Warming 'likely' man-made, unstoppable

AP on Yahoo ^ | 2/1/07 | Seth Borenstein - ap

[NormsRevenge]

PARIS - The world's leading climate scientists said global warming has begun, is "very likely" caused by man, and will be unstoppable for centuries, according to a report obtained Friday by The Associated Press.

The scientists — using their strongest language yet on the issue — said now that world has begun to warm, hotter temperatures and rises in sea level "would continue for centuries" no matter how much humans control their pollution. The report also linked the warming to the recent increase in stronger hurricanes.

"The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice-mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that is not due to known natural causes alone," said the report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — a group of hundreds of scientists and representatives of 113 governments.

The phrase "very likely" translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by man's burning of fossil fuels. That was the strongest conclusion to date, making it nearly impossible to say natural forces are to blame.

What that means in simple language is "we have this nailed," said top U.S. climate scientist Jerry Mahlman, who originated the percentage system.

The 20-page report, which was due to be officially released later in the day, represents the most authoritative science on global warming.

The new language marked an escalation from the panel's last report in 2001, which said warming was "likely" caused by human activity. There had been speculation that the participants might try to say it is "virtually certain" man causes global warming, which translates to 99 percent certainty.

The panel predicted temperature rises of 2-11.5 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2100. That was a wider range than in the 2001 report.

However, the panel also said its best estimate was for temperature rises of 3.2-7.1 degrees Fahrenheit. In 2001, all the panel gave was a range of 2.5-10.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

On sea levels, the report projects rises of 7-23 inches by the end of the century. An additional 3.9-7.8 inches are possible if recent, surprising melting of polar ice sheets continues.

But there is some cold comfort. Some, but not all, of the projected temperature and sea level rises are slightly lower than projected in a previous report in 2001. That is mostly due to use of more likely scenarios and would still result in dramatic effects across the globe, scientists said.

Many scientists had warned that this estimate was too cautious and said sea level rise could be closer to 3-5 feet because of ice sheet melt.

Nevertheless, scientists agreed the report is strong.

"There's no question that the powerful language is intimately linked to the more powerful science," said one of the study's many co-authors, Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria, who spoke by phone from Canada. He said the report was based on science that is rock-solid, peer-reviewed, and consensus.

"It's very conservative. Scientists by their nature are skeptics."

The scientists wrote the report based on years of peer-reviewed research and government officials edited it with an eye toward the required unanimous approval by world governments.

In the end, there was little debate on the strength of the wording about the role of man in global warming.

The panel quickly agreed Thursday on two of the most contentious issues: attributing global warming to man-made burning of fossil fuels and connecting it to a recent increase in stronger hurricanes.

Negotiations over a third and more difficult issue — how much the sea level is predicted to rise by 2100 — went into the night Thursday with a deadline approaching for the report.

While critics call the panel overly alarmist, it is by nature relatively cautious because it relies on hundreds of scientists, including skeptics.

"I hope that policymakers will be quite convinced by this message," said Riibeta Abeta, a delegate whose island nation Kiribati is threatened by rising seas. "The purpose is to get them moving."

The Chinese delegation was resistant to strong wording on global warming, said Barbados delegate Leonard Fields and others. China has increasingly turned to fossil fuels for its huge and growing energy needs.

The U.S. government delegation was not one of the more vocal groups in the debate over whether warming is man-made, said officials from other countries. And several attendees credited the head of the panel session, Susan Solomon, a top U.S. government climate scientist, with pushing through the agreement so quickly.

The Bush administration acknowledges that global warming is man-made and a problem that must be dealt with, Bush science adviser John Marburger has said. However, Bush continues to reject mandatory limits on so-called "greenhouse" gases.

But this is more than just a U.S. issue.

"What you're trying to do is get the whole planet under the proverbial tent in how to deal with this, not just the rich countries," Mahlman said Thursday. "I think we're in a different kind of game now."

The panel, created by the United Nations in 1988, releases its assessments every five or six years — although scientists have been observing aspects of climate change since as far back as the 1960s. The reports are released in phases — this is the first of four this year.

The next report is due in April and will discuss the effects of global warming. But that issue was touched upon in the current document.

The report says that global warming has made stronger hurricanes, including those on the Atlantic Ocean, such as Hurricane Katrina.

The report said that an increase in hurricane and tropical cyclone strength since 1970 "more likely than not" can be attributed to man-made global warming. The scientists said global warming's connection varies with storms in different parts of the world, but that the storms that strike the Americas are global warming-influenced.

That's a contrast from the 2001 which said there was not enough evidence to make such a conclusion. And it conflicts with a November 2006 statement by the World Meteorological Organization, which helped found the IPCC. The meteorological group said it could not link past stronger storms to global warming.

Fields — of Barbados, a country in the path of many hurricanes — said the new wording was "very important." He noted that insurance companies — which look to science to calculate storm risk — "watch the language, too."

___

Associated Press Writer Angela Charlton contributed to this report.

[razorback-bert]

This rubbish will never end.

Yes it will, when "they" get the laws passed and the power "they" want.

[popdonnelly]

Well, them's the breaks. I guess there's no point in selling your SUV.

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

Ok you libs, its time for a mass suicide on ya'lls part and us conservatives will just take the heat.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

If they predict "2-11.5 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2100" and GW is going to last "hundreds of years" even if we could stop all CO2 emissions today, then let's get serious and hear predictions for the year 2200, 2300 or 2500. Are we in a positive feedback loop where Earth will turn into a planet Mercury by 2500?

If the problem is so serious, I don't understand why the projections don't take a much longer view. 85 years is much too short of a prediction if the true disaster happens 100 or 200 years further in the future. Or does the problem solve itself because we simply run out of fossil fuels in the couple hundred years?

[popdonnelly]

We're all dead in the end, so don't hurry the process.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

"Very likely" is a phrase for fortune cookies and the Magic 8-Ball. Not for science. Not true. Suggest you look up "Probabilistic Risk Assessment" or PRA. It's a systematic and comprehensive methodology to evaluate risks associated with complex engineered systems such as airliners and nuclear power plants. I worked in the energy industry many years and it is widely used to determine how much to invest in redundant systems as well as how to design core systems to avoid failure.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

I used to live in Ithaca, NY (when it was a nice family oriented, middle class town) and we were taught that it was under a mile of ice a few thousand years ago. Now why did it all melt?

[Tarpon]

Plenty of real scientist will tell you the Earth is warming. They will also tell you it's natural and for the most part driven by three things.
1. The variability of the sun's output, caused by sunspots and average output levels.
2. Variation in the amount of cosmic radiation warming the atmosphere.
3. Variability of the Earth's orbit, tilt axis, and wobble.

Man derived CO2 accounts for 0.2 to 0.3% of the total effect of greenhouse gases, clouds account for about 94%. Since clouds are not caused by man, they focus on CO2 which cars emit as exhaust.

Somehow the last ice age melted 15,000 years ago. The sea level has risen about 400 feet since then. Back before the little ice age, 1400-1700 AD, grapes grew in England and English wine was all the rage. Try and fine English wine today. Around 900 to 1000 AD Greenland strangely enough was well, green. History and common sense is your friend.

There is a name for the projections that are currently being made, it's called well within the measurement error. There is no hard evidence that man is causing anything, there are only computer models which change their output depending on who is running them and what data they use.

Start with junkscience.com.

The whole global warming is nothing more than a liberal hoax. In the 70s it was we are all going to die because of the coming ice age. By the time Reagan took office we were going to be out of oil by the year 2000, so said Carter.

With libtards it's one big lie after another until they finally get one that takes so they can implement global socialism, which is the goal.

[mplsconservative]

He's lucky he's cute if you know any Jack Russells. This is Sparky's usual place this time of year. LOL

We plan on burning our fair share of fossil fuels this weekend, as I'm certain you are too. -0 for highs as is usual this time of year. It's a portent for spring as far as I'm concerned. This is just the ugly stuff we have to slog through before the days get markedly longer.

This global warming stuff is so insidious. As another poster questioned above: What caused the last global warming that ended the Ice Age?

It sure wasn't any Homo Sapiens. :)

Argghhh! I am NOT turning down the heat tonight.

[brityank]

Poppycock!

Adjusted for GWP, the total human contribution to Earth's overall greenhouse effect is about 0.28%.

[HardStarboard]

We need to leave soon. I'm researching alternatives.

[Cementjungle]

The oceans will rise a bit, increasing their surface area, which in turn will provide increased cooling via evaporation. Perhaps we'll even have a big volcano eruption which tends to cool the earth as bit by dumping radiation-absorbing junk into the atomsphere. It's all cyclical.

On the other hand, one can make a career, fame and fortune on this stuff, so why not cash in on the gullible folks who want to buy bumper stickers, environmentally-friendly toilet paper and a whole bunch of other goodies!

[DustyMoment]

Ever notice that when the winter weather isn't filled with 80 to 4 million feet of snow and ice, the global warming moonbats (AKA 'scientists') claim it's because of global warming. Then, after the snow and ice show up, it's STILL because of GW, but now the regular folks want their global warming back (the WARM global warming, NOT the COLD global warming) because they have less snow to shovel!!

So, in the interests of trying to make my point in this century, is global warming a bad thing? Or, is global warming only a bad thing when the walk needs shoveling???

[KC Burke]

We must cut our CO2 emissions IN HALF. After all since all of the emissions by human activity are 1 and a half of one percent of the global biologic and natural CO2 activity this would make a full 7/10ths of one percent difference and all we need to do to achieve it is elect Algore and return to the Middle Ages. (Oh, I repeat myself)

[rurgan]

Some links here show that global warming is a hoax . And global warming is a lie .

Socialists (democrats) can gain everything by selling Global warming. Global warming is the socialists' magic all powerful weapon. Using Global warming Democrats can scare people into giving up more of their freedom and prosperity to government. So Global warming will get us on the road to serfdom which is what democrats want.

With Global warming Democrats can slay their enemy the "evil" corporations, capitalism , America and Republicans all at one time.

The liberal media says vote for Democrats as "Democrats will save us from global warming". So the MSM are saying if you don't vote for Democrats then you and the Earth will die. Once democrats (Hitlery) gain total control then Democrats can slay those "evil" "polluting" corporations which will really mess up America. Then it's a short way on the road to Socialism, the ultimate goal. Only problem is that Capitalism works while socialism doesn't.

[JennysCool]

Aw sheese, do these people ever, ever quit?

Not when there's grant money to be made. It's like a never-ending PBS pledge drive.

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

Now why did it all melt?

According to these geniuses, it's because we Americans exist. So what if none of us were around then, we're supposed to feel guilty, pay for it, and stop anything that might cause pollution.

China doesn't pollute. That's because those scientists who study such things don't want to get thrown in prison or suffer a serious beating, so they use data supplied by the Chinese government or none.

[mywholebodyisaweapon]

Follow the money. Who has the most invested in "ozone-friendly, environmentally-safe" technologies and products?

It sure as shootin' ain't the conservatives.

The bottom line is that no scientist, absolutely none, can say with any degree of certainty that humans are causing global warming. They know that, too, which doesn't leave many attractive conclusions about their motives.

[conservchick6]

i agree. there is no such thing as unbiased science. i get that they are using the scientific method--but that isn't conclusive. we must always question science. we can't act like what they found is the gospel. after all, it's likely to be found untrue in a few years. too bad we won't be alive in 2100 to gloat. however, i can't get behind junkscience.com. he debunks stuff that isn't science. the scientific method was set up so that we can keep testintg and retesting. i don't think science should stop. if there's evidence that second hand smoke is bad for us, let's keep testing. it's not time to shut down the world, but we can keep testing and refuting and supporting theories, just as the scientifc method intended. i think the message we take away from junkscience.com is to always think critically. but i wouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water--he gets his money from industries, so it's not exactly unbiased.

[mywholebodyisaweapon]

You are wise.