New Scientist ˆ NEWS ALERT

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Blame for global warming placed firmly on humankind

The most authoritative scientific report on climate change says with 90% certainty that the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities are driving climate change.

The report, from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, says the rise in global temperatures could be as high as 6.4°C by 2100. The report also predicts sea level rises and increases in hurricanes.

The new IPCC report is the work of 3750 climate experts, who have spent six years reviewing all the available climate research. It was released in Paris, France, on Friday.

Read the full story here:
http://environment.newscientist.com/articl...-humankind.html

Very disturbing againagain When are we, you and I going to put aside our petty squabbles for various flavours of terra-tory and apply the energy to something creative for the good of all. I see so much beauty in life and people and feel perched on the edge of never again. Tears.

I could use some global warming right about now... -6 degrees!!!

that would be local warming then, set fire to something superfluous and plant a tree as a carbon offset.

Humankind responsible for Global Warming? I dont' believe it... (don't mind the dripping sarcasm)


Aren't you in Cali? I didn't realize I got that cold there! I thought we had it bad.

Japan to embrace CO 2 storage in seabed

It’s another example of trading one potential environmental catastrophe for another; in this case, possibly destroying deep ocean habitats with CO2 instead of releasing it into the atmosphere, which would cause more global warming.


http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20070205a4.html

So what are you/me/one/us going to do about it !? How and when ?!

I don't get the way that the issue of reducing harmful emissions is being sold to the public. It seems that whether we reduce emissions or not depends on whether we can prove that it is causing global warming or not. Surely global warming should have no bearing on our decision as a people to reduce harmful emissions. If we are to live on this planet until we can explore space, we need to be taking the utmost care of it - and reducing harmful emissions (which might pose a future threat should it not be responsible for the current state of our earth) should be a priority.

Why does it appear that emissions will only be cut / reduced if it can be proven that global warming is the result of these emissions? Does proof that we're harming our environment need to exist before action is taken?

I think that's usually just an excuse to continue pollution. Whether or not pollution is causing global warming (and I do believe it is a contributing factor), we are sure that it is causing health problems, yet everyone refuses to act because of greed.

Look at the Kyoto Protocol; most government officials believe it should be ratified, but the U.S. government keeps stalling because of the "economic impact." a.k.a. - because everyone's greedy.

Yeah the greed. I wonder if greed makes you oblivious to the effect your greed has on those around you. Or maybe it is a power to be harnessed - to destroy the world while you gain all the power of Greyskull. Either way - it seems to do none of us any good. I'll support you as president Casey, maybe you're able to get more leverage to change things from the top. A snowboarding president (I was mislead by your avatar ok). Tough on greed relaxed on weed? Or not.

What can we do? Well, I bought a 1978 Mercedes Benz diesel sedan that needs a bit of work. for $1200. Needs a new fuel line, belts and an engine mount (otherwise it has few miles on a rebuild and the body is pristine). From some reports by a guy who lives near here (Silicon Valley, calif.) this car will run on waste cooking oil without any conversion. The carbon dioxide I will put into the atmosphere will have come from the atmosphere with no net increase. I do plan on putting in a full conversion kit though (that you can get from http://www.greasecar.com and sometimes at a bargain from Craig's list or ebay) that starts the engine on conventional diesel and then you switch over once started and then switch back when shutting down to cut down on building up sludge in the engine which means it wont be entirely zero net greenhouse gas increasing. It is not hard to figure that hybrid vehicles running on biodiesel will be better though if commercial enterprises ever get sane.

I find the research presented at http://www.remineralize.org holds out some real proven strategies for binding carbon dioxide in a massive manner. The basic theory, the Hamaker hypothesis, that they champion does question whether or not the net effect of greenhouse gas increase will be global warming or quick cooling (somewhat like in that movie "The Day After Tomorrow") they do agree that it is pushing us to some rather catastrophic climate change in our near future unless we get on the ball. I've participated in some tree planting projects and have instigated some legislation that at least held up some clear-cutting of Northern California forests. Little mentioned is the experimentation that has been done and the observations made that spreading nutrients onto and into ocean waters causes phytoplankton blooms that tie up a lot of the CO2.

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/...house_data.html

Global warming rally cut short by cold weather
MARTIN GRIFFITH
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Posted: 4/15/2007

"More than two dozen demonstrators braved cold, wet weather Saturday in Reno to attend a rally designed to draw attention to global warming.

The event was cut short by heavy rain and sleet, said organizer Lisa Stiller of the Northern Nevada Coalition for Climate Change.

"It's kind of disappointing that the weather kept people away," Stiller said. "But, we still think it (climate change) is something that people should talk about."

The storm prevented the use of solar ovens for a potluck picnic, Stiller said, and caused the planned two-hour dem
"

From LiveScience:

The radiation output of the Sun does fluctuate over the course of its 11-year solar cycle. But the change is only about one-tenth of 1 percent-not substantial enough to affect Earth's climate in dramatic ways, and certainly not enough to be the sole culprit of our planet's current warming trend, scientists say.

"The small measured changes in solar output and variations from one decade to the next are only on the order of a fraction of a percent, and if you do the calculations not even large enough to really provide a detectable signal in the surface temperature record," said Penn State meteorologist Michael Mann.

The link between solar activity and global warming is just another scapegoat for human-caused warming, Mann told LiveScience.

"Solar activity continues to be one of the last bastions of contrarians," Mann said. "People who don't accept the existence of anthropogenic climate change still try to point to solar activity."

Full story at

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070...ys_warming.html

We're nearing the climate's tipping point:

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/08/1736/

The climate could flip to another stable state, such as an intense ice age. If warming causes northern ice sheets to slide into the Atlantic, the Gulf Stream warm water conveyor will shut down, leading to an ice age, first in Europe, and then spreading to the west.

Rice fields could contribute up to 10–25% of global methane emissions ...

Nature Reviews Microbiology 5, 476-477 (July 2007) | doi:10.1038/nrmicro1699

Microbial ecology: Going solo
Susan Jones