

2) Why does the massive uptick in C02 at the end start well before the industrial revolution began and doesn't show a significant change in rate as more countries industrialize?

3/12/2007 5:16:28 PM

just remember this

scientists don't know shit about science

3/12/2007 5:16:37 PM

I HATE SCIENCE RARRRRR

3/12/2007 5:28:59 PM

Quote :

"Two questions about the first graph: 1) Why are C02 levels lagging temperature changes if C02 causes temperature changes? 2) Why does the massive uptick in C02 at the end start well before the industrial revolution began and doesn't show a significant change in rate as more countries industrialize?"

i have got nothing to do with the graphs, and i don't know much about global warming, but from a mathematical point of view:

1) they can be lagging, so what? mathematically, you can see a correlation between them. and it DOESN'T even make sense to say they are lagging, as the two quantitites have different units. one is in fahrenheit, other in ppm. if you plot a person's height (inches) and weight (pounds)against his age on the same set of axes, you will see a pattern between the two curves. can you say height is lagging weight? no, because they have different units. in general though, you will see that as height increases, weight increases. same here, as co2 levels increase, temperature increases. again, that's just a correlation, not necessarily causation.

2) look carefully. the FIRST upturn starts at 1850, lasting until 1950. at 1950, the SECOND faster upturn starts, and the slope of that is AT LEAST TWICE as large as that of the first upturn. (put piece of paper on screen, trace both upturns, sketch triangles for rise/run, and you will see) that makes a lot of sense.

3/12/2007 5:30:24 PM

If there are millions of people starving NOW, then in 80 years, with current population growth and age expects Id expect there to be even MORE people starving, and I would expect that even without your global warming debate....see my morning sunrise drink example.

3/12/2007 5:33:24 PM

Another point:

"In about 45 years, temperatures on Earth will be hotter than at anytime during the past one million years, says the U.S. government's top climatologist in a new report released today."

While alarming, but who did the democrats blame 1 million years ago?

I dont think you would find anyone resisting you lowering pollution its the global warming arguement that is very debatable.


http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=2489179&page=1

3/12/2007 5:42:50 PM

Quote :

"they can be lagging, so what? mathematically, you can see a correlation between them. and it DOESN'T even make sense to say they are lagging, as the two quantitites have different units. one is in fahrenheit, other in ppm. if you plot a person's height (inches) and weight (pounds)against his age on the same set of axes, you will see a pattern between the two curves. can you say height is lagging weight? no, because they have different units. in general though, you will see that as height increases, weight increases. same here, as co2 levels increase, temperature increases. again, that's just a correlation, not necessarily causation. "

Right, but correllation could also mean the exact opposite of what man made global warming assumes. Instead of C02 causing an increase in temperature, perhaps C02 increases as the temperature increases. That being the case, humanity's C02 output is irellevant because the global warming is driving the C02 not the other way around.

The fact that they have different units on the Y axis is irellevant. If you are trying to show that C02 increases cause temperature increases, you would expect the C02 to mirror or lead the temperature on the X axis which is units of time for both graphs. Otherwise simple correlation is worthless and tells us nothing other than C02 and temperature are related to a degree but tells us nothing of one causing the other.

Quote :

"look carefully. the FIRST upturn starts at 1850, lasting until 1950. at 1950, the SECOND faster upturn starts, and the slope of that is AT LEAST TWICE as large as that of the first upturn. (put piece of paper on screen, trace both upturns, sketch triangles for rise/run, and you will see) that makes a lot of sense."

I stand corrected on the slope change, but that spot in the 50's is odd. Industrial progress over the last 100 years was slower than that was it not? Perhaps the graph is too scaled out to show it but it sure looks like we suddenly flipped a switch in the 1950s. And do they have an explination or accounting for the fall in global temperatures for the period imediately preceding the dust bowl, despite the accelerated rise in CO2?

3/12/2007 6:16:21 PM

some of the charts on

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=455782

correlating sun-spot activity to global temperature might breath some actual critical thinking into this thread.
Sun's energy output has to do with the temperature on earth, gee who'd thunk it?

Look at page 3, I tried to link to it but oh well.

[Edited on March 12, 2007 at 6:23 PM. Reason : link not quite right.]

3/12/2007 6:22:20 PM

Quote :

"All animals except man know that the principal business of life is to enjoy it."

Samuel Butler

BTW, there's already an 18-page thread on this topic.

[Edited on March 12, 2007 at 7:25 PM. Reason : .]

3/12/2007 7:19:52 PM

I hate the alarmism that comes out of these reports. There are positive effects as well as negative effects associated with global warming. Of course, this study only highlights the negative effects because the panel is alarmist in nature.

3/12/2007 7:41:08 PM

^ tell me about it, i live in wisconsin. jack that heat up, my bill was outrageous in january.

3/12/2007 7:45:41 PM

Quote :

"Instead of C02 causing an increase in temperature, perhaps C02 increases as the temperature increases. That being the case, humanity's C02 output is irellevant because the global warming is driving the C02 not the other way around."

No. co2 is a greenhouse gas. Regardless of anything else, co2 in the atmosphere catches radiation coming from the earth and reradiates it back down. Theres no arguing the fact that increasing co2 increases tremperature.

Quote :

"I hate the alarmism that comes out of these reports. There are positive effects as well as negative effects associated with global warming. Of course, this study only highlights the negative effects because the panel is alarmist in nature"

Of course the positive effects aren't going to be highlighted because the negatives severely outweigh them.

longer growing seasons will lead to infertility and famine

"OMG NOBODY TALKS ABOUT THE FACT THAT AS SEA LEVEL RISES THE CRIME IN BANGLADESH WILL GO DOWN"

3/12/2007 7:55:30 PM

Quote :

"No. co2 is a greenhouse gas. Regardless of anything else, co2 in the atmosphere catches radiation coming from the earth and reradiates it back down. Theres no arguing the fact that increasing co2 increases tremperature. "

That doesn't mean that C02 is the cause of a temperature shift though, just that it can magnify the effect or provide positive feedback into the system. But if C02 were the leading cause of the temperature shifts, doesn't it make sense that we would see C02 fluxuations on the leading, not the trailing end of the temperature shifts?

Quote :

"Of course the positive effects aren't going to be highlighted because the negatives severely outweigh them. longer growing seasons will lead to infertility and famine "

At least it will solve our overpopulation problem.

[Edited on March 12, 2007 at 9:08 PM. Reason : asdfadsfa]

3/12/2007 9:07:24 PM

Run for your life! The Statue of Liberty is underwater--and the water's frozen! And there are hungry wolves--Al Gore, help!

3/12/2007 9:57:54 PM

Am I too late for the thread on the threat of the coming ice age?

What threat are we on now? I'm losing track.

3/12/2007 10:07:00 PM

Quote :

"No. co2 is a greenhouse gas. Regardless of anything else, co2 in the atmosphere catches radiation coming from the earth and reradiates it back down. Theres no arguing the fact that increasing co2 increases tremperature."

I hope you're aware that manmade CO2 accounts for 3 percent of yearly emissions into the atmosphere!

That report is laughable, and you can look in the other thread to see why.

3/12/2007 10:46:43 PM

So Co2 is just appearing pell mell

but the report is laughable....HA

3/12/2007 11:04:04 PM

I think the other 97% of CO2 thats transferred between the oceans and atmosphere every day might be important in this subject

Quote :

"or just doesn't care about the effects of GW"

Or just acknowledges the flaws and limitations in research and doesn't hastily jump to a conclusion

Quote :

"There is PROOF that earth is heating up at higher rates in the last 30 years"

And there is NO PROOF what is causing it

3/12/2007 11:07:04 PM

if theres proof theres more co2
and theres proof more co2 causes earth to heat up
and theres proof earth is heating up
and theres proof we realease co2

then...um..hmmm?

3/12/2007 11:16:14 PM

Quote :

"if theres proof theres more co2 and theres proof more co2 causes earth to heat up and theres proof earth is heating up and theres proof we realease co2 "

try again

also I would note that it would be helpful to go back more than a couple thousand years when trying to find a trend in a multi-billion year old system

3/12/2007 11:17:05 PM

BOIII STOP!

try going back to sixth grade and learn about greenhouse gases again


[Edited on March 12, 2007 at 11:28 PM. Reason : lmao]

3/12/2007 11:23:26 PM

So you're saying the 3% of atmospheric CO2 that humans emit is causing this jump in temperatures, and the 97% of natural CO2 in the atmosphere has nothing to do with it?

You sure do like to make unlimited assumptions based on limited data

3/12/2007 11:24:55 PM

What about cow farts and decomposing bodies? I mean, what're we gonna do about that, huh? Get Chuck Schumer on the phone--we need a bill!

V Who? Put an arrow on your shit. BTW, did you get Schumer on the phone?

[Edited on March 12, 2007 at 11:46 PM. Reason : .]

3/12/2007 11:32:50 PM

Quote :

"So you're saying the 3% of atmospheric CO2 that humans emit is causing this jump in temperatures, and the 97% of natural CO2 in the atmosphere has nothing to do with it? You sure do like to make unlimited assumptions based on limited data "

If what you said was true , you'd only hurting your argument. If we were raised the total ammount of co2 on the planet by 3% each year it would double in 20-25 years jackass.



[Edited on March 12, 2007 at 11:53 PM. Reason : in their will, they left her the house]

3/12/2007 11:41:03 PM

What exactly is "my argument"?

3/12/2007 11:45:07 PM

Quote :

"it still must be edited by government officials."

you failed to highlight that very important clause there. Because that clause states what everyone should know about "Global Warming": that it is nothing more than a political ploy.

Quote :

"If what you said was true , you'd only hurting your argument. If we were raised the total ammount of co2 on the planet by 3% each year it would double in 20-25 years jackass."

but what about the other NINETY-SEVEN PERCENT THAT IS BEING PRODUCED BY THE ENVIRONMENT, DIPSHIT? SHOULD WE JUST IGNORE THAT? Jeez, I am ashamed that you are going to the same University as I am.

3/13/2007 12:30:01 AM

The other 97% is natural. Its here and its been here and it is why the earth is at a livable temperature. However, the earth is at a delicate balance for sustaining life as we know it and we are throwing that off by adding extra co2. Not too hard to comprehend.

Quote :

"you failed to highlight that very important clause there. Because that clause states what everyone should know about "Global Warming": that it is nothing more than a political ploy. "

lol the government doesn't care what happens twenty years from now. Forever to a government official is four years. We all should know there are infanitely more financial reasons to cover global warming up than there would be to create it.

3/13/2007 12:43:02 AM

Quote :

"The other 97% is natural. Its here and its been here and it is why the earth is at a livable temperature"

You say it like its some quantifyable amount when its actually a fluctuating aspect of the carbon cycle...your oversimplifications are very misleading

What you SHOULD take away from the 3% anthropogenic / 97% natural approximate percentages are that the vast majority of CO2 in our atmosphere is dictated by natural processes and not anything humans cause

3/13/2007 12:45:31 AM

so einstien, whats been going on since around the umm...industrial age that is raising co2 levels quicker than ever and humans have nothing to do with?

3/13/2007 12:49:31 AM

I don't know...but do you think you have a 24 hour day figured out based on glancing over 1 second's worth of data? Cause thats kind of what you're doing when you think you understand everything about how the Earth works based on a tiny sampling of data...dont sell yourself short

3/13/2007 12:51:20 AM

Actually, I've spent YEARS working under people that have spent their entire lives on research of which 100% supports the claim. Also, the thousands of people responsible for this study were just glancing over a few seconds of data and some username tree twister has proved them wrong again!

3/13/2007 12:59:48 AM

But 100% of the research DOESNT support the claim...so youre just lying, flat out

But you've already got your mind made up so theres no reason for you to listen to anything that might make you question your potentially wrong opinion on the subject

It almost sounds like you're scared of engaging in conversation for fear of learning something that might make you question your beliefs

3/13/2007 1:02:47 AM

^^


[Edited on March 13, 2007 at 9:21 AM. Reason : .]

3/13/2007 9:21:02 AM

Quote :

"The other 97% is natural. Its here and its been here and it is why the earth is at a livable temperature. However, the earth is at a delicate balance for sustaining life as we know it and we are throwing that off by adding extra co2. Not too hard to comprehend."

I wonder if you're aware that in the history of the earth there has never been stability and equilibrium. Things have constantly been changing, and will continue doing so with or without us. Warming cycles, cooling cycles, etc.

[Edited on March 13, 2007 at 12:21 PM. Reason : a]

3/13/2007 12:20:57 PM

MANBEARPIG? I'M SUPER CEREAL

3/13/2007 12:31:22 PM

Quote :

"Geologists have documented age upon age of climate swings, and some charge Mr. Gore with ignoring such rhythms. “Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,” Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. “Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.” In October, Dr. Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore’s claim that “our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this” threatened change. Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to “20 times greater than the warming in the past century.” Getting personal, he mocked Mr. Gore’s assertion that scientists agreed on global warming except those industry had corrupted. “I’ve never been paid a nickel by an oil company,” Dr. Easterbrook told the group. “And I’m not a Republican.”"

New York Times Science Section 3/13/2007:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?_r=1&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fG%2fGore%2c%20Al&oref=slogin

3/13/2007 12:34:11 PM