It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Report: Climate Change Catastrophe Within Decade

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 03:27 AM
A report due out today, Meeting the Climate Challenge, alleges that the world is on the brink of a climatic catastrophe. A multinational task force from the US, Britain and Australia collaborated on the study. They found that, at the current rate of temperature change and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, an irreversible degree of global warming could well occur within the next ten years. A yearly increase in global temperature average of just 1.2 degrees Celsius points to crop failure, drought, deforestation and sea level changes within our lifetime. Such changes would result in marked famine and increased disease, potentially causing hundreds of thousands of lives lost.
Global warming is reaching the point of no return, with widespread drought, crop failure and water shortages the likely result, according to a new international report highlighted in the British press.

The countdown to climate-change catastrophe is spelt out by a task force of senior politicians, business leaders and academics.

In 10 years or less, they predict, the catastrophic point-of-no-return may be reached, The Independent daily reported.

The new study, Meeting The Climate Challenge, has been timed to coincide with British Prime Minister Tony Blair's promised efforts to advance climate change policy this year as head of both the G8 group of richest nations and the European Union.

The report was assembled by the Institute for Public Policy Research in Britain, the Centre for American Progress in the United States and The Australia Institute.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

The report centers on temperature change and carbon dioxide concentrations in the air. Our current level of CO2 saturation is calculated to be 379ppm (parts per million) with a yearly average increase of just over 2ppm. At the current rate, it will only take about ten years for the CO2 concentration to reach 400ppm.

The researchers involved in the study contend that at concentrations of 400ppm, the CO2 will cause the 1.2 degree C. temperature increase they believe to be the "point of no return." At this temperature, scientists believe agriculture will begin to fail on a global level and water levels will begin to drop. If this is found to be true, noticeable effects on humans and animals alike can be expected within a few short years after the initial problems begin.

The report urges countries across the world to reduce their reliance on renewable resources such as coal and oil and to seek out alternative low-carbon sources of energy.

[edit on 24-1-2005 by Banshee]

posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 04:52 AM
The (not that) funny thing is that western Europe might experience actually get much colder from global warming, due to the possible failing Gulf-stream, In that case I would urge the governments of america and China to build even more coalplants, to put some additional global warming on top of that to make up for our loss of the warm Gulfstream.

Already reports drop in that rivers in Canada already bring much more fresh water to the polar sea , wich might start offsetting the salinity balance that pump the warm gulfstream past Norway

Figure 2. (above) A summer's day at "Telegrafbukta" in Tromsø. (below) A summer's day at Nansenfjord, in south-east Greenland. Both pictures are taken at a latitude of 70 degrees north. The difference in the climate is due to the sea currents. Tromsø enjoys a warmer climate due to the warming effect of the Gulf Stream, while the eastern coast of Greenland is cooled by the East-Greenland current.

Maybe its time we closed the beringstreet and with pumps only allow polar water to get into the Pacific Ocean but not vice versa. This could serve two purposes:

pumping more relatively fresh/ less salt water in the Pacific keeps the the Atlantic ocean salt enough, keeping the Gulfstream flowing.

Maybe sweetening the Pacific we could intervene with the process of huge el ninos from happening.

Naturally you would want to have the pump at the bering street work the other way if the situation requires it. Also on could put a nice highway, a railroad and gas.oil pipelines on the Beringstreet Dam.

[edit on 24-1-2005 by Countermeasures]

posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 04:55 AM
Uh-huh, the funny thing is the same exact projection was stated 10 years ago. and 20 years ago.

posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 05:06 AM
Yes, doomsday tales have been around since humanity learned how to talk, but I think it's important we try to understand these complex mechanisms as much as possible, so that we could actually start conciously maniplulating the weather . The current rate at wich new coalplants are projected to skyrocket imo WILL have their effects on global weather, some regions will benefit, other regions will suffer. But are you sure your region will benefit ??? We need more info and preferably tools to intervene.

I am not saying I am against the coalplants, I am saying we should go the extra mile and control the weather as well, instead of just plainly dump Co2 now and leave any possible consequences for our children to solve. We should dump the Co2 for good reasons and put it to work for us.

Other way I see how to manipiulate how much polarwater mixes with the Atlantic or the Pacific is building some adjustable dams in Canada:

- connect Northwest Territories with queen Elizabeth islands
- connect queen Elizabeth islands with ellesmere island
- finally connect Ellesmer island with Greenland
These are al relatively narrow passages and divide a huge chunk of polar sea , a door wich we will be able to open/close or even help a hand with pumps....

The resulting road/railroad to Greenland could have additional value to aid exploring the fossil/mineral resources of Greenland .

Also one could force more fresh water into the Pacfic if we dig a channel from
the Mackenzie river to the Yukon river.

[edit on 24-1-2005 by Countermeasures]
(edit to replace large image with link )

[edit on 27-1-2005 by pantha]

posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 07:25 AM
All good, all good. Well bad, but have you heard what the US is gonna do? So far, well eevryone knows what the US is any word?

posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 09:02 AM
"What this underscores is that it's what we invest in now and in the next 20 years that will deliver a stable climate, not what we do in the middle of the century or later," said Tom Burke, a former government adviser on green issues who now advises business.


The report starkly spells out the likely consequences of exceeding the threshold. "Beyond the 2 degrees C level, the risks to human societies and ecosystems grow significantly," it says.

"It is likely, for example, that average-temperature increases larger than this will entail substantial agricultural losses, greatly increased numbers of people at risk of water shortages, and widespread adverse health impacts. [They] could also imperil a very high proportion of the world's coral reefs and cause irreversible damage to important terrestrial ecosystems, including the Amazon rainforest."

It goes on: "Above the 2 degrees level, the risks of abrupt, accelerated, or runaway climate change also increase. The possibilities include reaching climatic tipping points leading, for example, to the loss of the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets (which, between them, could raise sea level more than 10 metres over the space of a few centuries), the shutdown of the thermohaline ocean circulation (and, with it, the Gulf Stream), and the transformation of the planet's forests and soils from a net sink of carbon to a net source of carbon."

I highly doubt it's a doomsday theory, the coral reefs are already disappearing, native islander's in the pacific are already feeling the impact of global warming, if the western world took into the consideration the consequences of careless technological use, the world and it's citizen's would be much better off...

With Carelessness comes repercussions.

posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 09:26 AM
Of course global warming is real. So is global cooling. And as far as we know both have been around - with or without human "help"- since earth has exsisted. It's all part of the natural cycles the earth goes through.

What this underscores is that it's what we invest in now and in the next 20 years that will deliver a stable climate.

When has the climate EVER been stable?

posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 09:36 AM

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Of course global warming is real. So is global cooling. And as far as we know both have been around - with or without human "help"- since earth has exsisted. It's all part of the natural cycles the earth goes through.

What this underscores is that it's what we invest in now and in the next 20 years that will deliver a stable climate.

When has the climate EVER been stable?

If one bothers to actually research this one would find that between 900 and 1000 AD northern europe have very little winter. In deed that is what allowed the vikings to run Amuk (pun intended). Also around 585 AD there was an "event" that triggered several years without a summer.

Global climate change is real. It is cyclical, however, man is screwing things up but not based on CO2 or anything like that. As stated in another thread, every kW of power generated winds up as heat in the atmosphere. The sun is in a "flare" state. And scalar weapons are warming things significantly.

Heat added to the atmosphere causes warm air to go to the poles and displace colder air in an "intensified" natural cycle. Higher (high temps) lower (low temps), larger storms.

Global warmings traditional "sources" are BS.

posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 01:00 PM

The same story on BBC...
I'm glad the world has begun recognizing the coming changes in our lives. Looks like some of our board members have not. With time...

posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 01:07 PM
Climate Modeling is in its infancy, and there's not much reason apparently to think that it can predict these types of changes with any accuracy.

posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 02:08 PM
There are other factors that may curve global warming, even if CO2 levels accelerate. Aerosols from pollution such as SO2 help to make more clouds and produce a global dimming effect where less solar energy reaches the Earth's surface because it is reflecting back to space from all the excess clouds.

I believe our climate is changing and without extreme measures to stop development and pollution there is nothing we can do to stop it.

posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 07:22 PM
I don't believe we can stop it. Or should. It's a natural process that has occured many times in the planet's history. We just made it somewhat quicker. The next several years will certainly be interesting.

posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 08:02 PM

Originally posted by p a v e l
I don't believe we can stop it. Or should. It's a natural process that has occured many times in the planet's history. We just made it somewhat quicker. The next several years will certainly be interesting.

I however disagree. I agree with Countermeasures, we gotta get control of this planets climate or else eventually our species is doomed. Another thing we gotta do is put up planetary defence satellites to protect against Asteroids and Comits.

And you know what just because there is a Global Cooling and Warmin cycle that happens without us we are just happening to speed it up by whatever means and methods you believe in. I however believe that it is due mostly to C02. I have participated in some small scale experiments showing that C02 is a greenhouse gas very simple as well. We also did tests with Methane and Water Vapor. I'll try to dig out the paper I wrote on the subject. But from what I remember C02 was second only to Methane for the amount of warming. Now of course these weren't the most regimented and scientifically accurate study but for me it was powerfull enough to start questioning some believes I have had before the experiment..

posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 06:25 PM
here`s an interesting look from "the other side".

posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 08:11 PM

Originally posted by mwm1331
Uh-huh, the funny thing is the same exact projection was stated 10 years ago. and 20 years ago...

Not only that, but in the 1970's the doomsday advocates had the opposite message -- that a new "mini Ice Age" was on the way, and without countermeasures the Earth's climate would reach a point of no return. Whatever happened to those predictions?

I find it interesting that, after a few years of some of the coldest winters on record in the U.S./Canada and Europe, the global warming advocates have suddenly replaced "global warming" with "global climate change" as their catch phrase of choice... Why do you suppose that is?

posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 11:07 PM
That is because things have turned out to be much more complicated than previously thought, and it's not simple "warming" or "cooling", but a diverse set of changes across the planet affecting many aspects of the climate, from seismic to precipitation to temperature trends, etc...

How can you believe climate change is not happening when new weather records of all kinds are being broken nearly every day on the news? If you don't believe the media, look out your window.

posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 11:16 PM
Even if we didnt pump one single spec of greenhouse into the air the climate is going to change. There has been a number of Ice ages long before man was pumping anything into the air and they are not going to stop because humans are on earth.

Earths climate is not static it goes through natural changes of hot and cold no matter what we do.

posted on Jan, 26 2005 @ 12:41 AM
Global Warming, specifically, is, and only is, the theory that man made increases in atmosphere greenhouse gases, almost exclusively CO2, are resulting in a warming of the atmosphere, and hence a warming of the overall global climate.

Not 'freak weather', which isn't even happening. A month ago people thought it was freaky that it hadn't snowed (in the parts that it hadn't snowed it). Now that it snowed a bunch, people think its 'freaky' that it snowed.

Anyone claiming that the weather is unusual needs to demonstrate that it is with reference to actual weather records.

Anyone that wants to say that global warming is occuring (ie that there is an unnatural increase in overall global temperature as a result of atmospheric warming due to industrial emmissions of co2), needs to demonstrate that this is actually occuring.

There is a reason why there is no consensus amoung scientists on this. Because there is not enough evidence to make the theory something that is actionable.

Global Warming has not been refuted. It also hasn't been demonstrated to be occuring.

I for one, find it hard to beleive that an increase of greenhouse gases will not have a corresponding increase in tempurature. And yet, there is no increase clearly linked to emissions.

Also, there is far too much hysteria on this topic. Global Warming means that the planet gets warmer. In El Nino events, large portions of the planet are warmer. Apparently, this increase in percipitation and warmth results in bumper crops across most of the planet.

It could result in less active weather. It could result in more active weather. It could mean more wind, less percipitation, or vice versa or neither.

Heck, now people are saying that GW can result in a global ice age, because a set of super icebergs might snap off the arctic, melt, desalinate the north atlantic, and shut down the MOC, thus affecting global water circulation, thus resulting in a cooling of the north.

No one knows.

What is known is that man has survived ice ages and intense warming periods. Global warming is not a 'disaster'. Its a slow incremental process that will change things, perhaps it results in desertification of the central parts of the US and a collapse of any farming ability forthe US. Perhaps it results in bumper crops. But the world is not going to end because of global warming, despite what some movies portray.

new topics

top topics


log in