j_b Posted December 17, 2002 Share Posted December 17, 2002 Scientists: '02 Second Hottest as Warming Speeds Tue December 17, 2002 12:25 PM ET By Stephanie Nebehay GENEVA (Reuters) - This year has been the second warmest since 1860, extending a quarter-century pattern of accelerated global warming linked to greenhouse gas emissions, United Nations scientists said Tuesday. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO), a United Nations agency, said that 1998 remained the hottest year on record, with 2002 surpassing last year as the next warmest. The 10 warmest years had all occurred since 1987, nine since 1990. "Clearly for the past 25 or 26 years, the warming is accelerating ... The rate of increase is unprecedented in the last 1,000 years," Kenneth Davidson, director of WMO's world climate program told a news briefing. A moderate El Nino system warming the tropical Pacific since mid-year was expected to last through April, according to WMO. While El Nino is smaller in magnitude than the 1997-98 event, which caused $34 billion in damage, it has coincided with "climate anomalies" including droughts in Australia and southern Africa, as well as warmer conditions across Asia, it added. WMO scientists were presenting a report on the status of the global climate in 2002, based on observations through November from a network of land-based weather stations, ships and buoys. Global surface temperatures have risen six-tenths of a degree Celsius since 1900, according to the Geneva-based body. Scientists say the world needs to slash emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases which trap heat in the atmosphere if it is to avoid disastrous floods, droughts and a rise in sea levels in coming decades. Davidson called greenhouses gases "the major influence affecting the climate." Hong Yan, WMO assistant secretary-general, went further: "If no very effective measures are taken for preventing further release of greenhouse gases, then the trend will continue." The United States, the largest producer of greenhouse gases, has rejected the Kyoto treaty which aims to cut emissions from developed countries by 2012 to 5.2 percent below 1990 levels. The El Nino phenomenon, from the Spanish term for a boy child, is the warming of the central and eastern tropical Pacific, the world's largest ocean basin, every few years. It can wreak havoc on weather patterns, but no two El Nino events are identical, scientists say. "The drought in Southern Africa appears very strongly linked to El Nino. The drought in Ethiopia appears not to be," said Paul Llanso, head of WMO's climate data and monitoring division. U.S. forecasters said last week that El Nino would bring a milder winter to the northern half of the United States while pounding parts of the south and east with more storms. http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=scienceNews&storyID=1922017 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted December 17, 2002 Share Posted December 17, 2002 I have always found it somewhat arrogant that people believe that, based on a limited sample size of data, humans have grossly altered global weather. All these people also believe that the earth is hundreds of millions of years old. In light of this age guesstimate, doesn't such a small sample size make some of you wonder? Global weather is cyclical by nature; deal with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeclimb9 Posted December 17, 2002 Share Posted December 17, 2002 doesn't such a small sample size make some of you wonder? The Greenland Ice Core project has retreived samples representative of the last 100,000 yrs. Not such a small sample size. Climate change is occuring. The accumulative data is suggestive of a man-made influence, but no smoking gun exists. No question, we'll have to deal with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill_Simpkins Posted December 17, 2002 Share Posted December 17, 2002 Well, it's too late now. Us American's have more important things to do like Oprah and SUV's. The Earth is a giant engine and when something goes a little wrong and throws it out of equilibrium, we see drastic changes in weather before we see a siqnificant rise in temperature. The weather has been a little nuts, but it's too soon to tell. What gets me is even if there is no global warming, isn't it enough that the air is just nasty? It's disgusting. I'll be on some peak in tin-buck-two and see smog everywhere. We breath that crap all the time. That is a problem thats right in front of everyone's faces and I can't beleive that more isn't being done about it. What comes around goes around and the Earth will turn without us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted December 17, 2002 Share Posted December 17, 2002 Point taken, Freeclimb9. I don't disagree that climate change is occurring. My point is that climate change has always been occurring on Earth; one way or another. It's a circle of life thing (remember "The Lion King"?). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted December 17, 2002 Share Posted December 17, 2002 shouldnt this thread be under ice conditions. some dude driving around in a f350 with two sleds in the back wondering where the ice is Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted December 17, 2002 Share Posted December 17, 2002 Greg- Are you for real or are you trolling? Check out the definition of "arrogant" in the dictionary: "full of or characterized by excessive pride or self-esteem; overbearing." If we cleaned up our act, at what would indisputably be great financial cost, we could move to more efficient and sustainable methods of energy production and the like and whether we are right or wrong about the greenhouse gasses contribution to global warming there would be no permanent harm done, but lots of old equipment would have been updated. If we don't clean up our act, we are gambling that modern science is wrong and even Bush's guys are now admitting that humans probably do contribute to global warning so I don't think that is a good bet. Isn't the truly arrogant position the one taken by those who say we don't really know if we are harming the environment and let's not change anything about our practices until we do know it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted December 17, 2002 Share Posted December 17, 2002 Lets not forget that the main cause of previous civilizations collapsing (Inca, Maya, Sumerian etc.) was largely climate changes & subsequent droughts, sandstorms etc. The USA was recently ranked lowest in the world (178 out of 178 or something) when it came to responsible water use. Wasteful and archaic water laws favoring inherently inefficient and wasteful water use (largely by agriculture) were largely to blame for this poor ranking. Put the two facts together and where does it leave you? Remember what goes around comes around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegetablebelay Posted December 17, 2002 Share Posted December 17, 2002 Didn't we already do this? *yawn* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted December 17, 2002 Share Posted December 17, 2002 Mattp - The point I was trying to make was that I see these scientists (and all who believe that we are super-responsible for climate change) are arrogant to think that humans can so damage such an incredibly diverse, massive, intricate, complex system as the Earth. Given that the same people who say the earth is hundreds of millions of years old rely on data taken over such a small expanse of time, and that humans, who have been here for an even smaller expanse of time, could cause such a sharp change. Just my thoughts on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeclimb9 Posted December 17, 2002 Share Posted December 17, 2002 Lets not forget that the main cause of previous civilizations collapsing (Inca, Maya, Sumerian etc.) was largely climate changes & subsequent droughts, sandstorms etc. That's speculative. Warfare, soil depletion, and disease were probably larger forces --at least for New World cultures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted December 17, 2002 Share Posted December 17, 2002 In light of that, Dru, I suggest you do all you can to avoid supporting this wasteful practice. Stay in Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted December 17, 2002 Author Share Posted December 17, 2002 I have always found it somewhat arrogant that people believe that, based on a limited sample size of data, humans have grossly altered global weather. All these people also believe that the earth is hundreds of millions of years old. In light of this age guesstimate, doesn't such a small sample size make some of you wonder? Global weather is cyclical by nature; deal with it. brilliant logic! it's like saying that since species extinction happened in the past, we are not responsible for today's accelerated rate of species extinction. In short, naturally occurring climate mayhem in the past is not sufficient evidence to discount all of the other evidence which indicate teh role of human greenhouse gas emissions in climate warming. The accumulative data is suggestive of a man-made influence, but no smoking gun exists. what do you mean? we can perfectly well compute how much CO2 we spew relative to natural emissions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk Posted December 17, 2002 Share Posted December 17, 2002 Why do you look at humans as being ouside of nature? are we not exactly what we have evolved into... isn't evelution part of nature??? I am not saying we shouldn't do things better, because we should. but we are also part of nature... unless of course we are aliens Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted December 17, 2002 Share Posted December 17, 2002 All those in favor of very expensive 5 year studies stand up and be counted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted December 17, 2002 Share Posted December 17, 2002 we can perfectly well compute how much CO2 we spew relative to natural emissions I have trouble believing this; please explain further. Also, isn't CO2 a small (less than 5%) percentage of "greenhouse gases"? Isn't water vapor the number one greenhouse gas? Regarding you not liking my logic, I don't care. It's my opinion, that's all. Fuck you if you don't like it, I didn't ask you to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeclimb9 Posted December 17, 2002 Share Posted December 17, 2002 j_b, The accumulative data is suggestive of a man-made influence, but no smoking gun exists. what do you mean? we can perfectly well compute how much CO2 we spew relative to natural emissions. the uncertainty of how greenhouse gases (of which CO2 is only one, but certainly has increased the most since pre-industrial times) affect the greenhouse effect is large. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted December 17, 2002 Share Posted December 17, 2002 Greg , always the diplomat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted December 17, 2002 Share Posted December 17, 2002 That view has largely been debunked by the better paleoclimate records referenced above. Certainly war, etc. did take place but had the cultures in question not been already reeling from drought, starvation etc it is questionable whether they would have been finished off. And of course the Minoans were wiped out when Thera blew up! But anyways yeah - keep on keeping on like you do - then when your civilaztion is starving and dehydrated us well-watered Canadian barbarians can sweep down and deliver the coup de grace. And after that you can bet there will be none of this passport garbage next time I wanna go to Josh for a few weeks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted December 17, 2002 Share Posted December 17, 2002 Greg , always the diplomat. Yeah, The Foreign Service is knocking down my door. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted December 17, 2002 Share Posted December 17, 2002 Dru , you're goofy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted December 17, 2002 Share Posted December 17, 2002 we are aliens, according to Erich von Daniken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted December 17, 2002 Share Posted December 17, 2002 Keep the faith bro. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted December 17, 2002 Share Posted December 17, 2002 And after that you can bet there will be none of this passport garbage next time I wanna go to Josh for a few weeks. Well, as long as you are fighting for a worthy cause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeclimb9 Posted December 17, 2002 Share Posted December 17, 2002 when your civilaztion is starving and dehydrated us well-watered Canadian barbarians can sweep down and deliver the coup de grace. The "coup de grace" would be a sales contract for exportation of raw materials (in this case, water) from BC. At least that's the model derived from forest product sales. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.