|
|
 2 Feb 2007 @ 14:12
IPCC scientists now say that it is "very likely" that global warming is chiefly driven by the buildup of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases caused by human activity, and that dangerous levels of warming and sea rise are on the way.
Those two words — the product of 2,500 scientists, 130 nations and 6 years of work — translates into a certainty of over 90%, up from the 66 to 90% chance the panel reported in its last major climate change assessment in 2001. That might not seem like a big difference, but in science, especially in a field as rapidly developing as climate studies, 90% is as good as it gets. The new report effectively completes a scientific revolution that began at the end of the 19th century, when a Swedish geochemist named Svante Arrhenius first proposed that CO2 released into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels could change the planet's climate.
"The message of this report is that the time for sitting on the fence is finished," says Robert Watson, chief scientist at the World Bank and a former chair of the IPCC. "Now is the time for action."
Perhaps the scariest thing about the IPCC report is that is, by the nature of its composition, probably conservative. The final review, which took place this week in Paris, is painstakingly bureaucratic; the IPCC received 30,000 comments from scientists around the world as the report evolved through numerous drafts. Only the most-solidly backed facts — and often the least-controversial ones — survived the winnowing process. Many scientists had argued during the editing process that the report should say it is "virtually certain" that human activities are causing global warming. That would indicate a 99% certainty. But the change was strongly resisted by China, among other nations, because of its reliance on fossil fuels to help build its economy.
Source:
Bryan Walsh for the Time
and
Thomas H. Maugh II, Times Staff Writer
More >
|
|
|
|
 2 Feb 2007 @ 13:38
On Thursday (Feb. 02, 2007), lights on the Eiffel Tower were switched off to highlight the threat of global warming. More >
|
|
|
|
 2 Feb 2007 @ 13:21
...and this is the recording of the time:
World's top climate scientists issue their strongest warning
The United Nations (UN) climate panel issued its strongest warning yet on Friday that human activities are heating the planet, adding pressure on governments to do more to combat accelerating global warming.
"February 2, 2007 may be remembered as the day the question mark was removed from whether people are to blame for climate change," Achim Steiner, the head of the UN Environment Programme, told a news conference. He urged governments to inject more momentum into stalled talks on long-term cuts in emissions. Greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere have not been higher in 650000 years.
"We are in a sense doing things that have not happened in 650000 years, based on the scientific evidence," Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, told a news conference.
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/topstories.aspx?ID=BD4A374772 More >
|
|
|
|
 2 Feb 2007 @ 11:49
Jan 30 2007
Earth
Tuesday
WEATHER INSTABILITY
I guess the real concern is not global warming or cooling as our meger 300 years of global record weather keeping is hardly significant in planetary time frames but the crux is whether human activity is responsible to some degree to the increased weather instability of the last 50 years as witnessed by any one 40 or older, and if so how and why and what might be done about it.
I come from Alberta even which has a widely varied weather norm and I can attest that it has gotten even more unstable than the wild norm. Having experienced two tornados, two once in 200 year floods and fluctuations of about 40 or more degrees temp within less than a day and a recent province wide blizzard as well as the usual chinooks.
So I would suggest that something is causing the increased weather instability and I suppose it is right or proper to question whether it is global human activity as a possible source which is about the only thing which we may have a slight possibility of altering.
But then one might ask
"What constitutes 'weather instability'?
Is it a 1 year trend of instability
or a 10 year trend
or a 100 year trend
or a 1,000 year trend
or a 10,000 year trend?
and to who thus would whatever length constitute
an unstability to.
To a fruit fly a 1 year trend would be devastating
and to a gold fish maybe a ten year trend
and to a dog a 100 year trend
and to humans ? well a 100 or 1000 year trend or not?
You see it is somewhat relative even in these terms.
I suppose a ten year trend though would be significant
if it effected the agrospheres crop production capacity enough so
that many people would be with out food and die.
So well then lets split the dif and say
a "clear 20 year trend" more or less of weather instability
would be significant to the humans of the planet
in that it would have a definate effect on crop production.
alfie More >
|
|
|
|
 2 Feb 2007 @ 07:40
Feb 2, 2007
Well heres some blatant self promo
enjoy it if you can
link = [link]
Ed More >
|
|
<< Newer entries Page: 1 ... 194 195 196 197 198 ... 320 Older entries >> |
