Climate Change Worse Than First Thought? - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

troutman · 01-30-2006, 10:34 AM

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/eu....ap/index.html

The threat posed by climate change may be greater than previously thought, and global warming is advancing at an unsustainable rate, a report by scientists published Monday says.

The UK government-commissioned report collates evidence presented at a Meteorological Office conference on climate change last year. It says scientists now have "greater clarity and reduced uncertainty" about the impacts of climate change.

In a foreword, Prime Minister Tony Blair said it was clear that "the risks of climate change may well be greater than we thought."

"It is now plain that the emission of greenhouse gases, associated with industrialization and economic growth from a world population that has increased six-fold in 200 years, is causing global warming at a rate that is unsustainable," he wrote.

Hakan · 01-30-2006, 10:43 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4660938.stm

"The thing that is perhaps not so familiar to members of the public... is this notion that we could come to a tipping point where change could be irreversible," she told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
"We're not talking about it happening over five minutes, of course, maybe over a thousand years, but it's the irreversibility that I think brings it home to people."

What do all those stupid scientists know, eh Tranny?

Flame On · 01-30-2006, 10:49 AM

Indeed. But becuse there's no catagorical proof lets sit back and do nothing. It's just treehuggers trying to kill poor industry.

Cube Inmate · 01-30-2006, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flame On

Indeed. But becuse there's no catagorical proof lets sit back and do nothing. It's just treehuggers trying to kill poor industry.

No...how about, let's do something productive, instead of just agreeing to funnel money to developing countries in order to justify our own emissions? But wait! We're providing "leadership," right?

Frikkin' blind leading the frikkin' blind.

Cheese · 01-30-2006, 12:48 PM

so lets see....

Quote:

"It is now plain that the emission of greenhouse gases, associated with industrialization and economic growth from a world population that has increased six-fold in 200 years, is causing global warming at a rate that is unsustainable," he wrote.

What usually happens when population overgrowth happens? War? Time for a pruning of the population?

arsenal · 01-30-2006, 12:53 PM

And these people say differently:

http://www.junkscience.com/

RougeUnderoos · 01-30-2006, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arsenal

And these people say differently:

http://www.junkscience.com/

Gawd I hope they are right

REDVAN · 01-30-2006, 04:52 PM

Ok do we really need to start a new thread about GW every 2 weeks? I seem to recall saying this exact thing less than a month ago.

Global warming HAS not been proven to be caused by anthroprogenic (human) activity. In the geologic record of the earth, there is very distinct evidence of global warming and cooling. Currently, we are moving out of an ice age into a period of average earth temperature. How do we (I am a geology student at the U of C) know this? From the rock record (ie/ sediment build-up), from ice records (in glaciers) etc.

So could it be possible that anthroprogenic activity causes/is causing this current global warming? Yes. But it is also possible that it is a natural earth cycle, with the earth trying to reach equillibrium. Perhaps at this time, the exponential growth of the human population is causing the earth to react, perhaps it is not. The conclusion is not that humans are to blame, or that industrialists are wrong and tree-huggers right, the conclusion must be that we don't yet know what is the cause, and we need to study more.

My opinion about this is that yes, we should take steps to reduce our effect, and then if it is proven we are not causing the changes, it doesn't matter because we didn't add to the problem. But if the studies show we caused the temperature change to occur more quickly, then we have slowed and are headed in the right direction.

P.S. Not all "scientific" articles you read are true, each scientist publishes what they believe in. Each one has a different agenda, and there is no way to keep it 100% bias-free.

Maritime Q-Scout · 01-30-2006, 06:48 PM

Here's my opinon on global warming

it's almost February and I've had to suffer through 1 day of -5 weather or worse

we had mild spring days the second weekend of January

GOD BLESS GLOBAL WARMING!!!

La Flames Fan · 01-31-2006, 04:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheese

so lets see....

What usually happens when population overgrowth happens? War? Time for a pruning of the population?

Time for a good ol' influenza!

Resolute 14 · 01-31-2006, 07:37 AM

Of course, the global solution is to spread money around while exempting two of the worlds biggest polluters from having to do anything.

RedHot25 · 01-31-2006, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

Of course, the global solution is to spread money around while exempting two of the worlds biggest polluters from having to do anything.

Doesn't one of them - the States - refuse to sign? Didn't the rest basically go ahead, b/c it was better than waiting around for the States to decide "what they would accept"?

(I don't know, so that's why I'm asking...)

Resolute 14 · 01-31-2006, 08:11 AM

The US has done more to reduce greenhouse emissions than any Kyoto signatory has - including, and especially, Canada. Maybe it helps to have a plan that involves more than just throwing money around.

The two nations I am referring to are China and India.

Lurch · 01-31-2006, 08:28 AM

Quote:

The US has done more to reduce greenhouse emissions than any Kyoto signatory has - including, and especially, Canada. Maybe it helps to have a plan that involves more than just throwing money around.

You should stick to facts - the Canada part is true. Countries such as Germany are actually close to meeting their targets and have reduced GHG emissions by 15% to 20%.

Resolute 14 · 01-31-2006, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lurch

You should stick to facts - the Canada part is true. Countries such as Germany are actually close to meeting their targets and have reduced GHG emissions by 15% to 20%.

Everything I had originally read treats the EU as one entity, and the EU is failing. Impressed by Germany's individual results though.

transplant99 · 01-31-2006, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hakan

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4660938.stm

"The thing that is perhaps not so familiar to members of the public... is this notion that we could come to a tipping point where change could be irreversible," she told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
"We're not talking about it happening over five minutes, of course, maybe over a thousand years, but it's the irreversibility that I think brings it home to people."

What do all those stupid scientists know, eh Tranny?

Indeed.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.htm

RougeUnderoos · 01-31-2006, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by transplant99

Indeed.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.htm

Well we could go back and forth all day giving links to qualified people that believe we are causing climate change and those who don't. The numbers definitely lean to the "I believe it" side I'm pretty sure.

Anyhow, I've always wondered though what the non-believers think about all the pollution. Like today for instance over the lunch hour 50 million litres of oil will be burned. What do you think happens to all that pollution? It seems to me that there has got to be some negative effect to that. Consuming 50 million litres every hour of every day has got to be doing something bad, wouldn't you think?

And that's just oil.

transplant99 · 01-31-2006, 12:17 PM

Im not and never have said there is nothing to the whole argument....there is.

However, there is are degrees as to what's happening. And as I have said all along, this is nothing that the earth has not seen before as far as climatological changes go.....only the cause is different this time, and we still have no idea what net affects will be.

That being said, I have no problem with trying to clean things up....none at all. However, it has to be done properly by EVERY nation in the world and at a rate that allows industry to survive.

Resolute 14 · 01-31-2006, 12:27 PM

Certantly there is little doubt that pollution is affecting our environment. Is it accellerating global warming? If so, how much? If so, how much can Kyoto's trifling cuts change things? If sow, how does sending China a billion dollars for emissions credits help the environment more than it helps the communists?

Greenhouse gas emissions are not the greatest of environmental hazards right now, and Kyoto's wealth redistribution plans do not pretend to care about the other problems we face.

Lets replace our dirty coal burning plants with clean nuclear power plants. That will help reduce pollution.

arsenal · 01-31-2006, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Consuming 50 million litres every hour of every day has got to be doing something bad, wouldn't you think?

And that's just oil.

Fair enough. But then consider the 15 - 20 million litres every hour of every day release by people breathing. As far as I know, people exhale CO2, which is a major contributing factor, is it not?

So if the earth able to handle that much CO2 from its human inhabitants (doesn't include animals by the way), wouldn't it be suffice to say that it could handle the extra with out the us reaching the "point of no return" ?

Reduce emissions sure, I am all for it. But there are better ways of doing it.