IPCC Fourth Assessment Synthesis Report

In summary, the 2007 Synthesis Report Summary for Policy Makers discusses the observed changes in climate and their effects. It states that the warming of the climate system is evident from increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, melting of snow and ice, and rising sea levels. It also mentions that precipitation has increased in some areas while decreased in others, and that extreme weather events have become more frequent. The report attributes these changes to an increase in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and aerosols due to human activities. It states that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming and that most of the observed increase in temperatures since the mid-20th century is likely due to anthropogenic
  • #1
Skyhunter
Here is the "[URL Synthesis Report Summary for Policy Makers.
[/URL]

1. Observed changes in climate and their effects

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level (Figure SPM.1). {1.1}

Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the twelve warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850). The 100-year linear trend (1906-2005) of 0.74 [0.56 to 0.92]°C 1 is larger than the corresponding trend of 0.6 [0.4 to 0.8]◦C (1901-2000) given in the Third Assessment Report (TAR) (Figure SPM.1). The temperature increase is widespread over the globe, and is greater at higher northern latitudes. Land regions have warmed faster than the oceans (Figures SPM.2, SPM.4). {1.1, 1.2}

Rising sea level is consistent with warming (Figure SPM.1). Global average sea level has risen since 1961 at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3]mm/yr and since 1993 at 3.1 [2.4 to 3.8]mm/yr, with contributions from thermal expansion, melting glaciers and ice caps, and the polar ice sheets. Whether the faster rate for 1993 to 2003 reflects decadal variation or an increase in the longer-term trend is unclear. {1.1}

Observed decreases in snow and ice extent are also consistent with warming (Figure SPM.1). Satellite data since 1978 show that annual average Arctic sea ice extent has shrunk by 2.7 [2.1 to 3.3]% per decade, with larger decreases in summer of 7.4 [5.0 to 9.8]% per decade. Mountain glaciers and snow cover on average have declined in both hemispheres. {1.1}

From 1900 to 2005, precipitation increased significantly in eastern parts of North and South America, northern Europe and northern and central Asia but declined in the Sahel, the Mediterranean, southern Africa and parts of southern Asia. Globally, the area affected by drought has likely2 increased since the 1970s. {1.1}

It is very likely that over the past 50 years: cold days, cold nights and frosts have become less frequent over most land areas, and hot days and hot nights have become more frequent. It is likely that: heat waves have become more frequent over most land areas, the frequency of heavy precipitation events has increased over most areas, and since 1975 the incidence of extreme high sea level3 has increased worldwide. {1.1}

There is observational evidence of an increase in intense tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic since about 1970, with limited evidence of increases elsewhere. There is no clear trend in the annual numbers of tropical cyclones. It is difficult to ascertain longer term trends in cyclone activity, particularly prior to 1970.

Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were very likely higher than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the highest in at least the past 1300 years. {1.1}

2. Causes of change

Changes in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and aerosols, land-cover and solar radiation alter the energy balance of the climate system.

Global GHG emissions due to human activities have grown since pre-industrial times, with an increase of 70% between 1970 and 2004 (Figure SPM.3).5 {2.1}

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most important anthropogenic GHG. Its annual emissions grew by about 80% between 1970 and 2004. The long-term trend of declining CO2 emissions per unit of energy supplied reversed after 2000. {2.1}

Global atmospheric concentrations of CO2, methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years. {2.2}

Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (379ppm) and CH4 (1774 ppb) in 2005 exceed by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years. Global increases in CO2 concentrations are due primarily to fossil fuel use, with land-use change providing another significant but smaller contribution. It is very likely that the observed increase in CH4 concentration is predominantly due to agriculture and fossil fuel use. Methane growth rates have declined since the early 1990s, consistent with total emission (sum of anthropogenic and natural sources) being nearly constant during this period. The increase in N2O concentration is primarily due to agriculture. {2.2}

There is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming.{2.2}

Most of the observed increase in globally-averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.7 It is likely there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica) (Figure SPM.4). {2.4}

During the past 50 years, the sum of solar and volcanic forcings would likely have produced cooling. Observed patterns of warming and their changes are simulated only by models that include anthropogenic forcings. Difficulties remain in simulating and attributing observed temperature changes at smaller than continental scales. {2.4}


Advances since the TAR show that discernible human influences extend beyond average temperature to other aspects of climate. {2.4}

Human influences have: {2.4}

* very likely contributed to sea level rise during the latter half of the 20th century

* likely contributed to changes in wind patterns, affecting extra-tropical storm tracks and temperature patterns

* likely increased temperatures of extreme hot nights, cold nights and cold days

* more likely than not increased risk of heat waves, area affected by drought since the 1970s and frequency of heavy precipitation events.


Anthropogenic warming over the last three decades has likely had a discernible influence at the global scale on observed changes in many physical and biological systems. {2.4}

Spatial agreement between regions of significant warming across the globe and locations of significant observed changes in many systems consistent with warming is very unlikely to be due solely to natural variability. Several modelling studies have linked some specific responses in physical and biological systems to anthropogenic warming. {2.4}

More complete attribution of observed natural system responses to anthropogenic warming is currently prevented by the short time scales of many impact studies, greater natural climate variability at regional scales, contributions of non-climate factors and limited spatial coverage of studies. {2.4}

Now just what is the debate?

I seem to have missed it.

What credible scientific institution is disputing the IPCC conclusions?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
What would be the normal effects from the natural warming period we are currently in?

I don't see anything specific, I see a lot of "likely" or "somewhat likely". Could you please post what we would be normally seeing that they claim has been altered by humans and specifically what the difference is that they are claiming, and specifically what parts of the world are experiencing which specific changes. (It is a fact, for instance, that sea level is going down in parts of the world), and post the scientific data to back that up.

Now that would be something worth reading.
 
  • #3
Evo said:
What would be the normal effects from the natural warming period we are currently in?

I don't see anything specific, I see a lot of "likely" or "somewhat likely". Could you please post what we would be normally seeing that they claim has been altered by humans and specifically what the difference is that they are claiming, and specifically what parts of the world are experiencing which specific changes. (It is a fact, for instance, that sea level is going down in parts of the world), and post the scientific data to back that up.

Now that would be something worth reading.

Read the assessments. Not just the SPM but the technical summaries as well. The IPCC assessments are assessments of the body of geophysical scientific literature relating to climate science. The link I posted addresses some of your questions and the Technical summary goes into much greater detail.

BTW - Just because we are in an interglacial period does not mean that the climate is naturally warming. The trend for the last 7000 years has been one of cooling. If you look at the larger paleoclimate record, we are in an ice age, interspersed with small warm periods known as interglacial periods.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #4
I should probably merge the other posts from the UN thread here, so I will post this here.

My main concern is that we simply do not understand climate science (very new) and how climate works and how quickly it can change in unexpected ways to claim to know what is going on or what should be done, other than just cutting back on pollution, which we are already doing.

I strongly suggest you read the link I provided.

Skyhunter said:
The initial warming at glacial termination spanned about 5000 years and ended ~9000 years ago. The Holocene optimum was about 7500 years ago. The trend since then has been one of cooling except for a slight warming 5500 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png"
You didn't read it, did you? Also, that chart was disproved not too long ago when it was discovered that important data had been ommited/skewed.

Your "wiki" reference says
Because of the limitations of data sampling, each curve in the main plot was smoothed (see methods below) and consequently, this figure can not resolve temperature fluctuations faster than approximately 300 years. Further, while 2004 appears warmer than any other time in the long-term average, an observation that might be a sign of global warming, it should also be noted that the 2004 measurement is from a single year (actually the fifth highest on record, see Image:Short Instrumental Temperature Record.png for comparison). It is impossible to know whether similarly large short-term temperature fluctuations may have occurred at other times, but are unresolved by the resolution available in this figure. The next 150 years will determine whether the long-term average centered on the present appears anomalous with respect to this plot.

Since there is no scientific consensus on how to reconstruct global temperature variations during the Holocene, the average shown here should be understood as only a rough, quasi-global approximation to the temperature history of the Holocene. In particular, higher resolution data and better spatial coverage could signicantly alter the apparent long-term behavior (see below for further caveats). For another estimate of Holocene temperature fluctuations, see: [1]

While any conclusions to be drawn from the long-term average must be considered crude and potentially controversial, one can comment on a number of well established inferences from the individual curves contributing to the average. First, at many locations, there exist large temperature fluctuations on multi-centennial scales. Hence, climate change lasting for centuries appears to be a common feature of many regions. Assuming the timing information from these records is reasonably accurate, it appears that in many cases large changes at any particular site may occur without correlating to similarly large changes at other sites. Secondly, it is also notable that different locations appear to take different amounts of time to reach typical Holocene conditions following the last glacial termination. Scientists generally agree that warming concluded in the far Southern Hemisphere earlier than in most other regions. In part, the prolonged climate change may be related to prolonged changes in sea level, which took till roughly 6000 years ago to reach near modern levels. Some of the differences may also reflect timescale uncertainties.

You might want to read this.

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/eismaslin.html

I'm not saying that pollution, agriculture and changing the landscape aren't causing problems. I'm saying that we don't know definitely what is happening where or why, and that is VERY IMPORTANT to finding solutions that don't wreck havoc on this planet.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
Evo said:
My main concern is that we simply do not understand climate science (very new) and how climate works and how quickly it can change in unexpected ways to claim to know what is going on or what should be done, other than just cutting back on pollution, which we are already doing.
A reasonable position.

However, the radiative properties of CO2 have been rigorously studied and well understood for the past one hundred years. Increasing the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 is a positive climate forcing, and all else being equal will cause a warming trend. How much may be uncertain, but no credible scientist claims that the forcing will be negative. There is no reason not to switch to non carbon sources of energy.
I strongly suggest you read the link I provided.
You didn't provide one in the last post.

Evo said:
You didn't read it, did you? Also, that chart was disproved not too long ago when it was discovered that important data had been ommited/skewed.

Your "wiki" reference says
Read what, the caveats? I most certainly did.

Could you be more specific, exactly what important data?

Evo said:
You might want to read this.

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/eismaslin.html
I will.
Evo said:
I'm not saying that pollution, agriculture and changing the landscape aren't causing problems. I'm saying that we don't know definitely what is happening where or why, and that is VERY IMPORTANT to finding solutions that don't wreck havoc on this planet.

I fail to see how developing and utilizing renewable energy, and building more efficient infrastructure is harming the planet.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #6
Evo,

I read the AGU paper.

It is about a cold shift in climate during the Eemian that was followed by a cooling trend ending in the last glaciation. No such event has been recorded for the Holocene, although there was an cooling event 5500 years ago. The rapid cooling is thought to be a result of a slowdown in the THC due to an influx of fresh water into the Nordic sea.

Today, a similar freshening of the North Atlantic Drift and the Norwegian Current would reduce deep water formation in the Nordic seas. This would slow the great global deep-water conveyor belt and would lead to colder conditions in Europe. We suggest that a similar chain of events may have occurred in the mid-Eemian. Based on the absence of ice, rafted debris, and other evidence of melting icebergs during the Eemian, the observed freshening of the surface waters and the corresponding reduction of deep water formation cannot be ascribed to an ice surge event but rather to overlapping processes: the increased incursion of "fresh" North Pacific water via the Bering Strait during times of raised sea level, and enhanced precipitation over the North Atlantic and Nordic Seas following the Northern Hemisphere insolation maximum.

There is no cold event of similar magnitude in the Holocene record, but minor late Holocene 18O and 13C events are found in marine records, about 5500 calendar years ago during the early Subboreal chronozone. The Holocene and Intra-Eemian cold events (refer to figure) are similar in that they both occur after the interglacial peak, and they signal the beginning of a trend towards colder conditions, which, thousands of years later, resulted in the beginning of a glacial period. However, no such clear oscillations have been reported in European Holocene pollen records.
 
  • #7
Evo said:
What would be the normal effects from the natural warming period we are currently in?

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf"

Blue shaded bands show the 5-95% range for 19 simulations from 5 climate models using only the natural forcings due to solar activity and volcanoes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8
One question that comes to mind: If indeed the AGW model is correct, how much confidence is possible, ever - what is the highest degree of certainty that we could ever have in the model?
 
  • #9
Ivan Seeking said:
One question that comes to mind: If indeed the AGW model is correct, how much confidence is possible, ever - what is the highest degree of certainty that we could ever have in the model?


AGW is a theory. The 90% certainty stems from the fact that there is no known mechanism(s) that explain the observed warming trend of the past 50 years, other than anthropogenic emissions of GHGs. The 10% uncertainty is due to unknowns in the science itself and even uncertainty in known mechanisms.

There is always uncertainty, but if I get a hand with a 90% probability to win, I'll bet that hand every time.

[edit] And if the hand has a 10% chance I might try and bluff. [/edit]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
Just to be clear: Climate models are used to predict how CO2 will affect the climate.

Is there something incorrect about that statement?
 
  • #11
Ivan Seeking said:
Just to be clear: Climate models are used to predict how CO2 will affect the climate.

Is there something incorrect about that statement?

Nothing incorrect in that statement, but it is a simplification. There are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_models" Even with parallel coupled general circulation models, some elements are held constant because there just is not enough processing power to simulate them.

Although in 1896 http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Arrhenius_pdf" did make a fairly good estimate of temperature response.

The PDF above contains "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground" by Svante Arrhenius. This paper, published in 1896, is the first to quantify the impact of carbon dioxide on the Earth's greenhouse effect and to suggest that its variations have been an important influence on previous long-term changes in climate. His crude estimate that a doubling of carbon dioxide would result in a ~5 °C warming is larger but not greatly different from the 1.5-4.5 °C now estimated for such a doubling (IPCC 2001).

Combining these calculations with existing work suggesting that the burning of fossil fuels could significantly alter the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (Högbom 1894), Arrhenius later became the first person to predict the possibility of man-made global warming. His prediction that significant global warming would take ~3000 years to develop (Arrhenius 1908) is now recognized as a substantial underestimate due in part to his failure to foresee the rapid increases in fossil fuel use during the twentieth century.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #12
I fail to see how developing and utilizing renewable energy, and building more efficient infrastructure is harming the planet.

Well one thing to be cautious about is that a good deal of those so-called "renewable" energy sources aren't really worth anything. Wind, solar, biofuels, etc...all have to be subsidized right now, some heavily, and many of the corporations that are "on-board" regarding global warming are only doing so because they stand to profit from restrictive regulations regarding energy usage. Restrictions on energy usage can also send more jobs offshore because companies will go to countries not trying to meet such obligations.

So one must be careful. This question, if people believe in global warming, is very much an economic one as well.

There is no reason not to switch to non carbon sources of energy.

Well yes, if there were any viable non-carbon energy sources. But the fact of the matter remains that oil, coal, natural gas, etc...are the best energy sources.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #13
WheelsRCool said:
Well one thing to be cautious about is that a good deal of those so-called "renewable" energy sources aren't really worth anything. Wind, solar, biofuels, etc...all have to be subsidized right now, some heavily, and many of the corporations that are "on-board" regarding global warming are only doing so because they stand to profit from restrictive regulations regarding energy usage. Restrictions on energy usage can also send more jobs offshore because companies will go to countries not trying to meet such obligations.

So one must be careful. This question, if people believe in global warming, is very much an economic one as well.



Well yes, if there were any viable non-carbon energy sources. But the fact of the matter remains that oil, coal, natural gas, etc...are the best energy sources.

Most of the energy subsidies go to traditional sources. Nanosolar will begin producing solar panels this year that will bring solar down to about 1/3 the price of coal generated electricity.

I think you are stuck in an old paradigm. Come on outside the box. There is nothing to fear out here. :smile:
 
  • #14
My question is simply this: If AGW due to humans is absolutely true, what exactly should be done? To what extent? And by whom?

I think this is where the problems would arise. It's all good that each country minds their own pollution output, but what are we to do about the countries that do not participate? This is where it gets dangerous, IMO.
 
  • #15
Skyhunter said:
Most of the energy subsidies go to traditional sources. Nanosolar will begin producing solar panels this year that will bring solar down to about 1/3 the price of coal generated electricity.

That's probably because the renewable sources consist of about 3% or less of our energy supply, at least from my understanding. Traditional sources are still profitable. Oil companies profit and coal companies profit plenty fine. They don't need government aid to survive. The government does subsidize gasoline somewhat to artificially keep the price about a dollar lower than what it would be I believe, but they also tax the gasoline companies at a tremendously high rate as well, so one could say the gasoline companies are partially subsidizing themselves ultimately.

Another problem I've read is that the process to manufacture solar panels does a lot of harm to the environment that off-sets the benefit of them, however not sure how true that is.

As for solar panels 1/3 the price of coal-generated electricity, well I'll believe it when I see it. Not saying it isn't happening, but they've been claiming such energy sources would start pulling their own weight for decades now. These energy sources need to be able to supply a good chunk of the nation's energy supply, and increase in ability to do so in the future, as our energy needs increase.

They also need to be able to do so without covering entire neighborhoods with giant solar panels.

If they have smaller panels though that can supply plenty of energy, constantly, in times of lousy sunlight as well, that will be a truly brilliant thing.

I think you are stuck in an old paradigm. Come on outside the box. There is nothing to fear out here. :smile:

Oh I have no problem thinking outside the box. I am just trying to think along what I see as realistic terms.

My question is simply this: If AGW due to humans is absolutely true, what exactly should be done? To what extent? And by whom?

I think this is where the problems would arise. It's all good that each country minds their own pollution output, but what are we to do about the countries that do not participate? This is where it gets dangerous, IMO.

Well for one, who says it would be a problem even if it is being caused? There's two questions,

1) Is GW being caused by humans?
2) If so, will it actually be a problem?

The question of just "how" a country should mind its pollution output is very questionable. One doesn't just want to clamp down on industry and people's livelihoods because of global warming and damage the economy greatly in the process, on the other hand, one does want to start encouraging businesses to develop new and cleaner energy technologies, keep the economy strong so that we have the ability to deal with any problems from global warming if they might occur, and enact laws on industry where cost-benefit analysis show it won't damage the industry.

Draconian stuff like a high gasoline tax to stop people from driving SUVs and pickups, or rules like if you drive an SUV into a city you have to pay a huge tax, or taxing you according to your energy output, IMO are very very wrong.

The other thing is to consider whether other countries really should try to curb their emissions as they're developing. Which would harm their people more? For example, in many African countries, the people have to get up each morning and go chop down a bunch of firewood, carry it back, then they burn it inside their huts to keep warm. This creates a rather dangerous and polluted environment inside the huts for the people, and it also wastes time.

In addition to that, they're literally destroying the forest's ecosystem.

By inserting a coal plant somewhere, they could supply power to the people where they could heat themselves, have electric light to see in the dark, they'd be free from certain back-breaking labor, have more time for productive pursuits, and also the forest would stop getting cut down as much.

Now obviously there's considerations here, for example, one could say to said African country, "We understand you guys need industry for your people, but try to use clean industry, don't use a third-world coal plant, we'll give you first-world technology."

Of course I don't know if maybe third-world countries can't afford the cleaner technology or not, etc...but I mean many countries have legit reasons for not trying to curb their CO2 emissions by reducing their carbon emissions.

For countries that definitely won't participate, I'd say we do our best to develop very clean technology to upgrade their industry (and our own industry), that we can sell to them. If it's cost-effective enough, they'll likely reason that the result of having cleaner cities will pay for itself in the future. For example in Beijing, China right now, they say you can't walk outside for any extended period without inhaling a bunch of black pollutants in your nose, which you then spend a lot of time blowing back out after you get inside somewhere.
 
  • #16
I was in Ningbo for week on business, across the bay from Shanghai in 05. It took me awhile to realize that it wasn't just overcast everyday that I was there. Those people never saw the sun. It's perma-smog. And with the state of business practices, that isn't going to change anytime soon. They didn't talk about it. It's like it wasn't happening.

So, if the world decides that humans are creating global warming, what is it going to do about China? They are off and running, noones going to change that. Every major company you can think of has a factory over there. I was given a nice tour of some local business parks that were several square miles. We all know China's humanitarian history. And the whole world has interests to keep them doing what they are doing. Interesting dilemma.
 
  • #17
WheelsRCool said:
That's probably because the renewable sources consist of about 3% or less of our energy supply, at least from my understanding.
Actually the number is 6% of the total and 9% of electricity, according to the http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/brochure/renew05/renewable.html"[/URL] figures.
[QUOTE]Traditional sources are still profitable. Oil companies profit and coal companies profit plenty fine. They don't need government aid to survive.[/QUOTE]
But they are getting them to the tune of $10's of billions.
[QUOTE]The government does subsidize gasoline somewhat to artificially keep the price about a dollar lower than what it would be I believe, but they also tax the gasoline companies at a tremendously high rate as well, so one could say the gasoline companies are partially subsidizing themselves ultimately.[/QUOTE]
Gasoline is not directly subsidized, but the pump price is supported by many government subsidies and low cost leases. The tax on gasoline is paid by the consumer not the gasoline company.
[QUOTE]Another problem I've read is that the process to manufacture solar panels does a lot of harm to the environment that off-sets the benefit of them, however not sure how true that is.[/QUOTE]
The greatest environmental concern is not from the panels themselves, (although cadmium could be a problem if old panels are thrown in landfills) but from the lead acid batteries. When you offset these with the zero pollution from the energy generated the benefits far outweigh the costs. And since the environmental impacts can and should be mitigated, through recycling, there is absolutely no reason not to go solar as it becomes affordable.

[QUOTE]As for solar panels 1/3 the price of coal-generated electricity, well I'll believe it when I see it.[/QUOTE]
http://www.kqed.org/quest/television/view/399"

[QUOTE]Not saying it isn't happening, but they've been claiming such energy sources would start pulling their own weight for decades now. These energy sources need to be able to supply a good chunk of the nation's energy supply, and increase in ability to do so in the future, as our energy needs increase.[/QUOTE]
And with the right investment they can begin to fill a significant portion. But at the same time we must recognize that the lifestyle and consumption economies of the first world are unsustainable for a planet that will soon be home to 10 billion people. I believe that everyone is entitled to the basics necessary to live. So I ride a bicycle instead of driving a car.
[QUOTE]
They also need to be able to do so without covering entire neighborhoods with giant solar panels.[/QUOTE]
Is this somehow less desirable than asphalt grids where noisy, speeding automobiles disturb the peace and create life threatening hazards, as well as spewing pollution into the air and water?

[QUOTE]If they have smaller panels though that can supply plenty of energy, constantly, in times of lousy sunlight as well, that will be a truly brilliant thing.[/QUOTE]
I agree, but unless there is support for the industry, there will be little advancement in the technology.
[QUOTE]
Well for one, who says it would be a problem even if it is being caused? There's two questions,

1) Is GW being caused by humans?[/QUOTE]
The super majority of the worlds scientists believe it is 90% certain.
[QUOTE]2) If so, will it actually be a problem?[/QUOTE]
Not if it occurs slowly, allowing time for ecosystems and populations to adapt. The biggest problem is the rate that CO[sub]2[/sub] is the rate of increase.
[URL]http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6956/full/425365a.html[/URL]

If you look at the five major extinctions in history, four of them are associated with high CO2 levels and warmer temperature. The http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070809104722.htm" and is expected to drop further.

[QUOTE]The question of just "how" a country should mind its pollution output is very questionable. One doesn't just want to clamp down on industry and people's livelihoods because of global warming and damage the economy greatly in the process, on the other hand, one does want to start encouraging businesses to develop new and cleaner energy technologies, keep the economy strong so that we have the ability to deal with any problems from global warming if they might occur, and enact laws on industry where cost-benefit analysis show it won't damage the industry.[/QUOTE]
The cost of not doing anything is far greater than the investment in infrastructure necessary to build a sustainable society.
[PLAIN]http://www.cier.umd.edu/documents/US%20Economic%20Impacts%20of%20Climate%20Change%20and%20the%20Costs%20of%20Inaction.pdf"[/URL]
[QUOTE]Draconian stuff like a high gasoline tax to stop people from driving SUVs and pickups, or rules like if you drive an SUV into a city you have to pay a huge tax, or taxing you according to your energy output, IMO are very very wrong.
[/QUOTE]
Look at what was done in [PLAIN]http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/interview-with-enrique-penalosa-long/"[/URL].

It is the nature of politics that some people are going to feel that their rights are being restricted. The shared commons has been reduced to predominantly streets and highways. Cities in the future will need to restrict access by automobiles, so that they can be more livable for people.

[QUOTE]The other thing is to consider whether other countries really should try to curb their emissions as they're developing. Which would harm their people more? For example, in many African countries, the people have to get up each morning and go chop down a bunch of firewood, carry it back, then they burn it inside their huts to keep warm. This creates a rather dangerous and polluted environment inside the huts for the people, and it also wastes time.[/QUOTE]
This was the major problem with Kyoto, it excluded what is now the largest polluter, China. However, you must remember that the third world is primarily being developed by the first world. So how they develop will in large part be decided by the first world interests. it is in our interest that they develop a sustainable infrastructure.

[QUOTE]In addition to that, they're literally destroying the forest's ecosystem.
[/QUOTE]
People living in grass huts have a very low environmental impact. Besides, the primary cause of deforestation is for livestock. Adopting a plant based diet is the best way to prevent this from happening.

[QUOTE]By inserting a coal plant somewhere, they could supply power to the people where they could heat themselves, have electric light to see in the dark, they'd be free from certain back-breaking labor, have more time for productive pursuits, and also the forest would stop getting cut down as much.[/QUOTE]
The small amount of wood burned is negligible, putting a local solar and/or wind power in the village would make much better economic sense. Why build and maintain the transmission infrastructure when efficiency and local renewable power is a better solution.

[QUOTE]Now obviously there's considerations here, for example, one could say to said African country, "We understand you guys need industry for your people, but try to use clean industry, don't use a third-world coal plant, we'll give you first-world technology."

Of course I don't know if maybe third-world countries can't afford the cleaner technology or not, etc...but I mean many countries have legit reasons for not trying to curb their CO2 emissions by reducing their carbon emissions.[/QUOTE]

Africa is not the problem. It is developing industrial countries like China and India. But I would still place an emphasis on clean modern infrastructure.

[quote]For countries that definitely won't participate, I'd say we do our best to develop very clean technology to upgrade their industry (and our own industry), that we can sell to them. If it's cost-effective enough, they'll likely reason that the result of having cleaner cities will pay for itself in the future. For example in Beijing, China right now, they say you can't walk outside for any extended period without inhaling a bunch of black pollutants in your nose, which you then spend a lot of time blowing back out after you get inside somewhere.[/QUOTE]

Coal can still be a considerable contributor. There is a technology for scrubbing the flue gases with charcoal that can then be used as fertilizer. Using pyrolysis to create the charcoal can generate energy and hydrogen. The resulting low temperature charcoal can then be used to scrub power plant flue emissions. The charcoal creates a carbon cycle in the soil that has produced some of the richest soil on Earth.

[url]http://www.eprida.com/hydro/Page_files/hydromain.htm[/url]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #18
Skyhunter said:
The greatest environmental concern is not from the panels themselves, (although cadmium could be a problem if old panels are thrown in landfills) but from the lead acid batteries. When you offset these with the zero pollution from the energy generated the benefits far outweigh the costs. And since the environmental impacts can and should be mitigated, through recycling, there is absolutely no reason not to go solar as it becomes affordable.

Coolbeans, well you'd have to be nuts to not go solar if it becomes very reliable and affordable, you'd have no more electric bill!

And with the right investment they can begin to fill a significant portion. But at the same time we must recognize that the lifestyle and consumption economies of the first world are unsustainable for a planet that will soon be home to 10 billion people. I believe that everyone is entitled to the basics necessary to live. So I ride a bicycle instead of driving a car.

That I disagree with. I think the lifestyle and consumption economies of the First World are plenty sustainable. Certain things might grow more expensive, but free-market economies adapt. If a lifestyle is not sustainable, the market will handle it through cost of living, not the law.

Is this somehow less desirable than asphalt grids where noisy, speeding automobiles disturb the peace and create life threatening hazards, as well as spewing pollution into the air and water?

To me, yes. The vehicles don't need to spew pollution, they can utilize technology to make the engines cleaner-burning. As for life-threatening hazards, that's just one thing we deal with. I do not need the government dictating to me what kind of vehicle I drive around for the "good of society."

And I like things like freeways that I can speed on and roads that I can drive freely on.

I agree, but unless there is support for the industry, there will be little advancement in the technology.

Perhaps, but you have to be careful of what "support" from industry consists of. A lot of industry loves these energy sources because it will allow them to maintain a monopoly and yank up prices. For example, before its fall, Enron bought up lots of various "renewable" energy companies. They had no intention of saving the Earth or anything though.

If the technology is truly good and marketed properly, trust me, people will buy it! You give people a cost-effective way to give the middle-finger to the electric company, and they'll do it :)

The super majority of the worlds scientists believe it is 90% certain.

From what I understand, that is not true, that there is no consensus amongst the world's scientists regarding the subject.

Not if it occurs slowly, allowing time for ecosystems and populations to adapt. The biggest problem is the rate that CO2 is the rate of increase.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6956/full/425365a.html

Good point.

If you look at the five major extinctions in history, four of them are associated with high CO2 levels and warmer temperature. The http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070809104722.htm" and is expected to drop further.

That's interesting, but it makes me wonder because in the past, when the Earth had tremendous bio-diversity on the planet, we had a lot more carbon in the atmosphere then we do today. Experiments have constantly shown that plants respond very well to atmospheres with a lot more carbon.

The cost of not doing anything is far greater than the investment in infrastructure necessary to build a sustainable society.
http://www.cier.umd.edu/documents/US%20Economic%20Impacts%20of%20Climate%20Change%20and%20the%20Costs%20of%20Inaction.pdf"[/URL][/QUOTE]

Sure, but the question becomes how far to go in investing in infrastructure, because there are many overzealous people who want to go too far and micro-manage people's lives.

[QUOTE]Look at what was done in [PLAIN]http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/interview-with-enrique-penalosa-long/"[/URL].

It is the nature of politics that some people are going to feel that their rights are being restricted. The shared commons has been reduced to predominantly streets and highways. Cities in the future will need to restrict access by automobiles, so that they can be more livable for people.[/QUOTE]

Mmm...I don't know about that. Cities can be more livable with autos that don't pollute as much.

As for bogota, that is an example of a politician making people live a lifestyle that they think is best for them, rather than let people live their own lives. Many people do not want to have to take public transportation, or ride a bike, or walk. We prefer to drive SUVs or pickup trucks or sports cars or whatnot.

The right of the individual always supercedes the collective. If we want cleaner cities, we'll need to develop more pollution-free vehicles, not infringe on people's right to live life the way they like. As for traffic, I can deal with that. Certain traffic, for example the girdlock that occurs in cities like Los Angelos, occur because they cannot develop any more freeway there. they've got a freeway system designed to handle 1960s-level traffic. The reason they can't develop more is because of the Sierra Club having stopped them.

[QUOTE]This was the major problem with Kyoto, it excluded what is now the largest polluter, China. However, you must remember that the third world is primarily being developed by the first world. So how they develop will in large part be decided by the first world interests. it is in our interest that they develop a sustainable infrastructure.[/QUOTE]

True.

[QUOTE]People living in grass huts have a very low environmental impact. Besides, the primary cause of deforestation is for livestock. Adopting a plant based diet is the best way to prevent this from happening.[/QUOTE]

True, but why exactly should these people be forced to livei n grass huts, especially when it is such a hard life?

(::eating sausage and bacon::) As for adopting a plant-based diet, an ice cube has a better chance in the oven then for me to do that. I do support finding ways to more efficiently (and humanly) raise livestock though.

[QUOTE]The small amount of wood burned is negligible, putting a local solar and/or wind power in the village would make much better economic sense. Why build and maintain the transmission infrastructure when efficiency and local renewable power is a better solution.[/QUOTE]

Well, with solar and wind power right now, you'd need to partially subsidize it with conventional electrical power from some other source, because wind and solar are intermittent. Also, something like a big windmill the people might not like in their area, so it depends I suppose. Also, what to do when/if the village starts growing and advancing?

But either way, I just meant supply the people with a source of electrical energy, if wind or solar could do it, and the people were okay with it, fine by me.

[QUOTE]Africa is not the problem. It is developing industrial countries like China and India. But I would still place an emphasis on clean modern infrastructure.[/QUOTE]

True, but if we ever hope to fix poverty in Africa, it will need to be developed more so (probably will never happen though, too many power-hungry warlords).

Coal can still be a considerable contributor. There is a technology for scrubbing the flue gases with charcoal that can then be used as fertilizer. Using pyrolysis to create the charcoal can generate energy and hydrogen. The resulting low temperature charcoal can then be used to scrub power plant flue emissions. The charcoal creates a carbon cycle in the soil that has produced some of the richest soil on Earth.

[url]http://www.eprida.com/hydro/Page_files/hydromain.htm[/url][/QUOTE]

That's a cool thing!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

What is the IPCC Fourth Assessment Synthesis Report?

The IPCC Fourth Assessment Synthesis Report (AR4) is the fourth in a series of reports published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It is a comprehensive assessment of the current state of knowledge on climate change, including the causes, impacts, and potential solutions.

Who publishes the IPCC Fourth Assessment Synthesis Report?

The IPCC Fourth Assessment Synthesis Report is published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC is a United Nations body made up of thousands of scientists and experts from around the world who volunteer their time to assess the latest scientific research on climate change.

What is the purpose of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Synthesis Report?

The purpose of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Synthesis Report is to provide policymakers, decision-makers, and the general public with a comprehensive and objective assessment of the current state of knowledge on climate change. It is intended to inform and guide policy decisions and actions related to addressing climate change.

What are the key findings of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Synthesis Report?

The IPCC Fourth Assessment Synthesis Report concluded that there is strong evidence that human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, are the primary cause of global warming. It also highlighted the impacts of climate change, such as sea level rise, extreme weather events, and loss of biodiversity. The report also emphasized the urgent need for immediate and ambitious action to mitigate and adapt to climate change.

How is the information in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Synthesis Report used?

The information in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Synthesis Report is used by policymakers and decision-makers at all levels, from local to international, to inform and guide their actions and policies related to climate change. It is also used by researchers and scientists as a basis for further studies and analyses on climate change. Additionally, the report is a valuable resource for the general public to understand the current state of knowledge on climate change and its implications for our planet.

Similar threads

  • Earth Sciences
Replies
28
Views
2K
  • Earth Sciences
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
5K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • Earth Sciences
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
3
Replies
85
Views
7K
Replies
526
Views
54K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top