Evidence(The worst to come due to Climate Change)is mounting

[Zoltan Paul Jambor]

Europe study shows climate risks
By Paul Rincon
BBC News science reporter



If you live in Europe you are a lucky toad, but maybe not as lucky as I would have thought before doing this assessment
Dagmar Schroeter, Harvard University
Mediterranean and mountain regions of Europe will be hardest hit by the changes set to affect the continent's natural resources this century.
That is the conclusion of a Europe-wide assessment that highlights the threat posed by climate change.

The Mediterranean will be at increased risk of forest fires, water shortages, loss of agricultural land and from its tree species shifting northward.

The study, by an international team, appears in the journal Science.

The assessment set out to forecast the impact of climate change, shifting land use and socio-economic factors on Europe during the 21st Century.

It simulated the effects of changes in soil fertility and water availability as the climate changes and humans respond, for example, by modifying land use patterns or moving to new areas.

Water shortages

Of all European regions, the Mediterranean was most vulnerable to the global-scale changes projected to occur during the course of this century.

Many of the effects on this region are related to increased temperatures and reduced rainfall.


"If you have an increase in droughts, you get an increased risk of forest fires and changing suitability for crops. You will also see decreases in water per capita for the people living there," said lead author Dagmar Schroeter of Harvard University.
Mountain regions also appear vulnerable because of a rise in the elevation of snow cover and changes in river run-off.

"In winter, precipitation will fall as rain instead of snow. The whole regime of peak flow times changes and you get an increased probability of flooding in winter and spring," Dr Schroeter told the BBC News website.

"You will get less water in summer because the water which was stored in the snow cover is no longer there."

Such changes would significantly impact both the skiing and hydroelectric industries, Dr Schroeter said.

Time to adapt

The report did identify some positive effects. These include forest expansion due to a reduced demand on land from agriculture. Farmers in northern Europe could also begin to exploit crops usually grown in the Mediterranean.

Forests act as a "carbon sink" absorbing the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. But by the latter half of the century, rising temperatures due to climate change will balance this positive effect.

"By mid-century, it will probably become so hot that the soils will, instead of absorbing carbon dioxide, start releasing carbon dioxide - they will become an additional source of greenhouse gas emissions," explained Dr Schroeter.

The Harvard researcher says other parts of the world will fare much worse than Europe in the face of climate change and other global trends.

"If you live in Europe you are a lucky toad, but maybe not as lucky as I would have thought before doing this assessment. I was surprised by some of the very negative impacts of climate change," she said.

The researchers conclude that the involvement of policy-makers is required if European states are to develop effective strategies to cope with the changes.


Story from BBC NEWS

Published: 2005/10/27 19:43:03 GMT

© BBC MMV

The above article is summed up in the short movie linked below:

Mediterranean and mountain areas of Europe will be hardest hit by climate change this century, a study has claimed.


If you wish to read more in-depth information on Global Warming wisit the following site linked below. The folowing site contains very realistic information on Global Warming.

Real Climate

ZPJ

[MarkuisMellvile]

I'm sure the number of members who follow the Real Climate link each time it is posted, goes down with time.

I've not clicked on it yet, as I'm fairly confident of my knowledge of the statistics and treends associated with climatic modelling. The UKCIP02 scenarios are described in detail in the brochures/journals I have at home.

MM

[Zoltan Paul Jambor]

Originally Posted by MarkuisMellvile

I'm sure the number of members who follow the Real Climate link each time it is posted, goes down with time.

I've not clicked on it yet, as I'm fairly confident of my knowledge of the statistics and treends associated with climatic modelling. The UKCIP02 scenarios are described in detail in the brochures/journals I have at home.

MM

MM. Why don't you tell us about these journals. When were they published? Are they up to date? Where can these journals be found? Is there a link to them on the internet? What side do they represent? Most of all, do they portray all key points clearly and accurately? They are all very relevant questions. Please do tell us. I must say though; that every single journal is usually written by one single author, and they do represent only one point of view. All the evidence in such journals most likely provide proof for only the points the author(s) is/are trying to make. Are these journal co-authored? Who are the authors and what credentials do they have? What points are they trying to make? Do tell us.

I suggest, people get their information from a wide range of sources. All points of view need to be examined and disected to see what it's really worth. I don't think it's a good idea to stick to only one source. It only leads to a narrow point of view. Do cast a larger net so you can gather as big a cluster of information as you possible can. Once you have done that, you can formulate your opinion based on 'all' the information available to you. Don't fall into the trap of allowing yourself only one source. That is a very weak approach. It leaves people extremely biased and lacking in information. Not very scientific, now is it?

Now back to the original point. Let's try not to dodge the real issue at hand.

The point is, things are looking to be very bad and there is no denying that. The evidence is simply stockpiling, and it's getting impossible to cover it up any more. Even the Harvard professor, from the BBC article above, is stating the obvious as well. Yet there is still a pocket of resistance. Much of the resistance finds it's way to this site to make their last stance. They are fighting a loosing battle. There is too much evidence stacked against them. It may seem like they are in great numbers, however they are merely struggling to keep their message alive.

The sceptics have very little ground to walk on. Any statement they make make are starting to fall on deaf ears. It's time everyone face the music.

ZPJ

[Richard]

Even if we shut down every power plant, banned all cars and stopped burning all fossil fuels, climate change would still occur and we probably wouldn't notice any difference in what is happening, so why bother?

[Zoltan Paul Jambor]

Originally Posted by TheRobster

Even if we shut down every power plant, banned all cars and stopped burning all fossil fuels, climate change would still occur and we probably wouldn't notice any difference in what is happening, so why bother?

So, are we to burry our heads in the sand and hope the worst of it just pass over our heads without too much notice?

The fact is. It may already be too late to completely stop global warming, however, we can slow it down, to at least stall for time, so we could at least have a fighting chance at providing a future for our species as well as many others.

ZPJ

[akos_sc]

Originally Posted by TheRobster

Even if we shut down every power plant, banned all cars and stopped burning all fossil fuels, climate change would still occur and we probably wouldn't notice any difference in what is happening, so why bother?

Strange point of view.
If a war has already begun, why should we end it? Why bother?
If you fail an exam you shouldn't learn any more, should you? Why bother?
If you want to go from Leeds to London but you realize that you've come the wrong way and are heading for Edinburgh actually, why should you turn back at all? Why bother?
There's not only black and white, there are thousands of other shades of grey.

[imp]

akos_sc:
Perhaps one decides that Edinburough might be better than London...
Cute analogies but the point is that there is no generally accepted business case that the benefits of reducing CO2 emissions outweigh the costs of reducing CO2 emissions. In fact, many nations might actually see a net benefit from global warming, so man-made acceleration of the process might not be so bad. Canada might take advantage of the Northern passage, and Canada and the US might be able to find it easier to drill for oil/gas in Alaska and Northern Canada.

When the business case is solid for the US, global reduction of CO2 might take place. They are the global policeman so without police there is no enforcement. I don't think that the US will ever have a business case for global CO2 reduction so it will not happen.

[Hayduke]

Originally Posted by imp

akos_sc:
Perhaps one decides that Edinburough might be better than London...
Cute analogies but the point is that there is no generally accepted business case that the benefits of reducing CO2 emissions outweigh the costs of reducing CO2 emissions.

Of course, to make the analogy complete, you'd have to be cognizant of the fact that the preponderance of agenda-free, unbiased geographers on the planet have told you in no uncertain terms that your trip to Edinburough will end disastrously.

But still, this illustrates what I love about humanity.

Even though logic dictates in the strongest possible terms that amends to our infrastructure be adopted on a wide scale, logic will always take a back seat to economics.

These good vs evil debates are philosophically interesting, but practically-speaking, a waste of time. Nothing is going to change, till it's forced to. Humanity is shortsighted, and greedy. Most of it isn't bright enough to even comprehend the dangers it's placing itself in. So if you're a concerned environmentalist, ignore what the most logical course for humanity to steer would be, because it's a lost cause. Concern yourself instead with your own most logical course. Maybe you see that as...

A) give up, accept the industrial paradigm as the savior of man, and enjoy the ride

There's a great deal to be said for the idea that being the only genius in a kingdom of idiots is a pointless and lonely ride.

Or maybe you can't help but pay attention to the science and predictive models of virtually every unbiased source on the planet, and choose to see your wisest course as...

B) assume eco- and social-catastrophes are headed our way not too far into humanity's reign, and plan for the future after they pass.

Either they happen in your lifetime, and your preparations give you the edge needed to survive and prosper in a future where most will struggle to survive, or they happen after, and your wisdom is a boon to your philosophical heirs.

Maybe you like to split the difference and...

C) adopt a totally eco-friendly, possibly off-the-grid, micro-existence for yourself, and attempt to wait it out and see which way the balances tip while keeping yourself in relative safety, and keeping your conscience clear by not contributing to the demise of the planet, at least

Not my bag, but I can see the allure.

Just don't follow humanity's lead and plan for your future based on assumptions without any foundations. There is no logical foundation that allows for the idea that a green movement can change a world where the powers that control are operating under economic delusions and systematic denials. Unless you happen to be a budding world leader, take care of yourself, and let the world thrive or burn itself out as it will. Do your best, and maybe you can help steward it through whatever comes next.

[Richard]

I pretty much agree with everything Hayduke said.

Climate change is is going to happen whether we like it or not. It's human nature not to respond to a problem until it's right on our doorstep. With climate change, by the time it's on our doorstep it'll be too late to do much about it.

Prevention isn't realistic. However, adaption is. We should be planning to adapt to climate change, not try and prevent it.

ZPG, I think you are the one with his head in the sand if you think that humanity will wake up one day and decide to abandon the current "business-as-usual" approach. It just isn't going to happen. Economics is king and all that matters is cost, cost, cost. Everything else is secondary to money.

Humanity will only take climate change seriously when it begins to cost too much to ignore it. Until that point is reached you might as well forget about it.

[Zoltan Paul Jambor]

Originally Posted by TheRobster

I pretty much agree with everything Hayduke said.

Climate change is is going to happen whether we like it or not. It's human nature not to respond to a problem until it's right on our doorstep. With climate change, by the time it's on our doorstep it'll be too late to do much about it.

Prevention isn't realistic. However, adaption is. We should be planning to adapt to climate change, not try and prevent it.

ZPG, I think you are the one with his head in the sand if you think that humanity will wake up one day and decide to abandon the current "business-as-usual" approach. It just isn't going to happen. Economics is king and all that matters is cost, cost, cost. Everything else is secondary to money.

Humanity will only take climate change seriously when it begins to cost too much to ignore it. Until that point is reached you might as well forget about it.

Robster! Enough with the insults all right.

It's already costing the the world enough that it would be worth making changes. Robster. You are speaking for me. Don't speak for me, all right. I am not suggesting to abandon our curret business approach. I am suggesting alternative energy.

ZPJ