It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The world's biggest economic evaluation of climate change says if countries do not act now the world will face a depression worse than that of the 1930s.
The report puts the global cost of global warming and its effects at $A9 trillion - a bill greater than the combined cost of the two world wars and the Great Depression. It represents a fifth of the global economy.
The Stern report, commissioned by the British Government, also says drought and floods could render swaths of the planet uninhabitable, turning 200 million people into refugees to create the largest migration in history.
Lloyd Keigwin, a scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, in Massachusetts, in the US, described the temporary shutdown as "the most abrupt change in the whole [climate] record".
The study is the first major contribution to the global warming debate by an economist, rather than a scientist.
Originally posted by NumberCruncher
Lol this website cracks me up ......
The single Largest study into the disastorous effects of Global warming isnt good enough for Current events and gets transferred to the "fragile earth" forum pffft.
In Ancient Fossils, Seeds of a New Debate on Warming
...Most public discussions of global warming concentrate on evidence from the last few hundred or, at most, few thousand years. And some climate scientists remain unconvinced that data from the deep past are solid enough to be relevant to the debates.
But the experts who peer back millions of years, though they may debate what their work means, do agree on the relevance of their findings. They also agree that the eon known as the Phanerozoic, a lengthy span from the present to 550 million years ago, the dawn of complex life, typically bore concentrations of carbon dioxide that were up to 18 times the levels present in the short reign of Homo sapiens.
The carbon dioxide, the scientists agree, came from volcanoes and other natural sources, as on Mars and Venus. The levels have generally dropped over the ages, as the carbon became a building block of many rock formations and all living things....
Originally posted by kozmo
Oh no, the solution lies within each of us. To avoid being burned, we must eliminate the fire, THEN we can begin to treat the burn. In the same way, we must extinguish our desire to consume and to have wealth. Once we understand the source of our illness, then we can treat the symptoms - and not until that time.
Sometime in the late 21st century or early 2100s, climate change is likely to reach a new critical mass. As forests die from drought, and as plankton are killed off by rising sea temperatures, these two important "carbon sinks" will no longer be able to absorb carbon dioxide emissions. Increased sea temperatures will also release the vast amounts of methane trapped in the world's oceans.
Originally posted by Halfofone
You need to look at the past, climate beyond humans, because there is a chance this warming is mearly a cyclical trend.
Oxygen in the upper waters of the North Pacific, an area that accounts for about 40 percent of the world’s oceans, decreased as much as 15 percent in a little less than two decades between the early 1980s and late 1990s.
"One of the great propaganda icons of the United Nations climate-change machine... is about to get swept away as junk science," writes Terence Corcoran "Financial Post 7/13/04, see www.sepp.org). On July 1, Michael E. Mann, one of the creators of the 1,000- year temperature chart published a corrigendum in Nature, acknowledging that "the listing of the `proxy' data set...contained several errors." After describing the errors, Mr. Mann said that "none of these errors affect our previously published results."
The Canadian researchers who pointed out the errors, Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre, stated that the claim that nothing had changed was "categorically false."
In a letter that Nature declined to publish, Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Australia, wrote: "The "corrected) Mann et al. graph shows that the northern hemisphere temperature index attained its highest values in the early 15th century, and that the 20th century warming cycle has so far only equalled a secondary warm peak that occurred late in the 15th century."
That did not happen. Instead, according to the United Nations, agricultural production in the developing world has increased by 52% per person since 1961. The daily food intake in poor countries has increased from 1,932 calories, barely enough for survival, in 1961 to 2,650 calories in 1998, and is expected to rise to 3,020 by 2030. Likewise, the proportion of people in developing countries who are starving has dropped from 45% in 1949 to 18% today, and is expected to decline even further to 12% in 2010 and just 6% in 2030. Food, in other words, is becoming not scarcer but ever more abundant. This is reflected in its price. Since 1800 food prices have decreased by more than 90%, and in 2000, according to the World Bank, prices were lower than ever before.
A more balanced view comes from a recent article in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. This tries to count up both the problems and the benefits of the 1997-98 Niño. The damage it did was estimated at $4 billion. However, the benefits amounted to some $19 billion. These came from higher winter temperatures (which saved an estimated 850 lives, reduced heating costs and diminished spring floods caused by meltwaters), and from the well-documented connection between past Niños and fewer Atlantic hurricanes. In 1998, America experienced no big Atlantic hurricanes and thus avoided huge losses. These benefits were not reported as widely as the losses.
Yet a false perception of risk may be about to lead to errors more expensive even than controlling the emission of benzene at tyre plants. Carbon-dioxide emissions are causing the planet to warm. The best estimates are that the temperature will rise by some 2°-3°C in this century, causing considerable problems, almost exclusively in the developing world, at a total cost of $5,000 billion. Getting rid of global warming would thus seem to be a good idea. The question is whether the cure will actually be more costly than the ailment.
Despite the intuition that something drastic needs to be done about such a costly problem, economic analyses clearly show that it will be far more expensive to cut carbon-dioxide emissions radically than to pay the costs of adaptation to the increased temperatures. The effect of the Kyoto Protocol on the climate would be minuscule, even if it were implemented in full. A model by Tom Wigley, one of the main authors of the reports of the UN Climate Change Panel, shows how an expected temperature increase of 2.1°C in 2100 would be diminished by the treaty to an increase of 1.9°C instead. Or, to put it another way, the temperature increase that the planet would have experienced in 2094 would be postponed to 2100.
The Kyoto agreement merely buys the world six years
There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases
in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing or
can be expected to cause catastrophic changes in global temperatures
or weather. To the contrary, during the 20 years with the highest carbon
dioxide levels, atmospheric temperatures have decreased.
We also need not worry about environmental calamities, even if
the current long-term natural warming trend continues. The Earth has
been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic
effects. Warmer weather extends growing seasons and generally improves
the habitability of colder regions. ‘‘Global warming,’’ an invalidated
hypothesis, provides no reason to limit human production
of CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 as has been proposed (29).
Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not measurably
warmed the atmosphere, and the extrapolation of current trends
shows that it will not significantly do so in the foreseeable future. It
does, however, release CO2, which accelerates the growth rates of
plants and also permits plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life,
which depends upon plants, also flourishes.
As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty
vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be released
into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the
health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people.
Human activities are believed to be responsible for the rise in CO2
level of the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil,
and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere and surface,
where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living
in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result
of the CO2 increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with far more
plant and animal life as that with which we now are blessed. This is a
wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution.
Kyoto Accord Protest Quickening
Washington Times, April 22, 1998
by S. Fred Singer
Happy Earth Day, Al Gore! Your much-touted "scientific consensus" on global warming has just been exposed as phony. An unprecedented number of American scientists—more than 15,000, including over 10,000 with advanced academic degrees—have now signed a petition against the climate accord adopted in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997.
The petition urges the U.S. government to reject the accord, which tries to force drastic cuts in energy use on the United States. This is in line with a Senate resolution, passed by a 95-to-0 vote in July, which turns down any Kyoto agreement that damages the economy of the United States while exempting most of the world's nations, including such major emerging economic powers as China, India and Brazil.
in signing the petition within a period of less than six weeks, the 15,000 basic and applied scientists expressed their profound skepticism about the science underlying the Kyoto accord. The available atmospheric data simply do not support the elaborate computer-driven climate models that are being cited by the United Nations and other promoters of the accord as "proof" of a major future warming.
Originally posted by NumberCruncher
Those articles are the opinions of a few and you,
thousands of Qualified people have differing opinions,
and infact dedicate there life to there research that says different
and because you grab a couple of links that agree with your chain of thought
doesnt make your opinion right (or mine for that matter).