Urgent call for massive and rapid worldwide cuts in carbon emissions
Harry Hope
http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20091211-20223-2.html
Thursday, 12 November 2009
Australian marine scientists have issued an urgent call for massive
and rapid worldwide cuts in carbon emissions, deep enough to prevent
atmospheric CO2 levels rising to 450 parts per million (ppm).
Professors Charlie Veron (former Chief Scientist, Australian Institute
of Marine Science) and Ove Hoegh-Guldberg of the ARC Centre of
Excellence for Coral Reef Studies and The University of Queensland,
have urged the world's leaders to adopt a maximum global emission
target of 325 parts per million (ppm).
This will be essential, they say, to save coral reefs worldwide from a
catastrophic decline which threatens the livelihoods of an estimated
500 million people globally.
This is substantially lower than today's atmospheric levels of 387
ppm, and far below the 450ppm limit envisaged by most governments
attending Copenhagen as necessary to restrain global warming to a 2
degree rise, on average.
�This may take a long time. However, climate change is an
intergenerational issue which will require intergenerational
thinking,� Professor Hoegh-Guldberg said.
�If CO2 levels are allowed to continue to approach 450 ppm (due by
2030�2040 at the current rates at which emissions are climbing), reefs
will be in rapid and terminal decline world-wide from mass coral
bleaching, ocean acidification, and other environmental impacts
associated with climate change,� Professor Charlie Veron, Professor
Hoegh-Guldberg, Dr Janice Lough of COECRS and the Australian Institute
of Marine Science and colleagues warn in a new scientific paper
published in the Marine Pollution Bulletin.
�Damage to shallow reef communities will become extensive with
consequent reduction of biodiversity followed by extinctions,� they
said.
�Reefs will cease to be large-scale nursery grounds for fish and will
cease to have most of their current value to humanity. There will be
knock-on effects to ecosystems associated with reefs, and to other
(marine) ecosystems.�
The researchers say that coral deaths due to bleaching were first
observed when global atmospheric CO2 levels passed 320ppm in the
1970s.
By the mid-1980s, at 340 ppm, sporadic, highly-destructive events were
being recorded.
In the paper, published in Marine Pollution Bulletin 58, they argue
for a long-term limit �below 350ppm� to be set.
Prof Veron told the British Royal Society recently that Australia's
Great Barrier Reef would be on �death row' unless urgent action was
taken to stem global carbon emissions.
�We are tracking the IPCC's worst case scenario. The global CO2
situation, tracked by temperature and sea level rise, is now following
the worst case scenario,� he says.
�The people meeting at Copenhagen need to hear this message.�
At the same time CO2 emissions are turning the oceans more acidic,
causing damage to corals and all life with a carbonate skeletons or
shells and, if unchecked, potentially leading to mass extinctions of
ocean life like those of the geological past.
�We are already well above the safe levels for the world's coral
reefs. The proposed 450ppm/2 degree target is dangerous for the
world's corals and for the 500 million people who depend on them,�
Professor Hoegh-Guldberg said.
�We should not go there, not only for reasons of coral reefs, but for
the many other impacts that are extremely likely.
�We deduce, from the history of coral bleaching, that the safe level
for coral reefs is probably about 320 or 325ppm.
"From fossil air taken from ice cores we know the world has not
exceeded 300ppm for at least the last 760 000 years, so we are already
in dangerous territory.
"We are already way outside the limits that mother earth has been
operating within for millions of years.�
"Then there is sea level rise. The latest scientific consensus that
the minimum sea level rise we can expect globally is 1 m. The IPCC's
earlier estimates on this are now seen as far too conservative.
A metre of rise will displace at least 30 million people and
contaminate the underground water supplies of many coastal cities with
salt.
"Tens of millions of people are going to be displaced.
This is not just about corals.
Big issues of food security and regional security are also at stake,
and we all need to wake up to the fact that climate change is not
simply about warm days.�
"It will cost less than 1 per cent of GDP growth (over the next 50
years) to sort this problem out. In times of war individual countries
have devoted anything from 40 to 70 per cent of their GDP to the war
effort, so the effort required to cease emitting carbon is far, far
smaller.
�It is completely affordable, completely achievable.
�The consequences of not cutting carbon emissions sharply are
extremely serious for humanity. It is time all people understood
this.�
____________________________________________________
Harry
leona...@gmail.com
> http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20091211-20223-2.html
>
> Thursday, 12 November 2009
>
> Australian marine scientists have issued an urgent call for massive
> and rapid worldwide cuts in carbon emissions, deep enough to prevent
> atmospheric CO2 levels rising to 450 parts per million (ppm).
>
> Professors Charlie Veron (former Chief Scientist, Australian Institute
> of Marine Science) and Ove Hoegh-Guldberg of the ARC Centre of
> Excellence for Coral Reef Studies and The University of Queensland,
> have urged the world's leaders to adopt a maximum global emission
> target of 325 parts per million (ppm).
>
> This will be essential, they say, to save coral reefs worldwide from a
> catastrophic decline which threatens the livelihoods of an estimated
> 500 million people globally.
•• Since carbon emissions constitute somewhere
between 3.0% and 3.5% of the atmospheric
CO2, they never can impact on anything in the
sea. Similarly they have zero impact on sea
temperatures.
Further corals have survived and thrived when
seas have been both warmer and more acidic,
for millennia.
•• Here we have two eminent scientists trying to
win some brownie points by scratchin at the
wrong door. Winners they ain't.
— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural phenomena
bnoo z
These aren't scientists, they've abandoned science and become doomsday
preachers!
Watch out for a plague of (WT) � during the coming weeks as we approach a
new international convention on economic suicide.
It is shorthand for Worse Than Was Thought.
Suddenly, it is urgent. We have only ten years to save the shellfish.
Strange how such things always become urgent just before one of these
international jollies.
No doubt infidels will come up with various quibbles, such as the dreaded
gas being less soluble in the supposedly warming waters or the negligible
proportion of it that is being produced by humans or the relatively
smallness of the change in the partial pressure of said terror gas.
More to come, no doubt!
Warmest Regards
Bon z0
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
"Harry Hope" <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:roilf5p6e8olpm154...@4ax.com...
>
> http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20091211-20223-2.html
>
> Thursday, 12 November 2009
>
> Australian marine scientists have issued an urgent call for massive
> and rapid worldwide cuts in carbon emissions, deep enough to prevent
> atmospheric CO2 levels rising to 450 parts per million (ppm).
>
> Professors Charlie Veron (former Chief Scientist, Australian Institute
> of Marine Science) and Ove Hoegh-Guldberg of the ARC Centre of
> Excellence for Coral Reef Studies and The University of Queensland,
> have urged the world's leaders to adopt a maximum global emission
> target of 325 parts per million (ppm).
>
> This will be essential, they say, to save coral reefs worldwide from a
> catastrophic decline which threatens the livelihoods of an estimated
> 500 million people globally.
>
> This is substantially lower than today's atmospheric levels of 387
> ppm, and far below the 450ppm limit envisaged by most governments
> attending Copenhagen as necessary to restrain global warming to a 2
> degree rise, on average.
>
> "This may take a long time. However, climate change is an
> intergenerational issue which will require intergenerational
> thinking," Professor Hoegh-Guldberg said.
>
> "If CO2 levels are allowed to continue to approach 450 ppm (due by
> 2030-2040 at the current rates at which emissions are climbing), reefs
I M @ good guy
I don't understand how you interpret the
3.0 to 3.5 percent emissions, chances are at
least 80 to 90 PPMV of the existing atmospheric
CO2 is man made, although some of it may have
been recycled through plants a number of times,
which does not change the fact that without oil,
coal and natural gas, the atmospheric CO2
concentration would be less than 300 PPMV.
This does not mean a crisis, it is not even
a problem at the moment, but at some point,
there could be a problem, which will probably
ONLY be solved by running low on oil, and
high prices of fossil fuels causing alternate
energy to be cheaper than fossil energy.
leona...@gmail.com
•• Total bullshit
Answer for me how in around 1840 there
were a couple years in excess of 400 ppm and
later 3 or more in excess of 385.
The computer programmers forgot
(conveniently) them. Of couse they did a great
job of cherry picking through the later 19th.
•• For the real goods see in these groups"
Historic Review Shows Current Climate Change is Normal
<http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/16662#>
> This does not mean a crisis, it is not even
> a problem at the moment, but at some point,
> there could be a problem, which will probably
> ONLY be solved by running low on oil, and
> high prices of fossil fuels causing alternate
> energy to be cheaper than fossil energy.
•• More bullshit from I.M. Stupid
richp
FUCK THIS LYING SACK OF SHIT OUTFIT
mrbawana2u
> >>Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville <<
>
> FUCK THIS LYING SACK OF SHIT
Any lib-turd-retards gonna pound richpussytard's ass???
He's asking for it.
*us*
BDR529
> Why would anyone believe that human activity wouldn't effect climate?
This is not a matter of believe or religion, it is a fact supported by
scientific research.
Q
--
mots, plusieurs mots et des mots de plus, mais quel est l'int�r�t?
I M @ good guy
>Why would anyone believe that human activity wouldn't effect climate?
Please describe the physical processes that could.
richp
Go all the back to Joseph Fourier circa 1820 and maybe your peabrain
will learn something
mrbawana2u
> * US * wrote:
> > Why would anyone believe that human activity wouldn't effect climate?
>
> This is not a matter of believe or religion, it is a fact supported by
> scientific research.
So, you ignorant fucktard, tell us about all the successes science has
had altering the global climate.
Give us the facts supported by scientific research, you insipid
retard.
Last Post
> Why would anyone believe that human activity wouldn't effect climate?
•• Indeed Shawn, I would not believe better of
you, since it takes arrogance as well as
ignorance to hold that belief.
The world has been around for perhaps a billion
years in which the world cooled and life forms
appeared and for the last 500 million years, has
functioned in one hundred thousand year cycles
with 10 to 12 thousand year interglacial periods.
---===---
canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/16662
---===---
•• If you can read graphs [a big if] you will see
how the cycles are more or less the same. As
De Gaulle said Plus ca change, plus c'est la
meme chose.
Last Post
•• Indeed Pissypants did you ever conceive
that Fourier might be wrong?
•ª• In 1940, a young Jewish immigrant physicist
here was interred in a camp but shortly the
authorities found work for him ~~ top secret
work developing radar for the Royal Navy.
flash forward to 1945, released by the Navy
and back at Cambridge he and two pals
became curious as to how 'tones' were
transmitted to the brain. Without tools, they
made their own and in a year or so they
delivered a paper illustrating how tiny hairs
in the ear transmit to tone.
The whole medical establishment laughed,
relying on a Russian paper at leaf 75 years
old. 30 years later another young team with
sophisticated tools proved Gold right and
the 19th century scientist wrong.
No man is an island nor is he infallible ...
Last Post
> On Nov 13, 12:59 pm, BDR529 <jake> wrote:
>
> > * US * wrote:
> > > Why would anyone believe that human activity wouldn't effect climate?
>
> > This is not a matter of believe or religion, it is a fact supported by
> > scientific research.
•• Well Jackass Jake, it appears that you have the
podium. Tell us all of wonderful advances in
geophysics you have seen. The world is
holding their collective breaths waiting.
*us*
You can't look it up?
http://www.gcrio.org/doctorgc/index.php/drweblog/human-effects-on-global-climates/
Last Post
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:12:34 -0400, "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:59:01 -0500, * US * wrote:
> >>Why would anyone believe that human activity wouldn't effect climate?
>
> > Please describe the physical processes that could.
>
> You can't look it up?
•• Why don't YOU look it up, Shawn???
> http://www.gcrio.org/doctorgc/index.php/drweblog/human-effects-on-glo...
•• There is nothing any one nor any billions that
can change global climate. Sure volcanic
action in Austral-asia (including Krakatoa) is
affecting 2 or 3 continents, and the Chaiten
volcano eruption is warming parts of two
continents, but these are essentially local
events and for short terms.
mrbawana2u
>
> > On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:59:01 -0500, * US * wrote:
> > >Why would anyone believe that human activity wouldn't effect climate?
>
> > Please describe the physical processes that could.
>
Answer the question, you pathetic fucktard.
BDR-529
I think your brains are fried.
mrbawana2u
Just say you can't, you pathetic moron.
BDR-529
> On Nov 15, 6:01 pm, BDR-529 <el@wood> wrote:
>> mrbawana2u wrote:
>>> On Nov 13, 3:43 pm, richp <travelingman95...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 13, 10:12 am, "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:59:01 -0500, * US * wrote:
>>>>>> Why would anyone believe that human activity wouldn't effect climate?
>>>> Go [non response flushed]
>>> Answer the question, you pathetic fucktard.
>> I think [...]
>
> Just say you can't, you pathetic moron.
>
I think your brains are fried.
Last Post
•• Mistake there.
•• Those who would call others, "moron"
need only look in a mirror to see a real one.
*us*
>* US * wrote:
>> Why would anyone believe that human activity wouldn't effect climate?
>
>This is not a matter of believe or religion, it is a fact supported by
>scientific research.
What 'fact supported by scientific research' can you cite
that'd indicate that human activity doesn't affect climate?
*us*
>On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:59:01 -0500, * US * wrote:
>>Why would anyone believe that human activity wouldn't effect climate?
>
> Please describe the physical processes that could.
You can't look it up?
http://www.gcrio.org/doctorgc/index.php/drweblog/human-effects-on-global-climates/
Notice that no one has managed to dispute anything from the link.
*us*
wrote:
>YMMD
>
>A bunch of lies each click on a different link there.
>And a lot of contradictions as well.
Prove it.
*us*
>On Nov 13, 10:59�am, * US * wrote:
>> Why would anyone believe that human activity wouldn't effect climate?
>
>...it takes arrogance as well as
> ignorance to hold that belief.
So what causes your arrogance and ignorance?
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:12:34 -0400, "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote:
>On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:59:01 -0500, * US * wrote:
>>Why would anyone believe that human activity wouldn't effect climate?
>
tj Frazir
30 billion tons co2 is 178 billionths .
earth has 2 trillion trees and 8 trillion ton plankton/seaweeds
Put out all forest fires so it cant rain or snow and say the earth is
getting hot is a fuckjoke to starve you wile you pay out the ass.
WILE HARY THE DUMBASS spues crap
there is 6 billion farmable acres and 6.5 billion people on earth.
The dought from only 4 million acres of forest fire ash instead of 150
million burnt acres will dry out farm and forest untill the forest burns
the bugs and burns out of controle from not burning.
man will starve to death befor they can change the sky
tj Frazir
30 billion ton co2 of mans is too small to measure .
The sky is too clean for normal rain.
rain cools the planet 2 deg .
mrbawana2u
First time on usenet, fucktard?
BDR529
Sure, if flush the lavatory then I hardly affect the climate.
Q
Bawana
> * US * wrote:
> > On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:59:57 +0100, BDR529<jake> wrote:
>
> >> * US * wrote:
> >>> Why would anyone believe that human activity wouldn't effect climate?
>
> >> This is not a matter of believe or religion, it is a fact supported by
> >> scientific research.
>
> > What 'fact supported by scientific research' can you cite
> > that'd indicate that human activity doesn't affect climate?
>
> Sure, if flush the lavatory then I hardly affect the climate.
English your second language, you insipid fucktard?
*us*
You put that more succinctly than I had.
*us*
>* US * wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:59:57 +0100, BDR529<jake> wrote:
>>> * US * wrote:
>>>> Why would anyone believe that human activity wouldn't effect climate?
>>>
>>> This is not a matter of believe or religion, it is a fact supported by
>>> scientific research.
>>
>> What 'fact supported by scientific research' can you cite
>> that'd indicate that human activity doesn't affect climate?
>
>Sure, if flush the lavatory then I ...
Try not to do that with your keyboard in it.
Your inability to back up your claim is noted, as expected.
richp
Demostrate where J Fourier was wrong moron
richp
Quit fucking worshipping Hitler you fascist moron