The Independent: The Earth In Imminent Peril

Posted on Tuesday, June 19 at 09:28 by Anonymous
Instead of sea levels rising by about 40 centimetres, as the IPCC predicts in one of its computer forecasts, the true rise might be as great as several metres by 2100. That is why, they say, planet Earth today is in "imminent peril". In a densely referenced scientific paper published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A some of the world's leading climate researchers describe in detail why they believe that humanity can no longer afford to ignore the "gravest threat" of climate change. "Recent greenhouse gas emissions place the Earth perilously close to dramatic climate change that could run out of control, with great dangers for humans and other creatures," the scientists say. Only intense efforts to curb man-made emissions of carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases can keep the climate within or near the range of the past one million years, they add. The researchers were led by James Hansen, the director of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who was the first scientist to warn the US Congress about global warming. The other scientists were Makiko Sato, Pushker Kharecha and Gary Russell, also of the Goddard Institute, David Lea of the University of California, Santa Barbara, and Mark Siddall of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University in New York. In their 29-page paper, "Climate Change and trace gases", the scientists frequently stray from the non-emotional language of science to emphasise the scale of the problems and dangers posed by climate change. Click here to read this article at The Independent. http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2675747.ece [Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on June 20, 2007]

Note: http://environment.inde...

Contributed By


Topic


Article Rating

 (0 votes) 

Options




Comments

  1. Tue Jun 19, 2007 6:28 pm
    "Six scientists from some of the leading scientific institutions in the United States have issued what amounts to an unambiguous warning to the world: civilisation itself is threatened by global warming." <br><br> We've heard that theme before, a theme that reoccurs throughout the ages citing various doomsday predictions of one kind or another - all of which were based on the best that science (or the chosen mysticism of the day) had to offer. <br><br> Civilization is always under threat for many different reasons, and some of these reasons are far worse than global climate change which is always occurring naturally as it always has done throughout the Earth's history. <br><br> I recently heard someone say that G.W. Bush - a man that I along with most of the worlds population despises - is right to oppose the Kyoto Protocol, but for all the wrong reasons, and I have to agree with that. <br><br> Raping, pillaging, and overpopulating the world with impunity will eventually cause some nasty problems for human kind, unless a nuclear war or an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson_%28fiction%29">experiment gone wrong</a> does us in first. <br><br> Reducing carbon emissions alone will only serve as a distraction from far more pressing issues, and may even make the problems we face worse. <br><br> One question to ask, is why do we dump so much nasty pollution everywhere in the first place? Address that issue, and carbon emissions will naturally go down. Beat people up with a stick, and carbon emission may go down, but something else will definitely go up.

  2. Tue Jun 19, 2007 9:36 pm
    My first response is: "OK, lets start with a very basic question: Suppose ALL of the ice on the earth were to melt, how much would the ocean level rise?" This would establish an upper boundary to the condition, and one could plan for that.

    Get some reasonable consensus to this question we could then ask what's melting and what isn't, because the great majority of Antarctica is getting cooler and the ice is getting thicker. This would narrow down the ocean's rise, reducing the condition's impact.

    H.F. Wolff

  3. Wed Jun 20, 2007 3:08 am
    There is a huge leap from a loonie on a street corner yelling the end of the earth is coming and a peer-reviewed scientific finding.

    Bush is wrong, and you are wrong for different reasons.

    ---
    If there was ever a time for Canadians to become pushy - now is the time - for time is running out on this nation called Canada.

  4. Wed Jun 20, 2007 9:54 am
    "There is a huge leap from a loonie on a street corner yelling the end of the earth is coming and a peer-reviewed scientific finding."

    Yesterday's scientist, is today's loonie.

  5. Wed Jun 20, 2007 3:23 pm
    "... because the great majority of Antarctica is getting cooler and the ice is getting thicker."

    That is incorrect. The majority of Antarctic ice is thinning. Some places along the coast are getting thicker due to the warmer temperatures creating higher humidity and therefore higher snowfall.


    ---
    The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.

  6. Wed Jun 20, 2007 4:19 pm
    "This would narrow down the ocean's rise, reducing the condition's impact."

    If all the ice melted, then the temperature would have to be very hot, which means that the oceans will evaporate much more quickly than they do now, and that will offset a rise in sea level to at least some degree.

  7. Wed Jun 20, 2007 8:50 pm
    From 1986 to 2000 central Antarctica valleys cooled .7 deg C per decade.... NATURE 415.

    Both satellite data and ground stations show slight cooling (of Antarctic surface) over the last 20 years. JOURNAL OF CLIMATE 13.

    Side looking radar measurements show West Antarctic ice is increasing at 26.8 gigatons/yr. Reversing the melting trend of the last 6000 years. SCIENCE 295.

    Antarctic peninsula has warmed several degrees while interior has cooled somewhat. Ice shelves have retreated but the sea ice has increased. SCIENCE 296.

    During the last four interglacials, going back 420,000 years, the earth was warmer than it is today. NATURE 399.

    Less Antarctic ice has melted today than occurred during the last interglacial. GEOLOGY 27.

    Antarctic sea ice has increased since 1979. GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS 31.

    Trend toward more sea ice may be accelerating. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF REMOTE SENSING 24.

    The greater part of Antarctica experiences a longer sea-ice season, lasting 21 days longer than it did in 1979. ANNALS OF GLACIOLOGY 34.

    I left out the names of the authors of the foregoing because typing is not my schtick. The references are in CAPITALS.

    H.F. Wolff

  8. Thu Jun 21, 2007 8:20 am
    Remember this news item? <br> <a href="http://www.harpseals.org/hunt/press/sealersstuck.html">Sealers Stuck in Heavy Ice off Newfoundland/Labrador</a> <br><br> Apparently unusually thick ice can be caused by global warming. <br><br> Note: "Meanwhile, ice may not be such a big problem in the coming years as the federal government has announced that two heavy icebreakers will move from Halifax to the Newfoundland region in the next two years." <br><br> The government must know something that the global warmists don't, as they are planing for a very different future.

  9. Thu Jun 21, 2007 8:29 am
    "I left out the names of the authors of the foregoing because typing is not my schtick. The references are in CAPITALS."

    Very interesting references, thanks!

  10. Thu Jun 21, 2007 4:47 pm
    March 2006: Polar ice sheets show net LOSS;<br />
    <br />
    <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4790238.stm">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4790238.stm</a><br />
    <br />
    NASA ICEsat monitoring sattelite data (2002 to present);<br />
    <br />
    <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/icesat_light.html">http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/icesat_light.html</a><br />
    <br />
    NASA SVS animation of actual data of Greenland's receding ice:<br />
    <br />
    <a href="http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/stories/greenland/index.html">http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/stories/greenland/index.html</a><br />
    <br />
    Snow and ice data centre, Arctic sea ice shrinking:<br />
    <br />
    <a href="http://nsidc.org/news/press/20021207_seaice.html">http://nsidc.org/news/press/20021207_seaice.html</a><br />
    <br />
    Spaceflight's animation of the Greenland ice sheets thinning:<br />
    <br />
    <a href="http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0007/24greenlandice/">http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0007/24greenlandice/</a><br />
    <br />
    --------<br />
    <br />
    You know me by now Herr Wolfe ;) I don't make claims like that unless I can back them up. All your references appear to be before 2000. All mine are after, or current updated daily.<p>---<br>The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.<br />

  11. Fri Jun 22, 2007 12:33 am
    Let me get this straight.

    You are willing to spend billions of other people's money because of some climactic change over the last 7 years? When evidence points to the fact that the earth was much warmer a number of times during its 4.5 billion year history?

    Would you not agree that any climactic occurrences over such a short period are insignificant compared to what the earth has been through? Even a thousand years pales in comparison to 4.5 billion years.

    I remain convinced that climactic change is being used to hose the taxpayer once more.

    Please note that I am not disagreeing that the planet is getting warmer, or cooler, if you like. I am simply stating "so what"? The climate is ALWAYS changing.

    H.F. Wolff

  12. Fri Jun 22, 2007 4:01 am
    Dr Caleb,

    Upon re-reading your and my earlier posts I find the first line and the next paragraph of my above post inappropriate to our debate. Kindly pass them over. Thanks.

    H.F. Wolff

  13. Fri Jun 22, 2007 6:18 pm
    I was going to comment on them, because I said no such thing. So, we'll just skip it as you suggest. :)

    "Would you not agree that any climactic occurrences over such a short period are insignificant compared to what the earth has been through? Even a thousand years pales in comparison to 4.5 billion years."

    Absolutely. 'Climate Change' IMHO is a misnomer, because it implies that our climate is static. But it does describe what evidence we are seeing in our environment.

    "I remain convinced that climactic change is being used to hose the taxpayer once more."

    As do I. My belief is that the Sun has entered a more enegetic phase, and there is little we can do about that. Nor do I think we should try. We should be concentrating our efforts on what we do best - adapting. Using this newfound energy to reduce our polluting the very environment we depend on for survival.

    My only concern was that your assertion that Antarctic ice was thickening, when evidence shows it is (on average) thinning.

    I believe in facts, no matter how inconvenient. And, as a wise man once said, 'I only trust the statistics I make up myself'.

    ---
    The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.



view comments in forum


You need to be a member and be logged into the site, to comment on stories.




Your Voice

To post to the site, just sign up for a free membership/user account and then hit submit. Posts in English or French are welcome. You can email any other suggestions or comments on site content to the site editor. (Please note that Vive le Canada does not necessarily endorse the opinions or comments posted on the site.)

canadian bloggers | canadian news