Re: Doom is at the Door

From: Rattus Norvegicus (norway_at_norway.com)
Date: 02/10/05 

Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 15:12:20 GMT

"Say not the Struggle nought Availeth" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:kfCNd.1992$ng6.1754@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> were you aware that malaria was endemic in Canada, Washington DC?
>
> public health was the answer.
>
> j.
>
> That increased co2 can increase crop yields.
>
> That warmer temperatures can increase live span.
>
> j.
>
> Tom Simonds wrote:
>
> > 06 February 2005
> > The Independent on Sunday (UK)
> > www.independent.co.uk
> >
> > Apocalypse now: how mankind is sleepwalking to the end of the Earth
> >
> > Floods, storms and droughts. Melting Arctic ice, shrinking glaciers,
> > oceans
> > turning to acid. The world's top scientists warned last week that
> > dangerous
> > climate change is taking place today, not the day after tomorrow.
> >
> > You don't believe it? Then, says Geoffrey Lean, read this...
> >
> > Future historians, looking back from a much hotter and less hospitable
> > world, are likely to play special attention to the first few weeks of
> > 2005.
> > As they puzzle over how a whole generation could have sleepwalked into
> > disaster - destroying the climate that has allowed human civilisation to
> > flourish over the past 11,000 years - they may well identify the past
> > weeks
> > as the time when the last alarms sounded.
> >
> > Last week, 200 of the world's leading climate scientists - meeting at
> > Tony
> > Blair's request at the Met Office's new headquarters at Exeter - issued
> > the
> > most urgent warning to date that dangerous climate change is taking
> > place,
> > and that time is running out.
> >
> > Next week the Kyoto Protocol, the international treaty that tries to
> > control
> > global warming, comes into force after a seven-year delay. But it is
> > clear
> > that the protocol does not go nearly far enough.
> >
> > The alarms have been going off since the beginning of one of the warmest
> > Januaries on record. First, Dr Rajendra Pachauri - chairman of the
> > official
> > Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - told a UN conference
> > in
> > Mauritius that the pollution which causes global warming has reached
> > "dangerous" levels.
> >
> > Then the biggest-ever study of climate change, based at Oxford
> > University,
> > reported that it could prove to be twice as catastrophic as the IPCC's
> > worst
> > predictions. And an international task force - also reporting to Tony
> > Blair,
> > and co-chaired by his close ally, Stephen Byers - concluded that we
> > could
> > reach "the point of no return" in a decade.
> >
> > Finally, the UK head of Shell, Lord Oxburgh, took time out - just before
> > his
> > company reported record profits mainly achieved by selling oil, one of
> > the
> > main causes of the problem - to warn that unless governments take urgent
> > action there "will be a disaster".
> >
> > But it was last week at the Met Office's futuristic glass headquarters,
> > incongruously set in a dreary industrial estate on the outskirts of
> > Exeter,
> > that it all came together. The conference had been called by the Prime
> > Minister to advise him on how to "avoid dangerous climate change". He
> > needed
> > help in persuading the world to prioritise the issue this year during
> > Britain's presidencies of the EU and the G8 group of economic powers.
> >
> > The conference opened with the Secretary of State for the Environment,
> > Margaret Beckett, warning that "a significant impact" from global
> > warming
> > "is already inevitable". It continued with presentations from top
> > scientists
> > and economists from every continent. These showed that some dangerous
> > climate change was already taking place and that catastrophic events
> > once
> > thought highly improbable were now seen as likely (see panel). Avoiding
> > the
> > worst was technically simple and economically cheap, they said, provided
> > that governments could be persuaded to take immediate action.
> >
> > About halfway through I realised that I had been here before. In the
> > summer
> > of 1986 the world's leading nuclear experts gathered in Vienna for an
> > inquest into the accident at Chernobyl. The head of the Russian
> > delegation
> > showed a film shot from a helicopter, and we suddenly found ourselves
> > gazing
> > down on the red-hot exposed reactor core.
> >
> > It was all, of course, much less dramatic at Exeter. But as paper
> > followed
> > learned paper, once again a group of world authorities were staring at a
> > crisis they had devoted their lives to trying to avoid.
> >
> > I am willing to bet there were few in the room who did not sense their
> > children or grandchildren standing invisibly at their shoulders. The
> > conference formally concluded that climate change was "already
> > occurring"
> > and that "in many cases the risks are more serious than previously
> > thought".
> > But the cautious scientific language scarcely does justice to the sense
> > of
> > the meeting.
> >
> > We learned that glaciers are shrinking around the world. Arctic sea ice
> > has
> > lost almost half its thickness in recent decades. Natural disasters are
> > increasing rapidly around the world. Those caused by the weather - such
> > as
> > droughts, storms, and floods - are rising three times faster than
> > those -
> > such as earthquakes - that are not.
> >
> > We learned that bird populations in the North Sea collapsed last year,
> > after
> > the sand eels on which they feed left its warmer waters - and how the
> > number
> > of scientific papers recording changes in ecosystems due to global
> > warming
> > has escalated from 14 to more than a thousand in five years.
> >
> > Worse, leading scientists warned of catastrophic changes that once they
> > had
> > dismissed as "improbable". The meeting was particularly alarmed by
> > powerful
> > evidence, first reported in The Independent on Sunday last July, that
> > the
> > oceans are slowly turning acid, threatening all marine life (see panel).
> >
> > Professor Chris Rapley, director of the British Antarctic Survey,
> > presented
> > new evidence that the West Antarctic ice *** is beginning to melt,
> > threatening eventually to raise sea levels by 15ft: 90 per cent of the
> > world's people live near current sea levels. Recalling that the IPCC's
> > last
> > report had called Antarctica "a slumbering giant", he said: "I would say
> > that this is now an awakened giant."
> >
> > Professor Mike Schlesinger, of the University of Illinois, reported that
> > the
> > shutdown of the Gulf Stream, once seen as a "low probability event", was
> > now
> > 45 per cent likely this century, and 70 per cent probable by 2200. If it
> > comes sooner rather than later it will be catastrophic for Britain and
> > northern Europe, giving us a climate like Labrador (which shares our
> > latitude) even as the rest of the world heats up: if it comes later it
> > could
> > be beneficial, moderating the worst of the warming.
> >
> > The experts at Exeter were virtually unanimous about the danger,
> > mirroring
> > the attitude of the climate science community as a whole: humanity is to
> > blame. There were a few sceptics at Exeter, including Andrei Illarionov,
> > an
> > adviser to Russia's President Putin, who last year called the Kyoto
> > Protocol
> > "an interstate Auschwitz". But in truth it is much easier to find
> > sceptics
> > among media pundits in London or neo-cons in Washington than among
> > climate
> > scientists. Even the few contrarian climatalogists publish little
> > research
> > to support their views, concentrating on questioning the work of others.
> >
> > Now a new scientific consensus is emerging - that the warming must be
> > kept
> > below an average increase of two degrees centigrade if catastrophe is to
> > be
> > avoided. This almost certainly involves keeping concentrations of carbon
> > dioxide, the main cause of climate change, below 400 parts per million.
> >
> > Unfortunately we are almost there, with concentrations exceeding 370ppm
> > and
> > rising, but experts at the conference concluded that we could go briefly
> > above the danger level so long as we brought it down rapidly afterwards.
> > They added that this would involve the world reducing emissions by 50
> > per
> > cent by 2050 - and rich countries cutting theirs by 30 per cent by 2020.
> >
> > Economists stressed there is little time for delay. If action is put off
> > for
> > a decade, it will need to be twice as radical; if it has to wait 20
> > years,
> > it will cost between three and seven times as much.
> >
> > The good news is that it can be done with existing technology, by
> > cutting
> > energy waste, expanding the use of renewable sources, growing trees and
> > crops (which remove carbon dioxide from the air) to turn into fuel,
> > capturing the gas before it is released from power stations, and -
> > maybe -
> > using more nuclear energy.
> >
> > The better news is that it would not cost much: one estimate suggested
> > the
> > cost would be about 1 per cent of Europe's GNP spread over 20 years;
> > another
> > suggested it meant postponing an expected fivefold increase in world
> > wealth
> > by just two years. Many experts believe combatting global warming would
> > increase prosperity, by bringing in new technologies.
> >
> > The big question is whether governments will act. President Bush's
> > opposition to international action remains the greatest obstacle. Tony
> > Blair, by almost universal agreement, remains the leader with the best
> > chance of persuading him to change his mind.
> >
> > But so far the Prime Minister has been more influenced by the President
> > than
> > the other way round. He appears to be moving away from fighting for the
> > pollution reductions needed in favour of agreeing on a vague pledge to
> > bring
> > in new technologies sometime in the future.
> >
> > By then it will be too late. And our children and grandchildren will
> > wonder - as we do in surveying, for example, the drift into the First
> > World
> > War - "how on earth could they be so blind?"
> >
> > WATER WARS
> >
> > What could happen? Wars break out over diminishing water resources as
> > populations grow and rains fail.
> >
> > How would this come about? Over 25 per cent more people than at present
> > are
> > expected to live in countries where water is scarce in the future, and
> > global warming will make it worse.
> >
> > How likely is it? Former UN chief Boutros Boutros-Ghali has long said
> > that
> > the next Middle East war will be fought for water, not oil.
> >
> > DISAPPEARING NATIONS
> >
> > What could happen? Low-lying island such as the Maldives and Tuvalu -
> > with
> > highest points only a few feet above sea-level - will disappear off the
> > face
> > of the Earth.
> >
> > How would this come about? As the world heats up, sea levels are rising,
> > partly because glaciers are melting, and partly because the water in the
> > oceans expands as it gets warmer.
> >
> > How likely is it? Inevitable. Even if global warming stopped today, the
> > seas
> > would continue to rise for centuries. Some small islands have already
> > sunk
> > for ever. A year ago, Tuvalu was briefly submerged.
> >
> > FLOODING
> >
> > What could happen? London, New York, Tokyo, Bombay, many other cities
> > and
> > vast areas of countries from Britain to Bangladesh disappear under tens
> > of
> > feet of water, as the seas rise dramatically.
> >
> > How would this come about? Ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica melt.
> > The
> > Greenland ice *** would raise sea levels by more than 20ft, the West
> > Antarctic ice *** by another 15ft.
> >
> > How likely is it? Scientists used to think it unlikely, but this year
> > reported that the melting of both ice caps had begun. It will take
> > hundreds
> > of years, however, for the seas to rise that much.
> >
> > UNINHABITABLE EARTH
> >
> > What could happen? Global warming escalates to the point where the
> > world's
> > whole climate abruptly switches, turning it permanently into a much
> > hotter
> > and less hospitable planet.
> >
> > How would this come about? A process involving "positive feedback"
> > causes
> > the warming to fuel itself, until it reaches a point that finally tips
> > the
> > climate pattern over.
> >
> > How likely is it? Abrupt flips have happened in the prehistoric past.
> > Scientists believe this is unlikely, at least in the foreseeable future,
> > but
> > increasingly they are refusing to rule it out.
> >
> > RAINFOREST FIRES
> >
> > What could happen? Famously wet tropical forests, such as those in the
> > Amazon, go up in flames, destroying the world's richest wildlife
> > habitats
> > and releasing vast amounts of carbon dioxide to speed global warming.
> >
> > How would this come about? Britain's Met Office predicted in 1999 that
> > much
> > of the Amazon will dry out and die within 50 years, making it ready for
> > sparks - from humans or lightning - to set it ablaze.
> >
> > How likely is it? Very, if the predictions turn out to be right. Already
> > there have been massive forest fires in Borneo and Amazonia, casting
> > palls
> > of highly polluting smoke over vast areas.
> >
> > THE BIG FREEZE
> >
> > What could happen? Britain and northern Europe get much colder because
> > the
> > Gulf Stream, which provides as much heat as the sun in winter, fails.
> >
> > How would this come about? Melting polar ice sends fresh water into the
> > North Atlantic. The less salty water fails to generate the underwater
> > current which the Gulf Stream needs.
> >
> > How likely is it? About
> >
> > evens for a Gulf Steam failure this century, said scientists last week.
> >
> > STARVATION
> >
> > What could happen? Food production collapses in Africa, for example, as
> > rainfall dries up and droughts increase. As farmland turns to desert,
> > people
> > flee in their millions in search of food.
> >
> > How would this come about? Rainfall is expected to decrease by up to 60
> > per
> > cent in winter and 30 per cent in summer in southern Africa this
> > century. By
> > some estimates, Zambia could lose almost all its farms.
> >
> > How likely is it? Pretty likely unless the world tackles both global
> > warming
> > and Africa's decline. Scientists agree that droughts will increase in a
> > warmer world.
> >
> > ACID OCEANS
> >
> > What could happen? The seas will gradually turn more and more acid.
> > Coral
> > reefs, shellfish and plankton, on which all life depends, will die off.
> > Much
> > of the life of the oceans will become extinct.
> >
> > How would this come about? The oceans have absorbed half the carbon
> > dioxide,
> > the main cause of global warming, so far emitted by humanity. This forms
> > dilute carbonic acid, which attacks corals and shells.
> >
> > How likely is it? It is already starting. Scientists warn that the
> > chemistry
> > of the oceans is changing in ways unprecedented for 20 million years.
> > Some
> > predict that the world's coral reefs will die within 35 years.
> >
> > DISEASE
> >
> > What could happen? Malaria - which kills two million people worldwide
> > every
> > year - reaches Britain with foreign travellers, gets picked up by
> > British
> > mosquitos and becomes endemic in the warmer climate.
> >
> > How would this come about? Four of our 40 mosquito species can carry the
> > disease, and hundreds of travellers return with it annually. The insects
> > breed faster, and feed more, in warmer temperatures.
> >
> > How likely is it? A Department of Health study has suggested it may
> > happen
> > by 2050: the Environment Agency has mentioned 2020. Some experts say it
> > is
> > miraculous that it has not happened already.
> >
> > HURRICANES
> >
> > What could happen? Hurricanes, typhoons and violent storms proliferate,
> > grow
> > even fiercer, and hit new areas. Last September's repeated battering of
> > Florida and the Caribbean may be just a foretaste of what is to come,
> > say
> > scientists.
> >
> > How would this come about? The storms gather their energy from warm
> > seas,
> > and so, as oceans heat up, fiercer ones occur and threaten areas where
> > at
> > present the seas are too cool for such weather.
> >
> > How likely is it? Scientists are divided over whether storms will get
> > more
> > frequent and whether the process has already begun.
> >
> > ---------
> >
> > http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/story.jsp?story=608209

*** off

Quantcast