Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

The Choice Ahead: Entrenched Fossil Fuel Dependence Or Climate Change Management

Meanwhile, the mainstream media (MSM) in the United States reveals little information about the degree that the public must radically change lifestyle habits and expectations for economic growth. Little is mentioned about the degree that climate change could have catastrophic impacts across the globe and no government or business leaders are suggesting that reduced consumption of material goods, delimitations in fossil fuel use and other major changes should be carried out very soon. Likewise, none are encouraging ecologically friendly, self-sustaining, financially vibrant communities to be strengthened, nor hinting that transnational patterns of commerce drain dollars out of the country.

In a similar vein, none indicate that these very same globalized patterns that enrich corporate tycoons exacerbate our reliance on fossil fuels due to long distance transportation of raw materials and finished products, as well as the extraordinary amounts of energy used in a massive production of lots of unnecessary merchandise. Obviously, their doing so would be run counter to their extraordinary financial gains at the expense of the poorly paid, everyday work force.

So instead, we have "a business as usual" mentality shoveled forth with bailouts for major commercial organizations, policies to purchase cars subsidized by the federal government, happy-go-lucky TV programs that focus on trivial topics and plenty of advertisements informing the populace that it ought to purchase this or that item to have the latest look in fall fashion, the best anti-aging formula or whatever else for which doing so will, obviously, raise one's personal carbon and overall ecological footprints in most instances.

At the same time, one can assume that there are no immediate plans to direct society into a pattern of living that is regionally self-reliant (so as to avoid carbon footprints from imports derived from other areas) and restricted in terms of the types of goods available from distant locations. In light of the financial recession and the desire for ever more economic growth based on further globalization of transnational industry and fossil fuel use, quite the opposite pattern is emerging despite the disastrous implications in terms of our breaching climate change tipping points, and the fact that, at some point, fossil fuels, themselves, will no longer be available.

The Choice Ahead: Entrenched Fossil Fuel Dependence Or Climate Change Management

On account, a wise program would be to jumpstart an all out effort to put the means for alternative benign energy sources into place while using the larger portion of fossil fuels to build and install these alternatives across the landscape, as well as help communities to transition away from fossil fuel use altogether. Without a doubt, this would especially be positive in light of the fact that almost 71 percent of electricity in the U.S. is currently supplied by fossil fuels while modern agriculture, industry and transportation all have petroleum at their cores.

Meanwhile the largely consensual opinion reached at the annual conference of the U.S. contingent for the Association for the Study of Peak Oil (ASPO-USA) is that conventional crude peaked in 2005. Further, biofuels are not expected to be any sort of panacea to make up for pending large-scale oil deficits.[4]

Despite the increasing number of indicators that humanity needs to change course in its fossil fuel use, the policy makers sit in their safe government offices planning new dangerous military operations for others to conduct in resource rich regions abroad regardless of the fact that the death toll is rising in these invasions and it seems highly unlikely that the Taliban or any other groups defending their homelands will be easily defeated if at all despite that ever more Pentagon funding is provided toward that aim.

Added up, the expenses to contain Iran, strive to obtain Venezuelan and newly found Cuban oil, fight for arctic fossil fuels, carry out Afghanistan and Pakistan operations, and ramp up covert or military operations via AFRICOM in Africa all together create a recipe for extreme U.S. bankruptcy and assorted other disasters. At the same time, the U.S. undertaking such endeavors merely postpone the inevitable fossil fuel shortfall, anyway, while not ensuring that the country and its citizens are prepared for the huge transition away from fossil fuels. In addition, such ever enlarging, Pentagon run ventures entail an inordinate amount of national sacrifice as money that could be used to support programs at home drains into war costs and the military's ramped up fossil fuel use.

The Choice Ahead: Entrenched Fossil Fuel Dependence Or Climate Change Management

In relation, is there any question whatsoever as to the reason that there are proposals for greatly diminished funding of certain key social programs, including ones connected to healthcare and public education, in the homeland? How could outcomes be otherwise when 54 percent of every U.S. federal tax dollar goes to plans related to the U.S. military and another 19 percent goes to interest payments on the current federal debt, which leaves 27 percent for all other provisions (excluding the further sums to be borrowed to fund costly bailouts, war expansion plans, etc). Accordingly, the federal budget is at present almost twice the amount taken in from American taxpayers -- an irresponsible and disastrous state of affairs with dire repercussions for many years ahead.

In addition, it's difficult to imagine that, starting with Reagan, U.S. Presidents did not see the long term ramifications in their push for:

Deregulated globalized U.S. industry, which led into greater oil use due to greater reliance on importation, along with offshoring and outsourcing of U.S. jobs so as to effectively hollow out the economic base at home and harm the average American worker. Ultimately financial contraction in the U.S. and tangentially abroad could be the only anticipated outcome.

A lack in adequate oversight of Wall Street activities and the banking industry.

An ever enlarging, expensive war program for obtainment of fossil fuels and other finite resources.

Ratification of many other destructive patterns, such as the huge repeated government bailouts, and acceptance of costly no bid contracts in response to various Pentagon requests.

Just where did they think that such a set of irresponsible orientations would ultimately lead? Could none of them see the consequences, such as the federal deficit reaching a record $1.42 Trillion, representing 10 percent of the economy or the highest amount since W.W. II, along with continuing to rapidly shoot upward?

The Choice Ahead: Entrenched Fossil Fuel Dependence Or Climate Change Management

It's hard to imagine that they were all of them so ignorant, nefarious or outright stupid so as to not see where their intended trajectories would in combination land, especially when the speed with which rapidly diminishing oil reserves would disappear is thrown into the mix. Likewise, the quest for unbridled economic growth is equally if not ever more calamitous when the long view's taken.

It's simply not supportable, as Michael Bond points out in these three sections from "Why Economic Growth Is Unsustainable":

"The present economy is obliged to grow annually at between 3% and 6%. Too much less than 3% for too long and the economy will collapse from lack of currency. Too much over 6% for too long and inflation will spiral out of control, rendering currency meaningless.

"Below is a table that points out how long it takes for something to double, triple, etc. in size, when it increases at rates of 3%, 4%, 5% and 6% per year. For the last 15 years, the global economy has been growing at an average of about 4% per year. Note that at 4% growth the economy doubles every 19 years, and grows 10 times its size in a mere 59 years."

"The second problem stems from the fact that in order to sustain 4% annual economic growth, global debt must increase at about 10% annually. Because it is annual growth, this means it is exponential rather than mathematical growth. The difference between the two is shown below."

"The Global Economy is on course to collapse well before 2030 due to a looming global inability to repay annual interest. The reason why debt outpaces economic growth stems from a fault in global money supply. This fault is described in the article Money - Deadlier Than Plutonium, available from www.eveoftheapoc.com.au ."

Moreover, people collectively can't keep taking and taking ever more resources from the natural world and expecting that they can keep raising ever higher the human population and the standard of living for all. It just won't work because the world is largely limited. At the same time, it should be absolutely clear that our current economic programs for the most part do not work either. Anyone who asserts otherwise perhaps needs to be reminded that nearly half of the world comprising of over three billion people live on less than $2.50 a day. How could this possibly seem like any sort of a success, especially when others, parasitically siphoning the wealth towards themselves off the backs of underpaid laborers and through ravage of the natural world, individually make a financial killing in the millions and billions of dollars at the same time?

The Choice Ahead: Entrenched Fossil Fuel Dependence Or Climate Change Management

It's a killing, all right. The signs of the social and ecological costs are all around us to see.

In truth, an expectation for relentless growth comes with a very high price tag as is well explained at "Interconnectedness of World Problems, a Conceptual Map by Fritjof Capra based on Plan B 3.0, by Lester Brown" -- a vision that goes well beyond a simple, barely accurate, linear model. Likewise, the evaluation of Joel Kovel's "The Enemy of Nature" is a well thought out, comparable assessment, as are Bill Mckibben's "A Timely Reminder of the Real Limits to Growth" and David Model's analysis at "The Elephant in the Room. Ignoring Unsustainable Growth".

Real limits in mind, this excerpt from Wikipedia's coverage of the Carter Doctrine is particularly dicey. Simultaneously, it shows a fallacious (arrogant?) sense that the U.S.A. can enact any course of action that it pleases, is completely invincible and is impervious to any internal or external influences, whether social or environmental in nature, that would undercut its kingpin position in the world.

The Carter Doctrine:

"Meeting this challenge will take national will, diplomatic and political wisdom, economic sacrifice, and, of course, military capability. We must call on the best that is in us to preserve the security of this crucial region.

"Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.

"This last, key sentence of the Carter Doctrine, was written by Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter's National Security Adviser. Brzezinski modeled the wording of the Carter Doctrine on the Truman Doctrine, and insisted that the sentence be included in the speech "to make it very clear that the Soviets should stay away from the Persian Gulf."

"In The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power, author Daniel Yergin notes that the Carter Doctrine "bore striking similarities" to a 1903 British declaration, in which British Foreign Secretary Lord Landsdowne warned Russia and Germany that the British would 'regard the establishment of a naval base or of a fortified port in the Persian Gulf by any other power as a very grave menace to British interests, and we should certainly resist it with all the means at our disposal.'"

All the same, Mamoun Fandy of the Center for Contemporary Arab Studies at Georgetown University identifies, in "U.S. Oil Policy in the Middle East", that the U.S. faces some key problems in its quest for oil dominance. These difficulties include:

Controlling oil access is a cornerstone of U.S. Middle East policy.

The Choice Ahead: Entrenched Fossil Fuel Dependence Or Climate Change Management

U.S. reliance on imported oil is very high.

Oil from the Persian Gulf accounts for 10% of the oil used in the U.S.

Dual containment of Iran and Iraq, along with a broader military engagement policy, is key to U.S. strategy in assuring the flow of oil.

Despite the absolute need to drastically and immediately rein in fossil fuel use for a number of compelling reasons, the U.S. government continues to pursue a forceful and antagonistic policy abroad aimed toward unilateral control over global energy supplies. Using a combination of outright military invasion in an expanding number of countries and threats (i.e., towards Iran and Venezuela), U.S. legislators demonstrate little noticeable remorse over the high fiscal (bankrupting), environmental and social costs of these operations. These include that "The Pentagon Is The Largest Consumer Of Oil In The World" , the number of war related deaths continue to rise, there's depleted uranium (DU) spread across the Middle East, the war efforts and resultant obtained oil ensure that the climate change devastation to come is speeded into place, inadequate funding is allocated for provision of alternative energy supplies and improvement of the electrical grid, public transportation is not sufficiently expanded, and other tragic outcomes will unfold.

There are many ways that humanity can move forward to create "the good life" as long as a plan is sound. In 1970, Henry Kissinger claimed,“Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people.” However, one group's domination of oil and food stocks, while denying the needs of other groups, is reckless, unethical and expensive.

Frankly, we've had enough of resource wars. More to the point, conflicts can only get worse as fossil fuel reserves increasingly dwindle and the perception of the diminishment merely strengthens that we have to have the dregs regardless of the grave social and environmental consequences.

No, we do not. In fact, we can no longer afford to fight over material supplies -- particularly the ones, like oil, that are going run out or, like food, be at risk to largely run out due to climate change effects brought on in large measure by our lust for rich energy sources.

The Choice Ahead: Entrenched Fossil Fuel Dependence Or Climate Change Management

Sometimes it's rueful to ponder over the way that the present would be different had the U.S. followed Denmark's example on the same timetable while using the funds that were to become allocated to fossil fuel wars towards development of the self-reliant energy security as Tomas Friedman indirectly suggests in "Flush With Energy" in which he states "Unlike America, Denmark, which was so badly hammered by the 1973 Arab oil embargo that it banned all Sunday driving for a while, responded to that crisis in such a sustained, focused and systematic way that today it is energy independent.(And it didn’t happen by Danish politicians making their people stupid by telling them the solution was simply more offshore drilling.)"

Meanwhile, there's growing public awareness that the Pentagon's worldwide mission IS to get command over oil and gas supplies -- as is explained in an elucidating report by Rick Rozoff with many outstanding factual details. Likewise, it is obvious that the IMF and WB goals are en simpatico with the mission and, as a result, are on a disastrously wrong track as "The grave ecological destruction sponsored by the World Bank", by Eric De Ruest, Hélene Baillot, undeniably indicates.

As an aside, the first TV announcements routinely popped up, several weeks ago, to suggest that the U.S. populace ought to pitch in and cut it energy consumption by 3 percent per person. While the objective is admirable, the recommended curtailment is far too small and the diminishment process is starting around twenty OR MORE years too late. Besides, why don't we even go a few steps further and take Walden Bello's advise from "The Virtues of Deglobalization":

"The aim of the deglobalization paradigm is to move beyond the economics of narrow efficiency, in which the key criterion is the reduction of unit cost, never mind the social and ecological destabilization this process brings about. It is to move beyond a system of economic calculation that, in the words of John Maynard Keynes, made 'the whole conduct of life…into a paradox of an accountant's nightmare.' An effective economics, rather, strengthens social solidarity by subordinating the operations of the market to the values of equity, justice, and community by enlarging the sphere of democratic decision making. To use the language of the great Hungarian thinker Karl Polanyi in his book The Great Transformation, deglobalization is about 're-embedding' the economy in society, instead of having society driven by the economy."

The Choice Ahead: Entrenched Fossil Fuel Dependence Or Climate Change Management

In tandem, let's realize, as did Shamus Cooke, that "the industrial basis for an alternative energy superstructure needs to be created. Only by doing this can we seriously address the needs of the planet. Transforming our giant auto plants — many laying idle — into producers of solar panels, windmills, electricity–producing buoy’s, high-speed trains, electric busses and cars, etc., while massively investing in new research and technology to deal with climate change, is the only realistic way to drastically change direction in the time allotted."

The alternative path to his, of course, is the exact one that we are following. We all know to where it leads -- a 4C (or even) hotter world filled with massive loss of human and other forms of life, ruinous economic consequences, devastating weather patterns, an ocean level rise that puts many coastal regions at risk, massive fresh water shortages, food shortfalls, spreading pestilence and invasive species, and an extremely tenuous future for many generations to come.

Like our ancestors before fossil fuel were discovered, we can live without its benefits. Humankind, throughout our history on this planet, has been able to adapt to widely varying circumstances. Anyone who doubts this to be the case simply needs to compare the way that Inuits live in relation to 67 different uncontacted tribes in Brazil.

In other words, we CAN still adjust to widely varying conditions -- even ones without fossil fuel. However, we, absolutely, cannot prepare to exist in a world that has states outside of the ranges that gave rise to and support of human life. All the same, we -- out of willfulness, wishful thinking or ignorance -- are willing to gamble that we can, it seems.

Perhaps we find it just too hard to give up our current ways of life even though our not doing so ensures that a large portion of the Earth will likely become unable to sustain life towards the end of this century. How tragically demented and selfish of us if, indeed, this is the case!

Of course, our drastically relinquishing fossil fuel use as much as is possible right away is not an easy action to endure. Yet, it can and has to be faced despite that the happening will mean hardship, privation and myriad kinds of losses.

After all, the sorts of difficulties that will exist after we forgo fossil fuel will be minor in comparison to the horrific adversities that would definitely be present if we do not deeply cut our collective carbon footprint in the near future. If anyone thinks that this cutting action is simply too hard to bear, he should for a moment picture the harshness that severe and worsening climate change could bring. Then, it becomes quickly clear about which trouble is doubtlessly preferable.

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/a/...

BREAKING NEWS: Scientists have determined the Global Warming is being caused by the SUN! And I believe them. This morning when I woke up, it was 24 degrees, later on in the day when the sun was high on the horizon, it got up to 56 degrees. Scientific fact proven by a mere mortal.

Mr Charlie wrote:

BREAKING NEWS: Scientists have determined the Global Warming is being caused by the SUN! And I believe them. This morning when I woke up, it was 24 degrees, later on in the day when the sun was high on the horizon, it got up to 56 degrees. Scientific fact proven by a mere mortal.

You need a press machine like ObamaVision.

The Links Between Food Security
And Climate Change

Recent reports indicate that the rains have failed once again across vast swathes of Eastern Africa, putting millions of people at risk. This current regional crisis is a stark reminder to all of us that the global food security crisis of 2007 and 2008, which was marked by a sharp contraction in food supplies and food price spikes, is far from over. Food prices have come down from their peaks of 2008, but they are still at historically high levels. They have become more volatile, indicating underlying uncertainties, and are showing signs of rising again.

The future of global food security is highly dependent on two important and inter-related factors. The first is the degree to which developing countries will succeed in raising agricultural productivity through technological change and effective natural resource management. The second is the degree to which the world will succeed in limiting climate change, while helping developing countries adapt to climate change and mitigate its effects.

The scale of the challenge of assuring global food security is reflected in current projections for population growth, and the accompanying projected growth in the demand for food. On current trends, the world’s population is projected to swell from 6.8 billion to 9.1 billion by 2050. Most of the growth, as can be expected, will occur in developing countries. Feeding 9.1 billion people will require that overall global food production grow by 70 per cent. Production in the developing countries will need to almost double.

The enormous burden of feeding a growing global population is made heavier by the expected adverse impact of climate change on food production. Recent studies and projections paint a dire picture. In Eastern and South Asia, climate change is expected to affect rains, increase the frequency of droughts, and raise average temperatures, threatening the availability of fresh water for agricultural production. In sub-Saharan Africa, arid and semi-arid areas are projected to increase significantly. And in Southern Africa, yields from rain-fed agriculture are expected to fall by up to 50 per cent as early as 2020.

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/a/...

The Links Between Food Security
And Climate Change

The impact of climate change on agriculture is therefore likely to lead to a loss of stability in productivity and an overall decline in food production. Unless urgent action is taken, climate change will undoubtedly worsen global food security and dramatically increase the number of people facing hunger and malnutrition. Current estimates indicate that climate change could put 63 million more people at risk of hunger by 2020.

The international community is squaring up to these challenges and is laying the groundwork to support low-income countries in their drive to boost agricultural production. The L’Aquila Food Security Initiative represents the most important step in this regard.

Such efforts must necessarily focus on the 500 million smallholder farmers worldwide who currently support around 2 billion people, or one third of the world’s population. Increasing their productivity is essential not only to secure the food and nutrition needs of these farmers, but also of the millions of people who depend on them.

The recent global food security initiatives must be complemented by concrete steps to limit climate change if their goals are to be met. It is therefore vital that at Copenhagen negotiators indeed ‘seal a credible climate deal’. I hope that the agreement not only delivers cuts in emissions, but also recognizes the close and unique relation between food security and climate change.

In its 30 years of work, the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) has supported smallholder farmers with the aim of raising their productivity and their incomes, thus improving their food security. Such support has included a wide variety of interventions including agricultural research and extension; farmer field schools; farm input supply; forestry; veterinary services; support to farmers’ organizations and cooperatives; as well as support to rural finance institutions. In recent years, IFAD has expanded its programmes to help smallholder farmers adapt to climate change by making available, for example, improved seeds that are more resistant to drought or to floods.

These programmes have shown the enormous potential of smallholder farmers to increase food production and follow environmentally sound practices. Smallholder farmers will undoubtedly play a major role in improving global food security. Yet, if their potential is to be realized, their efforts must be complemented by effective measures to limit the potentially devastating effects of climate change.

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/a/...

Hand of God wrote:

The Links Between Food Security
And Climate Change
The impact of climate change on agriculture is therefore likely to lead to a loss of stability in productivity and an overall decline in food production. Unless urgent action is taken, climate change will undoubtedly worsen global food security and dramatically increase the number of people facing hunger and malnutrition. Current estimates indicate that climate change could put 63 million more people at risk of hunger by 2020.
The international community is squaring up to these challenges and is laying the groundwork to support low-income countries in their drive to boost agricultural production. The L’Aquila Food Security Initiative represents the most important step in this regard.
Such efforts must necessarily focus on the 500 million smallholder farmers worldwide who currently support around 2 billion people, or one third of the world’s population. Increasing their productivity is essential not only to secure the food and nutrition needs of these farmers, but also of the millions of people who depend on them.
The recent global food security initiatives must be complemented by concrete steps to limit climate change if their goals are to be met. It is therefore vital that at Copenhagen negotiators indeed ‘seal a credible climate deal’. I hope that the agreement not only delivers cuts in emissions, but also recognizes the close and unique relation between food security and climate change.
In its 30 years of work, the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) has supported smallholder farmers with the aim of raising their productivity and their incomes, thus improving their food security. Such support has included a wide variety of interventions including agricultural research and extension; farmer field schools; farm input supply; forestry; veterinary services; support to farmers’ organizations and cooperatives; as well as support to rural finance institutions. In recent years, IFAD has expanded its programmes to help smallholder farmers adapt to climate change by making available, for example, improved seeds that are more resistant to drought or to floods.
These programmes have shown the enormous potential of smallholder farmers to increase food production and follow environmentally sound practices. Smallholder farmers will undoubtedly play a major role in improving global food security. Yet, if their potential is to be realized, their efforts must be complemented by effective measures to limit the potentially devastating effects of climate change.
http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/a/...

You're taking up way too much bandwidth with your parrotspeak. Enough already. You have no point (other than on top of your head).

fishaholic wrote:

<quoted text>
You're taking up way too much bandwidth with your parrotspeak. Enough already. You have no point (other than on top of your head).

Point is Man Made global Warming is Real. The science is in and most intelligent people understand this. Unfortunately the slower folk among us cling to their tin foil hats and post nonsense. Case in point " fishaholic's " post, lol. Their is endless information describing what is happening to our planet due to human induced climate change and i am going to post it for those with the cerebral capability to understand.

Yangtze 'facing climate threat'

The Yangtze river basin is being increasingly affected by extreme weather and its ecosystems are under threat, environmentalists say.

In a new report, WWF-China says the temperature in the basin area of China's longest river has risen steadily over the past two decades.

This has led to an increase in flooding, heat waves and drought.

Further temperature rises will have a disastrous effect on biodiversity in and along the river, the report says.

The WWF - formerly known as the World Wildlife Fund - predicts that in the next 50 years temperatures will go up by between 1.5C and 2C.

The group's report is the largest assessment yet of the impact of global warming on the Yangtze River Basin, where about 400 million people live.

Data was collected from 147 monitoring stations.

The report's lead researcher, Xu Ming, said the forthcoming Copenhagen negotiations on climate change would have an obvious and direct influence on the Yangtze.

"Controlling the future emissions of greenhouse gases will benefit the Yangtze river basin, at the very least from the perspective of drought and water resources," he said.

The report says the predicted weather events and temperature rises will lead to declines in crop production, and rising sea levels will make coastal cities such as Shanghai vulnerable.

Some of the problems could be averted by strengthening river reinforcements, and switching to hardier crops, its authors suggest.

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/a/...

Hand of God wrote:

<quoted text>
Point is Man Made global Warming is Real. The science is in and most intelligent people understand this. Unfortunately the slower folk among us cling to their tin foil hats and post nonsense. Case in point " fishaholic's " post, lol. Their is endless information describing what is happening to our planet due to human induced climate change and ......o hardier crops, its authors suggest.
http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/a/...

"Point is Man Made global Warming is Real. The science is in and most intelligent people understand this. Unfortunately the slower folk among us cling to their tin foil hats and post nonsense."
----------

UN IPCC expert reviewer
and UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant
Dr. Richard Courtney

"To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has been discovered. And recent global climate behavior is not consistent with AGW model predictions."

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm...

Hand of God wrote:

<quoted text>
Point is Man Made global Warming is Real. The science is in and most intelligent people understand this. Unfortunately the slower folk among us cling to their tin foil hats and post nonsense. Case in point " fishaholic's " post, lol. Their is endless information describing what is happening to our planet due to human induced climate change and i am going to post it for those with the cerebral capability to understand.
Yangtze 'facing climate threat'
The Yangtze river basin is being increasingly affected by extreme weather and its ecosystems are under threat, environmentalists say.
In a new report, WWF-China says the temperature in the basin area of China's longest river has risen steadily over the past two decades.
This has led to an increase in flooding, heat waves and drought.
Further temperature rises will have a disastrous effect on biodiversity in and along the river, the report says.
The WWF - formerly known as the World Wildlife Fund - predicts that in the next 50 years temperatures will go up by between 1.5C and 2C.
The group's report is the largest assessment yet of the impact of global warming on the Yangtze River Basin, where about 400 million people live.
Data was collected from 147 monitoring stations.
The report's lead researcher, Xu Ming, said the forthcoming Copenhagen negotiations on climate change would have an obvious and direct influence on the Yangtze.
"Controlling the future emissions of greenhouse gases will benefit the Yangtze river basin, at the very least from the perspective of drought and water resources," he said.
The report says the predicted weather events and temperature rises will lead to declines in crop production, and rising sea levels will make coastal cities such as Shanghai vulnerable.
Some of the problems could be averted by strengthening river reinforcements, and switching to hardier crops, its authors suggest.
http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/a/...

If you continue to believe that "AGW is real and the science is in", and you quote your research from youtube, then something is wrong. Is that where the IPCC gets their data from? Apparently, since you both drink for the same bucket of kool-aid. Continuous posting of crap like you post will change noone's mind on this forum so why bother?

Mr Charlie wrote:

BREAKING NEWS: Scientists.........

Brian_g.......you've improved your Stephan King 'IT' clown make-up!

http://www.repoweramerica.org/

Mr Charlie wrote:

This morning when I woke up, it was 24 degrees, later on in the day when the sun was high on the horizon, it got up to 56 degrees. Scientific fact proven by a mere mortal.

"That's not a knife, now THIS is a knife!" Remember that quote from the Crocodile Dundee movie?

Well..........try this answer........

'That's not a temperature rise, now THIS is a temperature rise!.........

http://www.jaytrobec.com/state-of-extremes/ra...

Hand of God wrote:

Damon Matthews, a professor in Concordia University's Department of Geography, Planning and the Environment has found a direct relationship between carbon dioxide emissions and global warming. Matthews, together with colleagues from Victoria and the U.K., used a combination of global climate models and historical climate data to show that there is a simple linear relationship between total cumulative emissions and global temperature change.
These findings will be published in the next edition of Nature, to be released on June 11, 2009.
Until now, it has been difficult to estimate how much climate will warm in response to a given carbon dioxide emissions scenario because of the complex interactions between human emissions, carbon sinks, atmospheric concentrations and temperature change. Matthews and colleagues show that despite these uncertainties, each emission of carbon dioxide results in the same global temperature increase, regardless of when or over what period of time the emission occurs.
These findings mean that we can now say: if you emit that tonne of carbon dioxide, it will lead to 0.0000000000015 degrees of global temperature change. If we want to restrict global warming to no more than 2 degrees, we must restrict total carbon emissions – from now until forever – to little more than half a trillion tonnes of carbon, or about as much again as we have emitted since the beginning of the industrial revolution.
"Most people understand that carbon dioxide emissions lead to global warming," says Matthews, "but it is much harder to grasp the complexities of what goes on in between these two end points. Our findings allow people to make a robust estimate of their contribution to global warming based simply on total carbon dioxide emissions."
In light of this study and other recent research, Matthews and a group of international climate scientists have written an open letter calling on participants of December's Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change to acknowledge the need to limit cumulative emissions of carbon dioxide so as to avoid dangerous climate change.
Carbon Emissions Linked To Global Warming

Computer models. Very bad at forecastings hurricane activity. Look at modeling data. The polar ice caps shed ice on the fringes like a frozen glass of water. Natural occurance. Global temp records are proof.