• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

World finally agrees that global warming threatens everyone (1 Viewer)

Chris Monk

Well-known member
World finally agrees that global warming threatens everyone

By Charles Clover, Environment Editor and Bruno Waterfield in Brussels
The Daily Telegraph

*See sentence in red for conservation relevance*

Last Updated: 12:44am BST 07/04/2007


Climate change is already under way and the Earth faces water shortages and famines in the poorest countries, plus huge floods and species extinctions if no action is taken to slow it down, scientists and officials from more than 100 governments agreed in Brussels yesterday.

Scientists predict millions will face extremes of drought and flooding

It could lead to 50 million people, the equivalent of the population of England, becoming environmental refugees by 2010, a senior UN official warned last night.

Dr Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UN convention on climate change, said the number of environmental refugees — from deforestation and desertification as well as climate change — was likely to exceed the number of traditional refugees by the end of the decade.

He was speaking after scientists and officials from more than 100 countries —including the United States — agreed the bleakest assessment yet of the changes likely this century if fossil fuel emissions continue at present levels.

Climate change is expected to form a large part of the agenda of the Group of Eight countries meeting in June.

An unprecedented consensus on the mounting threat posed by global warming was unanimously approved, even by the United States, China and Saudi Arabia. Their officials had spent four days and two nights challenging the more dire predictions line by line.

The report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warns that global warming will hit hardest in the Arctic, sub-Saharan Africa, on small islands and highly populated river deltas in Asia.

It says, for example, that 600 million more people could suffer from droughts in Africa and billions will face risks from coastal flooding by the end of this century.

The 21-page "policymakers summary" of a full report to be published later this year charts the impact of temperature rise over the past 30 years and calculates the implications of the rise of about 3C by the end of this century forecast by another IPCC panel in January.

Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the panel, said: "It's the poorest of the poor in the world, and this includes poor people even in prosperous societies, who are going to be the worst hit. This does become a global responsibility in my view."

Prof Martin Parry, co-chairman of the panel's working group on climate change impacts, said evidence of changes already taking place that could be attributable to human influence had been found in 29,000 sets of data.

"For the first time we are not just arm-waving with models," he said.

Prof Parry said actions to adapt to climate change, such as sea defences and new forms of agriculture, should take priority over efforts to reduce greenhouse gases, which would take years to have any impact. He said: "In the near term, adaptation is vital. The sooner we get on with that the better." Dr Pachauri revealed that the process had been a "complex exercise". Many scientists objected to an unprecedented level of interference from government officials in arriving at what is meant to be a scientific summary.

Prof Parr said: "I don't think it is the right thing to say the message was watered down."

However, he conceded: "It is hard work, you do lose things. Two tables were boiled down into one, we lost a lot. But it tightened it up and governments bought into it."

He revealed that a graph showing that billions would be at risk of coastal flooding by 2080 was changed to read "millions".

Joseph Alcamo, an American-born professor of environmental science and engineering at the University of Kassel, Germany, said: "I question why it needs to be such a difficult fight to get the science out there. Scientists have to play a role we are not really trained for. It is a dilemma for us." Prof Alcamo chaired the working group studying changes in Europe. He explained that he had appeared on the podium to confront sceptical governmental delegations at 2am.

He was asked to justify the use of the word "unprecedented" to describe the heatwave in Europe in 2003 which claimed up to 35,000 lives.

He explained that it was "outside the frequency distribution of current climate". The phrase stayed in. The same delegations, which he did not name but others say included the United States, China and Saudi Arabia, queried whether it was right to say "wide ranging" impacts had been observed in Europe.

Prof Alcamo said that it included *shrinking glaciers, longer growing seasons, storminess and the range of plankton* "Some delegations do believe in wearing down us poor old scientists. We don't let them get away with it," he said.

In Washington, the Bush administration indicated that the United States, which refused to ratify the Kyoto climate change treaty in 2001, still planned to tackle limiting carbon dioxide emissions on its own rather than support global mandatory caps.

"Each nation sort of defines their regulatory objectives in different ways to achieve the greenhouse reduction outcome that they seek," Jim Connaughton, chairman of the White House council on environmental quality, said.

The scientists' grim prediction
For the first time, the scientists broke down their predictions into regions, and forecast that climate change will affect billions of people.

Africa will be hardest hit. By 2020, up to 250 million people are likely to be exposed to water shortages.

In some countries, food production could fall by half, the report said.

North America will experience more severe storms with human and economic loss, and cultural and social disruptions. It can expect more hurricanes, floods, droughts, heatwaves and wildfires, it said. Northern Europe will at first experience some benefits, such as a reduced demand for heating, but southern Europe will face more heatwaves and drought, with a reduction in crop productivity.

Parts of Asia are threatened with widespread flooding and avalanches from melting Himalayan glaciers. Europe also will see its Alpine glaciers disappear.
 
Last edited:
I didn't think that there were those (intelligent thinkers) that didn't believe that global warming wouldn't threaten everyone on the planet in one form or another. I believe the debate is whether or not Man is contributing to it, or whether it is part of a normal cycle of warming and cooling that has occured for eons. I remember as a kid in the '70's that there were threats of a coming ice age! Well, which is it scientists? I get the feeling they didn't know then, and they don't really know now. Not enough time has elapsed between the decade of the '70's and today to know.
 
Climate change around the world

ECOSYSTEMS

Many ecosystems are likely to be challenged beyond their capacity to adapt over the course of the century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances such as wildfires, and other aspects of modern-day global change.

In the second half of this century, ecosystems on land are likely to become a net source of carbon rather than a net absorber. This extra carbon will amplify climate change.

Roughly 20-30% of species are likely to be at high risk of irreversible extinction if the global average temperature rises by 1.5-2.5C beyond 1990 levels. For increases in global average temperature exceeding 1.5-2.5C, there are very likely to be major changes in ecosystems which will adversely effect the environmental goods and services which humans use.
 
POLAR REGIONS: ARCTIC AND ANTARCTICA

Reductions are likely in the thickness and extent of glaciers and ice sheets, and the extent of sea ice and permafrost.

The depth of summer permafrost melting is likely to increase.

Changes to natural ecosystems are likely to impact migrating birds, mammals and higher predators adversely. Specific ecosystems and habitats are expected to be vulnerable, as climatic barriers to species invasions are lowered.

There are virtually certain to be both negative and positive effects on Arctic peoples. Detrimental impacts would include those on infrastructure and traditional indigenous ways of life while beneficial effects would include reduced heating costs and more navigable northern sea routes.
 
LATIN AMERICA

Increasing temperatures and decreases in soil water in the eastern Amazon region would lead to replacement of tropical forest by savannah. Species extinctions are likely.

Drier areas are likely to see salinisation and desertification of agricultural land, with falling crop yields and livestock productivity reducing food security. However, soybean yields are likely to increase in temperate zones.

Sea level rise is very likely to bring flooding to low-lying regions such as the coast of El Salvador, Guyana and the Rio de la Plata estuary. Increasing sea temperatures are likely to impact coral reefs and south-east Pacific fish stocks.

Changes in rainfall patterns and the disappearance of glaciers are projected to significantly affect water availability for human consumption, agriculture and energy generation.
 
Chris Monk said:
ECOSYSTEMS

Many ecosystems are likely to be challenged beyond their capacity to adapt over the course of the century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances such as wildfires, and other aspects of modern-day global change.

In the second half of this century, ecosystems on land are likely to become a net source of carbon rather than a net absorber. This extra carbon will amplify climate change.

Roughly 20-30% of species are likely to be at high risk of irreversible extinction if the global average temperature rises by 1.5-2.5C beyond 1990 levels. For increases in global average temperature exceeding 1.5-2.5C, there are very likely to be major changes in ecosystems which will adversely effect the environmental goods and services which humans use.

jcwings said:
...I believe the debate is whether or not Man is contributing to it, or whether it is part of a normal cycle of warming and cooling that has occured for eons...

Thanks to Chris for putting in the effort to pull this info together...

This is a discussion we need to have and every citizen needs to educate themselves about the issues.

It will take overpowering scientific (not marginally significant or suggestive evidence) to convince people to change the way they live. (Go to your local City Council meeting and see how hard it is to get people to agree on minor issues about traffic, or zoning issues, or whether to build a new school or not).

To add to jcwings' comment ...

Not only is part of the discussion "Is man contributing to it"? But will we actually be able to do anything about it, considering the money that must be spent and the lifestyle changes that will be necessary (Will we get the promised "bang for the buck").

Chris Monk's original post was moved (not sure why)...

One thing that concerns me from the link in the original post was the "negotiations" that took place between "scientists" and "politicians" to arrive at the documents final wording.

I did not realize that negotiation was a part of the scientific method. Once negotiation has become part of the process, the document is no longer a scientific document. It has become a statement of reluctant consensus.

I can not resist the temptation to respond to the "Ecology" statements...

"Ecosystems" are units of biological organization capable of "adaptation"??? (A common miss-used phrase like "Balance of Nature").

It is also arguable that 20-30% of species are at high risk for extinction due to human population growth (if human caused "global warming" is a factor or not).
 
ceasar said:
I don't believe the world can agree on anything. But then, I'm a bit of a cynic.
Bob

No, you're just not part of the cult. The chants of global warming ideologues remind me of those repetitive prayers we'd recite as kids back in Catechism. They don't start 'i think' but 'I believe'....all knowing and not subject to the dirty fingerprint of rational debate.
 
jcwings said:
I didn't think that there were those (intelligent thinkers) that didn't believe that global warming wouldn't threaten everyone on the planet in one form or another. I believe the debate is whether or not Man is contributing to it, or whether it is part of a normal cycle of warming and cooling that has occured for eons. I remember as a kid in the '70's that there were threats of a coming ice age! Well, which is it scientists? I get the feeling they didn't know then, and they don't really know now. Not enough time has elapsed between the decade of the '70's and today to know.
Spot on.
:clap:
 
Osprey_watcher said:
Spot on.
:clap:

So even after all the discussions you've been involved in and seen on here, and all the evidence you've (and others have) been shown, you're still not in the least bit convinced?
 
turkish van said:
So even after all the discussions you've been involved in and seen on here, and all the evidence you've (and others have) been shown, you're still not in the least bit convinced?

Of course, the fact that it affects everyone and everything does not mean, contrary to all the 'evidence' shown, that it is all negative. Global warming, whether human-induced, natural or a combination, will certainly result in changes to ecosystems and species abundances, but I would seriously question a good number of the claims made about the impact, some are (IMHO) quite possible, but others simply a joke. Why is it scientists, media and carbonites only portray one side ...a bit of balance might actually satrt a better debate, might even shake off the green freak image.

PS. Hear about the brilliant American researcher's findings today? Enough to make you fall off the chair laughing ...or crying!
 
Last edited:
Jos Stratford said:
Why is it scientists, media and carbonites only portray one side ...a bit of balance might actually satrt a better debate, might even shake off the green freak image.

PS. Hear about the brilliant American researcher's findings today? Enough to make you fall off the chair laughing ...or crying!

What is your bit of balance then, that some species might benefit? Some ecosystems might benefit? No matter that we lose the others?

That tree/albedo thing has been around a while - do keep up... ;)
 
turkish van said:
That tree/albedo thing has been around a while - do keep up... ;)

Yes, heard it before too, but the fact that it now makes international headlines is just a sign of how the lunatic fringe of this debate are beginning to get a following. Bit like the E.U. fixed targets for renewables - they start preaching from their blickered one-issue vision, someone listens and the rest of the environment gets screwed.
 
Chris Monk said:
Northern Europe will at first experience some benefits, such as a reduced demand for heating.


Super, that's me! With the savings on my wallet, I'll be able to squeeze an extra flight in each year ;)
 
turkish van said:
What is your bit of balance then, that some species might benefit? Some ecosystems might benefit? No matter that we lose the others?

The IPCC say this :-
Roughly 20-30% of species are likely to be at high risk of irreversible extinction if the global average temperature rises by 1.5-2.5C beyond 1990 levels.

That struck me as not in the catastrophic category. Certainly not in the 80% plus range from previous mass extinction events. And I wondered how it compared with the % of species we have wiped out already due to agriculture/deforestation/wetland destruction/urbanisation/tourist development.etc etc etc ?

Man on the other hand could be in for a bad time-serves us right I reckon.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/6528979.stm

Colin
 
What I'd like to know is:.

If we, man, stopped producing any more carbon dixide, or even reversed the amount we produce to 1980's level.
Will it make a difference?.
And I don't like the way that the words "may, could, probably" are used describing the effects of GW.
Why don't the experts use the word "Will "?.

IF that happened, people would take notice!.
 
POP said:

"Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming"

No one would deny that the sun plays a crucial role in determining the Earth's temperature, but it is not solely responsible for the recent temperature increase - there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978 (when satellite records began), a time when temperatures have been increasing fastest.

Check the graph on this page, if you're interested.

http://www.mps.mpg.de/en/projekte/sun-climate/
 
Warning! This thread is more than 17 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top