News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Globe warming in line with worst-case predictions 

Globe warming in line with worst-case predictions

29 Jun, 2009 10:46 AM
A synthesis report produced from the Copenhagen climate change talks in March warns that the effects of human-induced climate change are close to the upper limit of earlier projections.

"Many key climate indicators are already moving beyond the patterns of natural variability within which contemporary society and economy have developed and thrived," the report states.

"These indicators include global mean surface temperature, sea-level rise, global ocean temperature, Arctic sea ice extent, ocean acidification, and extreme climatic events.

"With unabated emissions, many trends in climate will likely accelerate, leading to an increasing risk of abrupt or irreversible climatic shifts."

A tone of frustration, reflecting the slow progress made at Copenhagen, is evident throughout the report, compiled by an international team including several Australians.

"Past societies have reacted when they understood that their own activities were causing deleterious environmental change by controlling or modifying the offending activities," the report's Executive Summary states.

"If humanity is to learn from history and to limit these threats, the time has come for stronger control of the human activities that are changing the fundamental conditions for life on Earth."

The report concludes that the danger of "catastrophic outcomes" are high, and that action on greenhouse gas reduction is urgent.

"… in 2009 society cannot precisely determine the 'right' or the 'best' pathway all the way to 2050 and beyond.

"There will be technological, societal and value changes in the future that will cause the trajectory to change.

"There should be no penalty for not getting it absolutely right the first time.

"The most important task is to start the journey now."

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
What, another Global Warming story? Is Fairfax unhappy with the amount of dissatisfaction displayed by its bush readers towards the theory of the causes of Global Warming or, is it just that there is nothing else to report on? What about world starvation or what causes may be attributed to a nation, any nation, losing its food security, for example what's happening in Haiti? What about a story on the fact that a tree is nothing more than a plant (renewable resource) and just like any other plant or crop and it can be harvested and replanted or, that a crop of wheat is nothing more than a field full of hundreds of thousands of little trees doing their bit to alleviate the Global Warming angst. After all, that is what we do out here, we alleviate the Global Warming angst.
Posted by Nervous Wreck, 29/06/2009 12:33:07 PM
It seems the theory of global warming is starting to be seen for what it is: hot air. Minister Wong and the cheif scientist can't answer fairly basic questions from Steve Feilding. Jennifer Morahasy points out that the sea temps are falling, unless one has a government grant to do the measuring in which case they are rising, because they have to if we are to get our shiny new tax system. The fact that the greens are desperate to vote for the shiny new tax tells me it's utterly evil, don't worry about the pseudo science from Wong and co.
Posted by bill, 29/06/2009 3:18:20 PM
If a synthesis cobbled together from the hypothetical intellectualising of people unified by their collective belief in a foreboding prophecy served to validate the prophecy, this planet & its hypothesising prophets of doom would have been reduced to a barren moon-like orb millenniums of years ago. Och aye, ‘tis a truth begorrah, but just in case. Let’s throw a few million sacrificial lambs on the economic alter of Mammon anyhow.
Posted by jock, 29/06/2009 8:31:03 PM
Do you have to keep feeding us this nonsense coming out of the global warming industry? It is time you journos read up on some real science on the subject and just didn't keep regurgitating this self-serving hysterical garbage. High CO2 levels did not cause high temperatures in the past, why should they now?
Posted by Bob, 30/06/2009 6:36:47 AM
Don't we love the hysteria portrayed, "human-induced climate change are close to the upper limit of earlier projections", "beyond the patterns of natural variability", "an increasing risk of abrupt or irreversible climatic shifts", "catastrophic outcomes". The money that is involved in this carbon business is huge and the cost so far has been immense. The politicians can't wait to get their hands on all these taxes to blow on useless projects. Wait till the future traders get hold of the carbon contracts and manipulate the price of carbon much the same as they do with crude oil. Happy days will be here again.
Posted by jerangle, 30/06/2009 6:48:09 AM
What in the hell is a 'synthesis report'?? How about a factual report for once? How about leaving computer modelling for architects? I also LOVED the comment about 'past societies changing' ... HA HA!!! No past society has EVER changed its behaviour - not even those who lived on the sides of or underneath volcanos! And let's be thoroughly, ruthlessly honest here ... if ANYONE truly wanted to reduce emissions, clean up the way society behaves and 'save the planet', we would be seeing massive input into public transport, freight and passenger rail links nationally, agricultural aid to ensure that carbon is being regularly locked into soils and trees, and trees regularly harvested and replanted to capture more carbon dioxide, solar power incentives to encourage everyone with a roof of their own to become microgenerators, massive fuel taxes and disincentives for the single-occupant car, not a ridiculous emissions trading scheme that will do NOTHING to reduce the production of carbon production, only make it more expensive for consumers to purchase electricity.
Posted by TM, 30/06/2009 7:52:44 AM
Oh come on! This old rubbish. To take some of the alarmist points in para 3 of this article and list the actual verifiable, easily-checked facts. Global mean surface temperature has been flat for over a decade and had probably declined since 2002. The rate of sea level rise (sea level has been rising since the last ice age) is now a DECREASING. Arctic sea ice extent is increasing over the last two years and is now within a standard deviation of the long-term mean (i.e. "it's unchanging"). By the way the antarctic sea extent has been increasing for decades but they never mention that. The jury is out on ocean acidification (whether it's happening, and whether that is a bad thing). Extreme climactic events are not increasing (severity of hurricanes, storms tsunamis etc. plotted against time). All these are easily checked and verifiable. Why does this article contain falsehoods when the numbers are easily checked? C'mon Fairfax / Farmonline / The Land - your readers expect better from you. This is shrill desperate stuff from a green lobby rapidly losing oxygen. DMS
Posted by DMS, 30/06/2009 8:51:29 AM
I concur with all the above comments. "ETS- a weapon of mass taxation" (Prof. Ian Plimer). The whole CC industry is reminiscent of the Inquisition: "Adopt my beliefs, or you will face some horrendous catastrophe at some point in the future after we are all dead. In the meantime you can buy an indulgence to save you."
Posted by JW, 30/06/2009 9:47:21 AM
In reply to "Is Fairfax unhappy with the amount of dissatisfaction displayed by its bush readers towards the theory of the causes of Global Warming". Please fairfax, don't continue to present the blindingly obvious to we poor rural types. Although we have a potentially large role to play we would rather remain blind and completely ignorant to the topic so that we can assist in trashing any possibility of our kids having a continuing role in the future of Australian agriculture. At least in the end we can then bleat to the Australian public to get some handouts to help us move into the city to find some work after all of the more successful transition nations come over and buy out our land.
Posted by gregy, 30/06/2009 10:07:49 AM
It is amazing how reference to climate change gets people so angry. It is sad that the comments all show the bloggers have not understood the evidence. Happily, the farmers I meet are all modifying their businesses with the environment high on the agenda. For example more sophisticated weed sprayers, pivot irrigation, GPS, these are responses to economic, increasing understanding, environmental and Govt issues.

So to those angry anti climate protagonists, enlightened farmers are looking after their farms in a educated way and so are looking after the environment and thus their businesses. Any reading of Bob Carter, Ian Plimer or Steve Fielding will show you that there are shocking holes in their comprehension and logic. Happily most farmers are doing the right thing by the environment and thus effects on climate.

Posted by Frank Ekin, 30/06/2009 11:53:20 AM
1 | 2 | 3  |  next >

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
29 June, 2009
27 June, 2009
26 June, 2009
POLL
Q: Has the 'ute-gate' fake email affair in Federal Parliament changed your voting intentions?

Yes - I am more likely to vote Liberal/National
(22.8%)

Yes - I am more likely to vote Labor
(10.9%)

Yes - I am less likely to vote for either major party
(11.3%)

No - it has not affected my voting position
(55%)

Total Votes: 906
Poll Date: 28 June, 2009

Most popular articles

ELDERS NEWS MREC SJ



North Queensland Register







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...