"Global warming is real and humans are responsbile"

steddyeddy

The intergovernmental panel for climate change has agreed that global warming is real and humans are responsible. So are we going to waste time debating with the skeptics forever or are we going to do something about it.

Article below:

NEW DELHI: Scientists are saying with extreme confidence that human activity is the main cause of the global warming observed since the 1950s, according to the report released by the UN sponsored scientific body, the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change.

In its strongest articulation yet, the IPCC said that its "extremely likely" that more than half of the increased global temperatures between 1951 and 2010 was due to human activity. This is a significant upgrade from the 2007 assessment, when the IPCC had said it was "very likely" that global warming was man-made.

The scientific assessment drives home the need for immediate and aggressive action to reduce carbon emissions. It states that if temperature rise is to be contained to the guardrail of 2 degrees set by science to limit adverse impacts of climate change then the maximum permissible emissions would be to the tune of 880 giga tonnes of carbon. The report states that already, 531 gigatonnes of carbon of the total permissible limit has been emitted by 2011.

The report finalised after a week-long discussion by representatives of 195 countries and scientists stressed that more and better observations, improved understanding of the climate system response and improved climate models has meant that evidence of human influence in global warming has "grown since the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report."

"Observations of changes in the climate system are based on multiple lines of independent evidence. Our assessment of the science finds that the atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amount of snow and ice has diminished, the global mean sea level has risen and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased," said Qin Dahe, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group I.

The report uses four emission scenarios to project a rise of 0.3 degrees Centigrade to 4.8 degrees Centigrade in global temperatures by the end of the century. The scenario projecting a lower temperature rise requites significant emission reduction by countries. The report has raised its projections of the rise in sea levels to 26-82 cm by the end of the century.

The key findings, referred to as the Summary for Policy makers, of first of the three parts of the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report was released in Stockholm on Friday. "This Working Group I Summary for Policymakers provides important insights into the scientific basis of climate change. It provides a firm foundation for considerations of the impacts of climate change on human and natural systems and ways to meet the challenge of climate change," IPCC chairman RK Pachauri said.

The IPCC assessment report is important as it provides a scientific basis and gives key direction to governments in the global negotiations and domestic policy formulations. Friday's report will feed into the UN-sponsored climate change negotiations to be held in Warsaw in November, where representatives of governments will negotiate to formulate a new global regime to counter climate change.

The IPCC's strong signal about the human role in global warming and the impending rise in temperatures, has been picked up by some governments to push for stronger action at the Warsaw "The issue is not whether to believe in climate change or not. The issue is whether to follow science or not. The day when all scientists with 100% certainty warn you against climate change, it will be too late. If your doctor was 95% sure you had a serious disease, you would immediately start looking for the cure. Why should we take bigger risks when it's the health of our planet at stake?" asked EU Climate Action Commissioner Connie Hedegaard.

Climate activists hope to push governments to take a cue from science during the Warsaw negotiations in November. "Make no mistake: the underlying science of climate change is settled. The latest IPCC report confirms our overwhelming understanding that climate change is here and it's advancing even faster than we realized. Human activities are at the core of it. We can parse the details and have a rational discussion about solutions, but we ignore these scientific warnings at our own peril," said Andrew Steer of the Washington-based think tank World Resources Institute.

The report is likely to give impetus to developing countries to push on resolving the question of equity. "For the first time, the IPCC gives a global budget for the total amount of carbon pollution that cannot be exceeded if we are to meet the international goal of limiting temperature rise to 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels. What must be noted is that polluters have already burnt through of half of the budget and without equitable allocations and concrete actions by governments the aim of poverty eradication will remain unachieved when the entire budget is exhausted," said Sanjay Vashisht, director of Climate Action Network South Asia

Calling on government to act decisively, Saleemul Huq of the IIED and coordinating lead author in Working Group II of the IPCC said, "political inertia and powerful vested interests that have dominated media narratives for decades, they are less aware of the links between these impacts and their carbon emissions. Climate change affects us all and we must tackle it together. The time has come for global solidarity."

- Warming of the climate system is unequivocal—globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature shows a warming of 0.85 degrees between 1880 and 2012. - The period between 1983 and 2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years. - Slowdown in the rate of warming in the 15-year period between 1998 and 2012 doesn't reflect long-term climate trends. - Global mean surface temperature change between 2016 and 2035 will be between 0.3 degree and 0.7 degree more than the change between 1986 to 2005. - 99% probability that more frequent hot and fewer cold temperature extremes. - 90% probability that heat waves will occur with higher frequency and duration. - Concentration of greenhouse gases increased since 1750 due to human activity—carbon dioxide exceeds 40%, methane by 150% and nitrous oxide by 20% above pre-industrial levels. - Annual carbon dioxide emission from fossil fuel combustion and cement production averaged 8.3 gigatonne of carbon every year between 2002 and 2011. - 99% probability that global mean sea level will continue to rise beyond 2100. Sea level rise between 2081 and 2100 is projected to be in the range of 0.26m to 0.98m.

mickdw

So are they calling it climate change or global warming now? Have they made up their mind on this? Seem they were a bit shaky on the warming part of it there for a while.
What about natural cycles re heating and cooling. The earth has seen higher temps in the past when humans lived a different way so what was that about.

kneemos

See they've pulled back on their temperature predictions.
Ahem.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

group of people whose jobs depend on global warming say global warming is a continuing threat?


**** me, that's surprising

Filibuster

It's the sun...shocker

http://paulmacrae.com/links/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/010405m2.gif

DEFTLEFTHAND

Climate change is cyclical. Global Warming is a racket, making money through fear. It's very easy to make a score, it's a business I'd like to get into.

steddyeddy

mickdw wrote: »

So are they calling it climate change or global warming now? Have they made up their mind on this? Seem they were a bit shaky on the warming part of it there for a while.
What about natural cycles re heating and cooling. The earth has seen higher temps in the past when humans lived a different way so what was that about.

Both terms are accurate. A increase in temperature is change.

kneemos

Filibuster wrote: »

It's the sun...shocker

http://paulmacrae.com/links/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/010405m2.gif

Oh dear.My My.it's all a scam.

Filibuster

steddyeddy wrote: »

Both terms are accurate. A increase in temperature is change.

Climate Change Hiatus is the new term now used by the IPCC!!

Gran Hermano

Poxy humans. I suppose we caused the global warming that ended the previous ice ages.

bizmark

Ah yes a government mandated think tank whos express job is to prove how global warming/cooling/climate change is purely man made finds shock horror that climate change is man made while ignoring the inconvenient truth of 17 year halts in appreciable heating ....Nice to see they dialed back their doom mongering this time though only 1.2 c in 50 years? damn thats almost nothing in comparison to their usual drivel.

If you still believe these lairs i truly dispear for you but i think you are a shrinking minority bro quite unlike the arctic and antarctic ice cap which i believe where meant to be gone by 2013 right ?

Jonny7

Why would should this have any bearing?

We shouldn't be polluting the environment to the level we currently are. Full stop.

steddyeddy

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Climate change is cyclical. Global Warming is a racket, making money through fear. It's very easy to make a score, it's a business I'd like to get into.

What other science do you disagree with?

bizmark

steddyeddy wrote: »

What other science do you disagree with?

:rolleyes: you know its a science right not a religion he can question it and it should be able to stand up to debate ? right ?

steddyeddy

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

group of people whose jobs depend on global warming say global warming is a continuing threat?


**** me, that's surprising

A meteorologist or physicist depends on a global warming job to make a living?

Hitchens

that report is a crock of shít, instigated by various governments to justify increased carbon taxation :rolleyes:

the polar bear is in no danger whatsover
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2436882/The-poster-boys-climate-change-thrive-icy-Arctic-Polar-bears-defy-concerns-extinction.html

steddyeddy

bizmark wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Good scientific comeback. I'm guessing the scientific accuracy in this thread is going to be off the scale!

Gran Hermano

Would carbon tax have saved the wooly mammoths?

bizmark

steddyeddy wrote: »

Good scientific comeback. I'm guessing the scientific accuracy in this thread is going to be off the scale!

Oh im sorry what was scientific about your obvious appeal to authority asking him what other sciences he disagreed with ?

Your question was ridiculous you warrented no better a reply

Corkfeen

For those of you who are denying global warming based on zero research. One of the key skeptics of global warming changed his mind last year. He found through his very own study that the significant temperature changes that have occurred since the industrial revolution were in all likelihood man made. He was unable to link it to increased solar activity, a claim that is regularly lobbed around.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

If you want to dispute their findings, they're all available online for you to read.
http://berkeleyearth.org/

steddyeddy

bizmark wrote: »

Ah yes a government mandated think tank whos express job is to prove how global warming/cooling/climate change is purely man made finds shock horror that climate change is man made while ignoring the inconvenient truth of 17 year halts in appreciable heating ....Nice to see they dialed back their doom mongering this time though only 1.2 c in 50 years? damn thats almost nothing in comparison to their usual drivel.

If you still believe these lairs i truly dispear for you but i think you are a shrinking minority bro quite unlike the arctic and antarctic ice cap which i believe where meant to be gone by 2013 right ?

Scientists don't arrive at conclusions because people tell them to. David Nutt was asked by the British government to conduct a study on drug safety and went against their wishes and said ecstasy is relatively safe. He later got fired for coming to that conclusion.

kneemos

steddyeddy wrote: »

What other science do you disagree with?

Science is based on verifiable facts not wild and obviously incorrect predictions.

steddyeddy

bizmark wrote: »

Oh im sorry what was scientific about your obvious appeal to authority asking him what other sciences he disagreed with ?

Your question was ridiculous you warrented no better a reply

If you disagree with scientific method on one issue there's nothing to say that you don't disagree with it across the board.

steddyeddy

kneemos wrote: »

Science is based on verifiable facts not wild and obviously incorrect predictions.

What ones?

Corkfeen

kneemos wrote: »

Science is based on verifiable facts not wild and obviously incorrect predictions.

If you're gonna make wild claims, why not back them up if your position is so strong. :rolleyes:

steddyeddy

By the way climate change is different from "human accelerated climate change".

Filibuster

steddyeddy wrote: »

By the way climate change is different from "human accelerated climate change".

Climate change is on a hiatus, get with the program.

Red Kev

Hitchens wrote: »

that report is a crock of shít, instigated by various governments to justify increased carbon taxation :rolleyes:

the polar bear is in no danger whatsover
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2436882/The-poster-boys-climate-change-thrive-icy-Arctic-Polar-bears-defy-concerns-extinction.html

From the same article, it seems that the locals have noticed something else....

Guide Bruce Inglangasuk said: ‘Any idiot can see that climate change is affecting us here. There is no ice where there should be ice.’
Walt Audi, 74, a former pilot who now owns the 11-room Waldo Arms hotel, agreed.
He said: ‘I’ve been here 50 years. We used to have icebergs floating offshore at this time of year and the ice would come right in, even during summer.
‘Now it’s 150 miles offshore. The bears are hungry so they are coming here looking for food until the ocean freezes and they can head back out to hunt seals.’


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2436882/The-poster-boys-climate-change-thrive-icy-Arctic-Polar-bears-defy-concerns-extinction.html#ixzz2gHRc0POm
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Either way the Dail Mail is probably the last source we should be using in trying to discuss anything serious, Miley Cyrus's arse, yes; climate change, probably better to look elsewhere.

kneemos

steddyeddy wrote: »

What ones?

The huge temperature increases we were due to experience.

IngazZagni

Corkfeen wrote: »

For those of you who are denying global warming based on zero research. One of the key skeptics of global warming changed his mind last year. He found through his very own study that the significant temperature changes that have occurred since the industrial revolution were in all likelihood man made. He was unable to link it to increased solar activity, a claim that is regularly lobbed around.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

If you want to dispute their findings, they're all available online for you to read.
http://berkeleyearth.org/

Oh wow, one person has changed his mind. Big woop!

These guys have completely changed their predictions over the past couple decades. I haven't heard one of them say that it's a good thing that their predictions have not come true so far. Instead they say it's still coming, but we will have to wait longer...

Governments especially in Europe will love reports like these so they can increase their carbon taxes which is just an excuse for an additional revenue stream. Green energy, just like the oil industry, makes a **** load of money for a small amount of people. The difference being that money is primarily from Government subsidies and not from the product itself.

galwayrush

The polar caps are a huge cause of global warming. The sheer volume of the ice creates heat as the massive weight and friction bear down. The larger they grow, the more heat that's created, eventually causing massive melting of the ice. Sea levels rise and the cycle continues.

steddyeddy

kneemos wrote: »

The huge temperature increases we were due to experience.

That's not human influenced climate change.

bleg

This thread makes me sad.

My name is URL

It's mad how many people become fully fledged conspiracy theorists at the mere mention of climate change :pac:

bumper234

galwayrush wrote: »

The polar caps are a huge cause of global warming. The sheer volume of the ice creates heat as the massive weight and friction bear down. The larger they grow, the more heat that's created, eventually causing massive melting of the ice. Sea levels rise and the cycle continues.

What?

Filibuster

Red Kev wrote: »

From the same article, it seems that the locals have noticed something else....



Either way the Dail Mail is probably the last source we should be using in trying to discuss anything serious, Miley Cyrus's arse, yes; climate change, probably better to look elsewhere.

Nasa have only been tracking sea ice levels since the 1970's. Hardly enough time to make any sort of judgement. This year sea ice levels in the arctic were very high.

Indeed, in 1903 the arctic sea ice was so low it allowed Roald Amundsen to sail through the Northwest Passage. To mark the anniversary, 22 yachts tried to replicate the feat in 2013. They got trapped in the sea ice and had to be rescued by the Canadian Coastguard. It's a natural cycle and people shouldn't get into a arm waving flap about it.

Sir_Badshot

I cannot believe the morons here and in the world who deny that this is caused by human activity.

This position enables them to stick their head in the sand and absolve themselves of any responsibility.

Its sick. Our grandchildren will look back and curse us for these days.

Sir_Badshot

galwayrush wrote: »

The polar caps are a huge cause of global warming. The sheer volume of the ice creates heat as the massive weight and friction bear down. The larger they grow, the more heat that's created, eventually causing massive melting of the ice. Sea levels rise and the cycle continues.

Jeezuz.

kneemos

steddyeddy wrote: »

That's not human influenced climate change.

It's what they predicted whatever you're calling it.

Corkfeen

IngazZagni wrote: »

Oh wow, one person has changed his mind. Big woop!

These guys have completely changed their predictions over the past couple decades. I haven't heard one of them say that it's a good thing that their predictions have not come true so far. Instead they say it's still coming, but we will have to wait longer...

Governments especially in Europe will love reports like these so they can increase their carbon taxes which is just an excuse for an additional revenue stream. Green energy, just like the oil industry, makes a **** load of money for a small amount of people. The difference being that money is primarily from Government subsidies and not from the product itself.

Think it's around 99% of the scientific community that support the existence of man made global warming. So yes, big woop! Produce peer reviewed research that strongly suggests global warming isn't man made, please. Scientific models on global warming are constantly advancing and becoming more accurate btw. Countries will likely see more and more intense extreme weather events as the year go on and idiots will continue to deny it.

You'll also find that carbon taxes and the likes have increased the fuel efficiency of European cars which is great since oil prices are constantly rising so in the long run the consumer benefits from that.

But with your immense knowledge on the subject, you should perfectly able to produce some peer reviewed research that disproves man made global warming. Thanks for that.

hansfrei

Way too much money tied up in this. Green taxation is another energy scam.
Making cheap green energy was the dream of the previous generation. Might even come true in a generation or twos time.

No sign of it happening anytime soon.

IngazZagni

steddyeddy wrote: »

Scientists don't arrive at conclusions because people tell them to. David Nutt was asked by the British government to conduct a study on drug safety and went against their wishes and said ecstasy is relatively safe. He later got fired for coming to that conclusion.

Did you just prove your own point wrong there? So he was under no pressure to arrive at a conclusion that the Government would support. However he was fired after publishing findings that the Government couldn't support?

That's a clear message to other scientists that if you don't publish results that suit us then you won't be asked to do research by us again and thus won't get another nice paycheck.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

The intergovernmental panel for climate change has agreed that global warming is real and humans are responsible. So are we going to waste time debating with the skeptics forever or are we going to do something about it.

Article below:

What do you suggest?
Quit burning fossil fuel and reverting to a 17th century lifestyle,
No cars, no electricity and nothing else that makes modern life so easy.

Even if we did something that dramatic, the CO2 levels would only stop rising, they won't fall back! (that would require the abandonment of agriculture)
Climate change will still happen, in fact the planet would cool if the solar predictions are correct and we're facing into a Maunder minimum type scenario.

steddyeddy

IngazZagni wrote: »

Did you just prove your own point wrong there? So he was under no pressure to arrive at a conclusion that the Government would support. However he was fired after publishing findings that the Government couldn't support?

That's a clear message to other scientists that if you don't publish results that suit us then you won't be asked to do research by us again and thus won't get another nice paycheck.

It's clear proof that the government sometimes don't like a scientists results it's also clear proof that scientists follow science to their conclusion not the wishes of the government.

galwayrush

bumper234 wrote: »

What?

Geothermal heat.

bizmark

steddyeddy wrote: »

It's clear proof that the government sometimes don't like a scientists results it's also clear proof that scientists follow science to their conclusion not the wishes of the government.

no it isnt its proof one guy had integrity it does not prove every one else on the planet who calls themselves a scientist has...Do you really believe other wise?

steddyeddy

Deleted User wrote: »

What do you suggest?
Quit burning fossil fuel and reverting to a 17th century lifestyle,
No cars, no electricity and nothing else that makes modern life so easy.

Even if we did something that dramatic, the CO2 levels would only stop rising, they won't fall back! (that would require the abandonment of agriculture)
Climate change will still happen, in fact the planet would cool if the solar predictions are correct and we're facing into a Maunder minimum type scenario.

Pump large amounts of money into alternative to fossil fuels. That's what science is for. It's like saying keep using chemo or die of cancer. There's always the possibility of something else.

_Redzer_

I love how these threads sometimes play out. People saying it's all a money racket and not real. Yeah because us burning billions and billions of tonnes of fuel and releasing the same amount of a known green house gas of the same amount into the atmosphere isn't making any difference at all, sure it's all natural like!

Ffs. If people copped on a bit we might be able to progress at reducing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, but no, it's all fake until the last minute until it's too big a problem to fix. Typical shite. It's how everything has played out. The hole in the ozone layer was the very same deal -Stick your head in the sand, say it's all BS until the problem becomes too big to deny or hide from. It's a terrible way of handling things.

Corkfeen

bizmark wrote: »

no it isnt its proof one guy had integrity it does not prove every one else on the planet who calls themselves a scientist has...Do you really believe other wise?

The advantage of the peer review process is that if data is falsified etc, it will be disputed(refused publication) and it could ruin your reputation in the scientific community. T'would be foolish to risk your career on it and it has ruined careers.

Strangely,I've asked people in this topic to provide such peer reviewed article and they have yet to do so.

IngazZagni

steddyeddy wrote: »

It's clear proof that the government sometimes don't like a scientists results it's also clear proof that scientists follow science to their conclusion not the wishes of the government.

Really. So it wasn't to send a message to future researchers to not bother publishing data that doesn't suit them? To me that's exactly what it sounds like. But with everything we can choose what parts of the story to pick apart and come to opinions that we want to.

riffmongous

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What do you suggest?]

Even if we did something that dramatic, the CO2 levels would only stop rising, they won't fall back! (that would require the abandonment of agriculture)
Climate change will still happen, in fact the planet would cool if the solar predictions are correct and we're facing into a Maunder minimum type scenario.

Is there any actual proof though of what the effect of a MM on the radiative forcing would be though?