Nature Features
Highlights of first two parts of global warming report
May 4, 2007, 14:15 GMT
Filipino fishermen aboard a wooden boat as seen from Golden Sunset Resort in Calatagan Town, province of Batangas, Philippines, 04 May 2007. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Commission working group III presented their report calling for world governments to reduce greenhouse gas emission. Cutting out harmful carbon monoxide and dioxide car emissions and finding cleaner transportation is a key component. EPA/DENNIS M. SABANGAN
Washington - The fourth Assessment Report of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) lists the causes and results of global warming with greater certainty than ever. The report's third instalment was released Friday in Bangkok. It focussed on how to combat global warming, urging the use of more efficient, renewable energy alternatives and warning that the world ???
Part one of the report was presented in Paris in February. It described the causes of climate change, saying global warming is 'unequivocal' and 'very likely' the result of man-made greenhouse gases.
Part two of the report was released in Brussels in April. It outlined the effects climate change could have on Earth, anticipating catastrophic consequences for humans as well as other species.
Central conclusions of the first report, 'The Physical Science Basis':
- The carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere has risen by more than a third since 1750: from 280 parts per million (ppm) to 379 ppm in 2005. This is the highest level for 650,000 years.
- Global temperatures have risen 0.74 degrees Celsius since records began in the mid-19th century. Satellite and balloon measurement data show atmospheric warming not only near the Earth's surface but also at high altitudes.
- Global temperature growth for the past 50 years has been twice as high as during the last 100 years. The arctic has warmed twice as fast as the global average.
- Eleven of the past 12 years were among the 12 warmest since records began in 1850.
- Ocean temperatures as deep as 3,000 metres have warmed since the 1960s. The oceans have soaked up 80 per cent of the increased heat in the atmosphere.
- Sea levels have risen in the 20th century by 17 centimetres. Since 1993 they have risen on average 3 millimetres per year.
- The temperature of the upper sections of permafrost in the arctic has risen as much as 3 degrees Celsius since the 1980s.
- The snow covered areas of the planet have receded around 5 per cent since 1980.
- The frequency of heavy precipitation has increased.
- There is substantive evidence that the intensity of hurricanes in the North Atlantic has increased. This increase correlates with increases in sea surface temperature.
- Even if the concentration of greenhouse gases were frozen at the level they were at the year 2000, temperature rises of 0.1 degrees Celsius per decade would be expected.
- The IPCC has calculated six scenarios. In the best case (B1 scenario) the average temperature over the current century would rise 1.8 degrees Celsius (with a range of 1.1 to 2.9 degrees) by the 2090- 2099 time period, compared to the 1980-1999 time period. In the worst case (A1FI scenario) the rise would be 4 degrees Celsius (with a range of 2.4 to 6.4 degrees).
Central conclusions of the second report, entitled 'Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability':
- One-sixth of the world population - including 1 billion people in Central, South, East and South-East Asia - could experience water shortages by century's end. These people depend on water supplies from mountain glacier melting, which would initially grow by 10 to 40 per cent but then diminish by century's end through evaporation and use.
- By mid-century, water supplies could decrease by 10-30 per cent in dry regions and the tropics. In Africa, by 2020, an estimated 75 to 250 million people are projected to be exposed to water shortages.
- 20 to 30 per cent of plant and animal species known to humanity are 'likely' (meaning a more than 66-per-cent chance) to be at increased risk of extinction if temperatures rise 1.5 to 2.5 degrees Celsius this century. Major changes would occur to ecosystem structures, the way species interact, and the geographic ranges of species.
- 'Many millions more people' are expected to be flooded each year due to rising sea levels by the 2080s, especially in densely populated, low-lying regions and small islands.
- Production of food and forest products at higher latitudes would initially increase slightly, but then decrease, given a 1 to 3 degree Celsius temperature rise. For Asia by mid-century, crop yields could increase by 20 per cent in East and South-East Asia, but decrease up to 30 per cent in Central and South Asia.
- At lower latitudes and tropical regions, crop productivity would decrease and hunger increase with a temperature rise of 1 to 2 degrees Celsius. In Africa, yields from rain-fed agriculture crops could be reduced by up to 50 per cent by 2020.
© 2007 dpa - Deutsche Presse-AgenturCOMMENT
blog comments powered by DisqusLatest Headlines in Nature
- 1. USA California Tsunami Wave Pictures
- 2. Japan Earthquake Tsunami Pictures
- 3. Indonesia Bromo Eruption Pictures
- 4. UN: Bee colonies worldwide under threat from chemicals and pollution
- 5. USA Hawaii Volcano Pictures
Older Talkback
page: 1
Here to facts are proving the global warming.The hottest and driest april ever recorded,and that sets another new record,after the hottest july,august,etc.
Every year new records are set .Gletsjers in the Alps are rapidly melting,same almost everywhere .Of course a few ignorants will blame the sun,not human activity .
Make global warming an issue on your next elections everwhere before it is too late.Only governments can act ,don't count on corporate bizness to help younas Bush advocates,that will only lead to your extinction .
You also have to look at where these temps are recorded( Near Cities) from and how. Also consider the change of recording methods in the last decade. This is also a repetitive process that occurs throughout the planets history, What is the big deal here? Adapt, Things can't remain status quo forever.
For thousands of years, the Kitanemuk Indians made their home in the Elk Hills of central California. Come February 2001, the last of the 100 burial grounds, holy places and other archaeological sites of the Kitanemuks will be obliterated by the oil drilling of Occidental Petroleum Company. Oxy's plans will 'destroy forever the evidence that we once existed on this land,' according to Dee Dominguez, a Kitanemuk whose great grandfather was a signatory to the 1851 treaty that surrendered the Elk Hills.
Occidental's planned drilling of the Elk Hills doesn't only threaten the memory of the Kitanemuk. Environmentalists say a rare species of fox, lizard and the kangaroo rat would also be threatened by Oxy's plans. A lawsuit has been filed under the Endangered Species Act. But none of that has given pause to Occidental or the politician who helped engineer the sale of the drilling rights to the federally-owned Elk Hills. That politician is Al Gore.
Gore recommended that the Elk Hills be sold as part of his 1995 'Reinventing Government' National Performance Review program. Gore-confidant (and former campaign manager) Tony Cohelo served on the board of directors of the private company hired to assess the sale's environmental consequences. The sale was a windfall for Oxy. Within weeks of the announced purchase Occidental stock rose ten percent.
That was good news for Gore. Despite controversy over Dick Cheney's plans to keep stock options if elected, most Americans don't know that we already have a vice president with oil company stocks. Before the Elk Hills sale, Al Gore controlled between $250,000-$500,000 of Occidental stock (he is executor of a trust that he says goes only to his mother, but will revert to him upon her death). After the sale, Gore began disclosing between $500,000 and $1 million of his significantly more valuable stock.
Nowhere is Al Gore's environmental hypocrisy more glaring than when it comes to his relationship with Occidental. While on the one hand talking tough about his 'big oil' opponents and waxing poetic about indigenous peoples in his 1992 book 'Earth in the Balance,' the Elk Hills sale and other deals show that money has always been more important to Al Gore than ideals.
I have a feeling that big oil is behind this global warming hoax, They have a lot to gain from warming, new tech, more exposed land to drill, easier shipping lanes, I think Big Oil supports Global Warming and is actually spining things to fool us again. What ever happened to the war for oil?
John from Greenland - afraid you've got it the wrong way around - the oil companies are spinning for anti-warming by sponsoring scientists who produce 'evidence' that warming isn't due to CO2, so that effort WON'T be put into bio fuels and so on, which would reduce the dependence on oil.
The War on Oil ? That's the yanks' little adventure in Iraq
'That's the yanks' little adventure in Iraq'...Thanks to Bush you and the UN can focus on Global Warming. While we are at it, Hypothetically what steps would you take for a ice age?
Same as for Global Warming - develop Nuclear Energy (Fission and Fusion) for power production to keep civilisation viable by heating, develop underground habitation (similar to Canadian Shopping Malls or Russian facilities - nothing too new here, just that conditions will last all year rather than just winter) and hydroponic food production. Also, where possible develop water supply and irrigation to grow food in the remaining warm areas - Africa and Sahara (which used to be the granary of Roman Times). Thats a few ideas in a couple of minutes thought. Next question
PS. If Bush wasn't so occupied chasing oil supplies (in an area that will become un-inhabitable with global warming) he would be able to concentrate on doing something about the warming instead of delaying signing up to measures that would assist the other 94% of the world not in his gas guzzling regime
The climate has always been changing and always will until one day the sun will stop climate change forever by going supernova (sun heats up immensly as it burns itself up) thereby frying the whole earth to crisp before the eternal winter begins again because then sun has gone out forever. There is nothing the IPCC and their misinformed scientists can do about that as this is just as futile as trying to prevent global warming by reducing CO2 emissions.
Climate change is like an earthquake it is unstoppable and a natural occurrence. There is nothing mankind can do about it because we are just to insignificant in the great scheme of things to really matter. Did you know that 71% of the earth's surface is covered by water and the remaining 21% is mostly uninhabited? Did you know that CO2 levels have been several fold higher in the past than they are today and life still flourished and it wasn't that much warmer than today? Do you know that CO2 is only .05% of the total atmospheric gases and of that small proportion mankind contributes only about 6% of that. This is really such an incredibly small number that we can quite safely say that we are not the cause of global warming.
Anthropogenic global warming is a hoax and it is going to cost our economy dearly, much much, more than those lying member's of the IPCC are telling us. Imagine only 1 to 3%- Really! The world's economy is going to spiral downwards uncontrolably and cause mass stravation and wars because our economy cannot withstand all those new draconian enviromental regulations limiting a harmless gas such as CO2. As a matter of fact CO2 is the source of all life.
Already the U.S.A. supreme court has ruled that CO2 is a pollutant and I believe had those judges should have taken their decision more seriously and stopped breathing immediately because everytime they take a breath of air they released lots of hot air and CO2 into the atmosphere thereby according to them causing global warming and polluting.
By making outrageous doomsday predictions and by using selective statistic's with flawed scientific report's the IPCC and their cronies are getting huge amounts of money for even more stupid useless studies. They like riding the gravy train at the peoples expense and thrive on all the attention they are receiving even if it means that the reputation of science is being diminished. All they really fear is that truth about solar driven climate change will result in their funding being stopped.
These so-called experts come to conclusions that have little to do with the data collected. This is how the global cooling premise, and the Malthusian religion was started.
The press, ever further out to sea, prints these conclusions as fact. I can't tell you how many scientists have told me aboout the 19 studies with negative outcomes that never make the news, and then the one that does is splashed over the airwaves.
How do we get back to dispassionate scientific analysis?
Now the global warmer extremists are being indoctrinated to find middle ground as the fringe has almost killed their latest cause. Worst thing for global warmers Al Gore Bogus movie.
To put this in perspective, you must realize that the Antarctic Ice Sheet and Greenland Ice Sheets are almost twice as big as the contiguous United States. They're almost 100 times bigger than all of the rest of the world's glaciers put together. In other words, more than 99 percent of the world's glaciers are growing ... and all we hear about are the few that are melting.
What a collection of oil sponsored comments. Its not worth trying to refute the whole raft of incorrect information in these items, because the writers are programmed to ignore facts which don't suit their paid for or politically based 'spin'. Just go to reliable information via Google - start with the Greenpeace site which lists all the scientists in the pay of the oil industry, and remove their 'research' from the equation - then you will see more of the true picture compiled by reputable and independent scientists.
You could also take time off from your keyboard and look out of the window - evidence of Global Warming is all around you - just open your mind rather than listen to the false propaganda of the gas guzzlers and petrol heads and the false optimists who keep predicting an ice age to save us all, by picking selective bits of data.
.
I have a piece for them - the Germans are spreading a huge tarpaulin over a receding glacier in an effort to save the local skiing industry. So, if the anti-warmers wait a bit and the glacier stabilises, they will be able to claim this is evidence of a man-made contribution to global cooling ! They can then extrapolate this in their usual fashion into 'the next Ice Age is starting'
'Getting My Jacket Ready' claims 99% of the World's glaciers are growing. This is typical of the misinformation spread by the oil and politics biased anti-Global Warmers.
Just a few real figures - Switzerland 103 out of 110 glaciers are retreating
Austria 95 out of 99, Italy all 69 retreating, France 6 out of 6 retreating. Germany - only 1, now covered by tarpaulin to try and preserve it.
Himalayas (lots of glaciers) 67% retreating
China - (even more Glaciers) 95% retreating
Even the USA (which correspondents seem to think is immune) - North Cascades range for example - between 1984 and 2005, glaciers lost up to 40% of volums. Of 47 studied, all in retreat except 4 - which have disappeared completely !
This data is out there on the web - its easy to find. But it appears 'Getting My Jacket' must have his own sources (a fevered imagination ?) if he manages to concoct 99% growing out of such data
Anti warmers also quote Antarctica as getting colder and/or ice getting thicker. This is true for the central ice sheet (which is not a glacier, but the feeding supply for those on the continents edges). Think about it - more snow on the feeder system means more pressure on the glaciers to move, equals faster rate of move.
But, the anti's say - that means the glaciers are growing. I'm afraid not - the Antarctic coast is warmer so the glaciers may arrive quicker, but they then melt faster/calf icebergs = faster melting
These anti-warmers seem to be like drug addicts or alcoholics - in a complete state of denial about something which is blindingly obvious to others
Al. Sorry to hear that you are blind. Please let me try to enlighten you with the truth. There is absolutely no way that we can prove with 100% certainity that anthropogenic global warming is real or a myth. I believe in climate change as I witness it every day and it is caused predominantly by the sun and water vapour. I am always suspiciois of the phrase that ' Over 2000 scientists agree that such and such is true and the debate is now over.' When I hear this type of rhetoric I immediately question the validity of the source because science is now being used to manipulate instead of present real fact's. Please do some unbiased research on the subject and think it through logically for yourself as to what the truth may be.
Walter -I was not disagreeing with anything you said about warming, My figures were disputing the item by someone else saying that currently 99% of glaciers are growing - this is plainly not true, as you yourself say, Global Warming is happening
When Gore Sr. retired from the Senate in 1970, he got a $500,000-a-year job at a subsidiary of Occidental as well as a company directorship. When the elder Gore died, his estate included hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of Occidental stock.
In the 1960s, Silverstein reports, the Gores discovered zinc ore near land they owned in Tennessee. 'Through a company subsidiary Hammer bought the land for $160,000 - twice the amount offered by the only other bidder. He swiftly sold the land back to Al Gore Sr. and agreed to pay him $20,000 a year for mining rights.”
Gore Sr. then sold the property for $140,000 to Al Jr., who has gotten a $20,000 check just about every year since, although Occidental has never mined an ounce of zinc or anything else on the property.
In 1985, Al Jr. leased the property to Union Zinc, a competitor of Occidental.
In his book, 'Witness to History,' Neil Lyndon, an employee on Hammer's personal staff and the ghost writer of his memoirs, revealed that whenever Hammer he came to Washington he met with Al Gore for lunch or dinner.
'They would often eat together in the company of Occidental's Washington lobbyists and fixers who, on Hammer's behest, hosed tens of millions of dollars in bribes and favours into the political world,' Lyndon revealed.
The ties between Gore and Occidental outlived Hammer. In 1992 the company lent the Presidential Inauguration Committee $100,000. In 1996, the company gave $50,000 in soft money to the Democrats in response to a phone call from Gore.
'All told, Occidental has donated nearly half a million dollars in soft money to Democratic committees and causes since Gore joined the ticket in 1992,” Silverstein wrote. In the current presidential campaign Occidental is his No. 2 oil industry donor with company executives and their wives kicking in $10,000 to Gore's campaign.
It’s paid off handsomely. In 1997 Gore, the fanatical opponent of vehicles powered by fossil fuels such as oil, supported the $3.65 billion sale to the company of the government's interest in the Elk Hills oilfield in Bakersfield, Calif., the largest privatization of federal property in U.S. history.
'On the very day the deal was sealed Gore gave a speech lamenting the growing threat of global warming,” Silverstein reports.
***
So what is your point ? I thought america was supposed to be the place where money rules. Doesn't matter what you believe, making money over-rules. Thats how your presidents get elected
New Delhi - 11 Feb 07 - Some glacial experts have questioned the alarmists theory on global warming leading to shrinkage of Himalayan glaciers. VK Raina, a leading glaciologist and former ADG of GSI is one among them.
He feels that the research on Indian glaciers is negligible. Nothing but the remote sensing data forms the basis of these alarmists observations and not on-the-spot research.
Raina told the Hindustan Times that out of 9,575 glaciers in India, research has been conducted only on about 50. Nearly 200 years data has shown that nothing abnormal has occurred in any of these glaciers.
The issue of glacial retreat is being sensationalised by a few individuals, the septuagenarian Raina claimed.
However, Dr RK Pachouri, Chairman, Inter-Governmental Panel of Climatic Change said it’s recently released fourth assessment report has recorded increased glacier retreat since the 1980s.
But Raina, who has been associated with the research and data collection in over 25 glaciers in India and abroad, debunked the theory that Gangotri glacier is retreating alarmingly.
Maintaining that the glaciers are undergoing natural changes witnessed periodically, he said recent studies in the Gangotri and Zanskar areas (Drung- Drung, Kagriz glaciers) have not shown any evidence of major retreat.
'Claims of global warming causing glacial melt in the Himalayas are based on wrong assumptions,' said Raina, a trained mountaineer and skiing expert.
There are only about a dozen scientists working on glaciers in India under the aegis of the Geological Society of India. How can one talk about the state of glaciers when not much research is being done on the ground, he wondered.
In fact, it is difficult to ascertain the exact state of Himalayan glaciers as these are very dusty as compared to the ones in Alaska and the Alps. The present presumptions are based on the cosmatic study of the glacier surfaces.
Nobody knows what is happening. Whatever is being flaunted about the under surface activity of the glaciers is merely presumptions, he claimed.
His views were echoed by Dr RK Ganjoo, Director, Regional Centre for Field Operations and Research on Himalayan Glaciology, who is supervising study of glaciers in Ladakh region including one in the Siachen area. He also maintained that nothing abnormal has been found in any of the Himalyan glaciers studied so far by him.
Another leading geologist MN Koul of Jammu University, who is actively engaged in studying glacier dynamics in J&K and Himachal holds similar views. Referring to his research on Kol glacier ( Paddar, J&K) and Naradu (HP), he said both the glaciers have not changed much in the past two decades.
Why not look at something far closer - North Cascades. Go to www.nichols.edu/departments/Glacier
Additional to above - particularly the table of glaciers under 'Terminus Behavior'
Stop argueing about glaciers and go to Google Earth and see for yourselves. The things to look for are patches of bare rock at the glaciers snout where it has recently retreated and look for large lakes in the same spot.
Glaciers tend to gouge out rocks as they flow and cause a depression, when the glacier melts this forms a lake.
Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, the director of the University of Alaska Fairbanks International Arctic Research Center.
As reported by the Anchorage Daily News Sunday
“If you look back far enough, we have a bunch of data that show that warming has gone on from the 1600s with an almost linear increase to the present,” Akasofu said.
He showed ice-core data from the Russian Arctic that show warming starting from the early 1700s, temperature records from England showing the same trend back to 1660 and ice breakup dates at Tallinn, Estonia, that show a general warming since the year 1500.
So, why the supposed consensus?
Akasofu said scientists who support the man-made greenhouse gas theory disregard information from centuries ago when exploring the issue of global warming. Satellite images of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean have been available in the satellite era only since the 1960s and 1970s.
“Young researchers are interested in satellite data, which became available after 1975,” he said. “All the papers since (the advent of satellites) show warming. That’s what I call ‘instant climatology.’ I’m trying to tell young scientists, ‘You can’t study climatology unless you look at a much longer time period.’ “
Of course, the date 1975 is crucial, for between 1940 and 1975, the planet was going though a period of cooling which lead many scientists to believe – and media to report – that the earth might be entering a new ice age. As such, looking at data specifically from 1975 will only show increasing temperatures. How convenient.
The article continued:
Akasofu said there is no data showing that “most” of the present warming is due to the man-made greenhouse effect, as the members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change wrote in February.
He pointed out that the atmosphere cooled from 1940 to 1975 despite a rapid increase in carbon dioxide emissions during the same period.
“Nature changes all the time,” he said. “The natural component is there. Until you remove it, you don’t know the man-made effect.”
In effect, what Akasofu was logically pointing out is that history has indeed shown that climate has had dramatic fluctuations for centuries nay millennia well before the industrial revolution. As such, any scientific model that can not factor out such forces while isolating exclusively that which can demonstrably be proven stems from human activity is specious.
A good analogy is concluding that chocolate causes acne without looking at all the other chemical and biological factors involved.
The article continued:
Akasofu said he could recall in the 1960s and 1970s when some scientists were talking about an approaching ice age. In the 1980s, global warming became a popular topic.
“I think the initial motivation by the IPCC (established in 1988) was good; it was an attempt to promote this particular scientific field,” he said. “But so many (scientists) jumped in, and the media is looking for a disaster story, and the whole thing got out of control.”
This speech that Akasofu gave to the IARC occurred in late March. Yet, apart from the Anchorage Daily, only the Alaska Report covered his address.
I don’t like sunscreens because the vast majority of them only block the UVB spectrum of sunlight, the spectrum that causes sunburning. Most people use sunscreens so that they can stay out in the sun longer than they should without burning. Problem is, most sunscreens don’t block the UVA spectrum of sunlight very well, and UVA is the spectrum that causes the development of melanoma, an extremely virulent skin cancer. So if you slather on the sunscreen and hit the beach on vacation for a week, you don’t get burned, but you get ungodly amounts of UVA. It is exactly these people who develop melanoma—people who normally work indoors then have massive amounts of sun exposure over the short term. People who work in the sun and have a tan have a much lower incidence of melanoma. A good tan, which you get from graduated exposure to the sun, blocks both UVB and UVA.
I guess we can thank Al Gore for inventing the internet and causing all this. Did this cause the widespread manu of PC's leading to environental havoc?
However, our most accurate depiction of atmospheric temperature over the past 25 years comes from satellite measurements rather than from the ground thermometer record. Once the effects of non-greenhouse warming (the El Niño phenomenon in the Pacific, for instance) and cooling (volcanic eruptions) events are discounted, these measurements indicate an absence of significant global warming since 1979 - that is, over the very period that human carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing rapidly. The satellite data signal not only the absence of substantial human-induced warming, by recording similar temperatures in 1980 and 2006, but also provide an empirical test of the greenhouse hypothesis as understood by the public - a test that the hypothesis fails.
Just one small point - if the Arctic is warming twice as fast as the average global temperature, somewhere else must be cooling at the same rate, mustn't it? Otherwise the average would be higher? While we are on the subject, take a look at the actual Arctic temperatures recorded at a number of places over some years. They do not appear to show any warming. But then, facts have never been important to the zealot, have they?
Only if the total 'heat' remains the same - but if incoming radiation is greater than radiation lost, then the total will be gradually increasing
PS By total heat I mean that for the earth as a whole, not just the atmosphere
Further news on the 'Great Global Warming Swindle' programme, which anti-warmers are always quoting to bolster their case. Since being shown in the UK and roundly condemmed for inaccuracy, it has now been reported for investigation by the TV standards authority for dissemination incorrect information.. The producers admit they doctored at least one of the graphs to give a misleading trend to support their views, several scientists in the programme have stated their views were twisted, and most of the conclusions have been proved wrong
Ian: Is that all you can come up with?...Could you please list the false parts of Al Gore's Bogus Movie, Thanks...
Gore's movie has been verified and is being used for teaching in UK schools
Verified by who?...That thing is worse than the day after tommorrow. Bogus polar bear photos, The glacier they used to show breaking up is actually expanding and growing. Al Gore is on the board of a oil companie and google laurie david, talk about a agenda. Sad kids would have to watch that crap, but I guess abortion is real to and they show those movies in the UK when I went to school.
Reputable scientists.
Not clear how abortion links in to this, but I realise america has a very censored, puritan ethos which may well be a form of suppression leading to violence in later life
The UK kids can see global warming happening all around them and want to know the causes. Telling them it's not happening isn't the way to feed enquiring minds
I know the uk had cyclic warming not seen in 300 years, North America had cyclical cooling not seen in quite awhile. Anyway looking around over here its harder to believe were in a warming phase, We have to poiint that out since whatever the weather in your own area means GLOBAL warming is occuring. I guess only a audience like kids would have to watch that false docu because they are being forced at school. Hopefully adult teachers let them know this is not science. Back to cyclical warming the uk usually feels the brunt of the cooling pattern that follows the 11 year increased solar phase. Same pattern for 1000's of years. What is the fear of global warming anyway? What about adapting? What if you are wrong and we are heading to a ice age?
B.C. Snowpack at Record or Near-record Levels - 7 May 07 -
And the snow is still accumulating!
With snowpacks in British Columbia’s northern and central Interior at record or near-
record levels, including areas which feed major rivers such as the Peace and the Fraser,
provincial emergency officials are praying for bad weather.
A cool, wet April has continued the snow season, and snow is still accumulating in most
of the mountainous areas of the province. Minor flooding has started in the Northern Interior
and provincial ministries and utilities are braced for the worst.
Farmers and ranchers have been given information on flood management, including advice
on how to deal with livestock if waters begin to rise.
Local governments and emergency officials are holding meetings and setting up training
sessions around the province.
Interesting how the media doesn’t like to acknowledge record snowfall.
But if the big worry is flooding, then clearly the snow is melting ?
WIMB - The fear of global warming is the creation of drought and crop failures which will lead to mass migration North (in the Northern hemisphere) for millions looking for food and water in order to survive. The fear of another ice age is the creation of mass migration South (in the Northern Hemisphere) by those trying to survive.
In either case, there will be mass migration which will overwhelm any existing infrastructure
For more news on the Great Global Warming Swindle put 'Independent Global Warming Swindle' into Google
Posted on another smoke and mirrors biased site, obviously owned by big oil.
What an ignorant comment - The Independent Newspaper is a British newspaper, set up in 1986 by defectors from the Murdoch empire. It is slightly left of centre in outlook (which hardly ties in with Oil Company ownership !!) and, as the name implies, takes an independent look at news. It is owned by an Irish Media Group
Sad how posters such as the above, when they find independent analysis dismantling their pet theories, attack the messenger rather than looking at the facts.
I guess i should not do what the warmers do. Point well taken.Thanks
how about canada free press?
Back in the old days... and I'm only talking 5 years or so ago... we did not name sub-tropical storms. Names were only given to storms that were deemed to be truly tropical. In the last few years, there have been a number of sub-tropical storms named. Those named storms go into the total of named storms and obviously increase the number of storms that year and consequently increase the average number of storms per year. It has been claimed that global warming is responsible for an increasing number of tropical storms and hurricanes, but here is a reason that the number of storms is increasing that has absolutely nothing to do with global warming. It's because we are mixing apples and oranges and calling them all apples! And, by the way, on that topic, there was an interesting article recently published by the American Geophysical Union written by C.W. Landsea, a very respected hurricane researcher, that says any increase in the number of hurricanes observed over the last 100 years is only the result of the fact that we have more ships at sea, more people living on coastlines, and satellites to see storms now that would have gone unrecorded 50 or 75 years ago.
Think the global warming alarmists in the media will explain this distinction as they go apoplectic over the significance of this first storm?
Clinton, Obama sign onto to Boxer’s $4,500 climate tax on American families.
We see it most everywhere we go; the big push to go green and save the environment. It's even in the movie theaters, and that’s where Lisa Coots of Miami says she got the idea to switch out her traditional light bulbs to the new compact fluorescent bulbs.
Coots made her decision after seeing Al Gore's documentary about global warming 'An Inconvenient Truth'.
Besides saving the environment, the new CFL save you money and last longer. This all sounded great to Coots, who put the new bulbs in her daughter's bedrooms, the living room and closets.
What she says she didn't know is that the bulbs can burn longer because they contain Mercury, a liquid metal which has been linked to a host of neurological problems. Coots says she didn't know there was a toxic chemical in the bulb and didn't see anything on the package warning of the proper disposal of the product.
'The package did not say anything about it containing any mercury or how to dispose of it,” Coots said. If she had seen it contained mercury, she said, would not have bought the bulbs, especially because she has three young children at home.
'I think it's very scary' she said.
The warning on the packages are in small print and some are hard to read. They are also voluntary, with many of the CFL's being sold and distributed with no disposal warning at all.
Brandy Bridges of Prospect, Maine broke a CFL in her daughter's bedroom, with the glass and mercury landing all over the shag carpet.
Bridges knew enough not to vacuum it, but worried about getting all the mercury out of the carpet. She says she called Maine's Department of Environmental Protection and the agency sent over a specialist who found elevated levels of mercury in the room.
Bridges says the specialist told her not to clean it up herself and referred her to a hazardous materials cleanup company who estimated the cost of the cleanup to be two thousand dollars.
While cases like Bridges are rare and she was told later by the DEP that she could have cleaned it up herself. parents like Coots worries about exposing her kids to the toxic chemical.
While the amount of mercury in CFL’s is minimal, Stephen Webster of Florida's Department of Health says you do need to be careful.
'There's one to two drops of mercury inside this not very much,' Webster said, 'but still enough to raise some concerns and you should avoid being exposed to mercury.'
The bigger fear is that million of people are like Coots, unaware unaware that the CFL’s cannot be tossed in the trash when they burn out.
Webster says the agency is trying to educate the public about sites available in Dade and Broward Counties where you can properly dispose of your burned or broken bulbs.
The question is just how many people would take the time to do that, instead throwing the bulbs in the trash, the mercury then ending up in our landfills and eventually in our groundwater.
Webster says 'Our primary concern is that mercury over time possibly getting into the ground and contaminating our groundwater because once mercury gets into our groundwater it is very difficult and very expensive to clean up.
Webster agrees more needs to be done to make disposal easier for consumers to make sure the toxic material does not end up in the water or air. Webster says its going to be a challenge the public needs to be educated the public needs to be aware of what they are buying.
Still Lisa Coots is worried we might be putting the cart before the horse, marketing the technology so aggressively while some consumers are still in the dark about the proper disposal, making for a possibly toxic future for her children.
Hurricane numbers - its no good just counting 'Hurricanes' which happen to be in america's backyard, you need to look at worldwide figures for all tropical storms under their other names such as Cyclone, Typhoon etc
page: 1
RogerMay 4th, 2007 - 14:33:54
An excellent and concise summary of what is really happening, with information free from the bias of the anti-warmers, the politically biased or the oil industry spin doctors.
Hopefully more people will wake up, or take their heads out of the sand and start doing smething to help minimise the problems
The anti-warmers will doubtless wheel out all the old arguments about some glaciers growing, ice ages looming and sea levels falling, but the genuine evidence and data is mounting daily
Report this comment