MORE BS on "warming". ONE DEGREE IN LAST 100 years but now 'the rate is increasing?" NO PROOF all SPECULATION.

I LOVE this line which they can document. The rest is GUESSWORK:

".....

The earth's temperature had already risen 0.6 degrees C (1.08 degrees F) over the last 100 years and it has seen more floods and droughts around the world in the last decade.

UN Sees Faster Global Warming, Humanity Responsible
January 22, 2001 9:59 am EST

By Tiffany Wu

SHANGHAI (Reuters) - The earth's atmosphere is warming faster than expected, evidence is mounting that humans are to blame and tens of millions of people may be forced from low-lying areas as seas rise, the U.N. said on Monday.

"We see changes in climate, we believe we humans are involved and we're projecting future climate changes much more significant over the next 100 years than the last 100 years," said Robert Watson of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

A warmer climate would raise sea levels as ice caps recede and could force tens of millions of people to flee low lying areas like China's Pearl River Delta, Bangladesh and Egypt, the IPCC chairman told a news conference in Shanghai.

Klaus Toepfer, the head of the United Nations Environment Program which part sponsors the IPCC, said the report should ring alarm bells everywhere.

"The scientific consensus presented in this comprehensive report about human-induced climate change should sound alarm bells in every national capital and in every local community," he said in a statement.

"We must move ahead boldly with clean energy technologies and we should start preparing ourselves for the rising sea levels, changing rain patterns and other impacts of global warming."

COMPREHENSIVE REPORT

Global warming is a highly controversial subject with many respected scientists arguing that the earth undergoes periodic climatic changes with or without contributions from humanity.

The IPCC report, which runs to more than 1,000 pages, was written by 123 lead authors around the world who drew on 516 contributing experts and is one of the most comprehensive produced on global warming.

A draft summary for policy makers, issued on Monday, said the report projects the earth's average surface temperature will rise 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius (2.5 to 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit) between 1990 and 2100, higher than its 1995 estimate of a one to 3.5 degree C rise (1.8 to 6.3 degrees F).

Sea levels were likely to rise between nine and 88 cm (3.54 and 34.64 inches) over the same period, it said.

"The decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the last century and the warming in this century is warmer than anything in the last 1,000 years in the Northern Hemisphere," Watson said.

"We will see a drier summer in arid and semi-arid areas which will make water management much more difficult in the future," he said. Ecosystems such as coral and forests will suffer.

The earth's temperature had already risen 0.6 degrees C (1.08 degrees F) over the last 100 years and it has seen more floods and droughts around the world in the last decade. Land areas had warmed close to one degree, more than oceans, the IPCC said.

DISEASE, LESS WATER

Watson said the main reason behind expectations of faster global warming is an anticipated fall in cooling agents such as sulfur dioxide. Sulfur emissions are expected to ease due to concerns they cause acid rain and deposits, he said.

Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide prevent heat from leaving the earth, therefore warming the earth's atmosphere, whereas sulfur dioxide tends to cool it.

Watson said the implications of global warming on human health included increases in heat stress mortality in the summer and diseases such as malaria and dengue fever.

It could also hit agriculture and water resources, which many experts believe will be a major issue in coming years.

Watson said industrialized nations had to help curb global warming, but developing countries must become more energy efficient and getting the right technologies in place everywhere was critical.

"Governments can play a critical role in placing the right enabling framework to facilitate the transfers of technology," he said. "It's not just hardware, it's information and knowledge."

-- Anonymous, January 22, 2001

Answers

"........and it has seen more floods and droughts around the world in the last decade. "

VS.......WHAT DATA??

-- Anonymous, January 22, 2001

cpr, if you weren't so eager to discredit global warming, you might realize that this article was written by a Reuters reporter and it is not a complete summary of the UN report.

"The IPCC report, which runs to more than 1,000 pages..." might have a wee bit more data in it than this 500 word news article... don't you think?

-- Anonymous, January 22, 2001

But, we still have to ask, where's the proof?? If there was any proof in that 1000+ page document, I'm positive Reuters would have picked up on it..... The UN is blowing smoke up the anal oriface again to anyone who will listin... For every UN scientist who can prove global warming, I can find two others who can prove otherwise... Weather has always gone in cycles, from very warm to glacial in a matter of years, that is what ice core studies have shown. What have the studies from the un SHOWN? NOTHING!

-- Anonymous, January 22, 2001

Rob is correct. And the UN hand picks those scientists and studies to flesh out those 1,000 pages.

I'm certain that this study will be as accurate as the ones they did aided by grant money from the World Bank from 1998-99....... about the DIRE DAYS COMING because of the..............Y2k computer problem.

-- Anonymous, January 22, 2001

"If there was any proof in that 1000+ page document, I'm positive Reuters would have picked up on it... "

Do you base that conclusion on evidence or on faith?

I rather doubt that Tiffany Wu would even read all 1000+ pages of UN report, for no purpose other than to write a 500 word newspaper article. She was working on a deadline. If you don't write up the UN report on the same day it was issued, then you have missed the boat. That is the the day it is "news".

My guess is that the report contained an "executive summary" of maybe 5 or 6 pages, that she read that much, then summarized the summary. I never expect more than that on a wire service article. You may expect more, but why?

-- Anonymous, January 22, 2001

On something this important, yes, I am positive Ms. Wu would have found it as the UN would have made sure the proof was on the first page. Science is always looking for a smoking gun, no matter the topic. All the studies I've seen from Greenland and the Antartic (sp?) have, if anything, proven to be inconclusive. One thing that these ice score studies have shown though, is that the climate is more than capable of extremly wild swings in a matter of decades versus centuries. I will not buy into a leftist propaganda ploy based on pure guesswork, sorry.

-- Anonymous, January 22, 2001

A quick web search yielded the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change web site. There is a link on the first page to a Summary for Policymakers of the report. It is formatted as a 725K PDF file.

If you guys want to challenge the conclusions of the report, maybe you might want to read at least the summary first.

-- Anonymous, January 22, 2001

I think I've said this before, but it's amusing enough for a repeat.

Many years ago -- back in the 70's or 80's, can't remember now -- I read two completely conflicting viewpoints. One said that the Earth was warming, the other said that we were headed for another ice age. (And more recently, Paul Davis, who's certainly no dummy, tells me that he sees how global warming could lead to the next ice age.)

As Z would say,

>;)

FWIW, this has been the coldest winter on record here in the South, and I believe that's true nationwide. One nation does not make a planet, but still ... and just the other day, I read a meteorological projection that said that we've been in a period of unusually warm weather for the past 30+ years and that we're actually going to swing back toward the norm (ie, colder).

I just don't see the Global Warming thing.

I would also be a bit more willing to accept the conclusions of scientists if (a), they could agree, and (b), I didn't KNOW that environmental science had become so highly politicized and polarized.

Third world nations like using things like Acid Rain and Global Warming to "prove" their most cherished belief, namely, that the Big Evil Western Industrial Countries are destroying the planet, and they (the Friends of Nature, backwards, underdeveloped and etc.) are Gaea's friends. :)

The UN is the most politically-correct body on the planet. In scientific matters, I regard them as close to useless as one can get without actually ceasing to breathe.

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2001

Best said.

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2001

> The UN is the most politically-correct body on the planet. In scientific matters, I regard them as close to useless as one can get without actually ceasing to breathe.

Did you read the summary I provided a link to? Did you read the report you dismiss out of hand? Did you check the citations? Can you tell me any substantive reason why I should discount or disregard the reliability of a single scientist whose work is cited in this report? Can you argue with any of the methodology used in the studies? Can you undermine the data?

Come on. The report is out there for the world to read and refute. It stands on its own merits or demerits. It puts its data where its mouth is. What have you (or cpr) said about it that amounts to a bent farthing?

IOW, Stephen, shouting "mustn't listen - politically correct" is a piss poor argument when it comes to science. You are using guilt by hand waving. I am not impressed, yet. Science is hard work. Done any environmental science lately? OTOH, I would listen to Z on this subject. I trust his background and integrity. Z?

-- Anonymous, January 23, 2001