iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Climate Conference Opens In Durban, Focuses On Emissions Cuts

Climate Conference Durban

ARTHUR MAX   11/28/11 02:28 PM ET   AP

DURBAN, South Africa — With heat-trapping carbon at record levels in the atmosphere, U.N. climate negotiations opened Monday with pressure building to salvage the only treaty limiting greenhouse gas emissions.

The U.S., Europe and the developing countries laid out diverging positions at the outset, signaling tough talks ahead even as South African President Jacob Zuma called for national interests to be laid aside "for a common good and benefit of all humanity."

As if to illustrate the effects of global warming, a fierce storm on the eve of the talks flooded shack settlements and killed at least five people in the port city hosting the international gathering. In a statement, municipal officials said the toll could go as high as 10, based on unconfirmed reports. The climate talks were not affected, though the roof of the sprawling center where the conference was being held was damaged.

Scientists say such unusual weather has become more frequent and will continue to happen more often as the Earth warms, although it is impossible to attribute any individual event to climate change.

The talks face a looming one-year deadline with the expiry next December of the commitment by 37 industrial countries to cut carbon emissions, as required under the Kyoto Protocol. At issue is whether those countries would accept another period of greater emission reductions.

As the talks opened, Canadian television reported that Ottawa will announce its formal withdraw from the Kyoto accord next month. Canada, joined by Japan and Russia, said last year it will not accept new commitments, but renouncing the accord would be another setback to the treaty concluded with much fanfare in 1997.

Canadian Environment Minister Peter Kent said he would neither confirm or deny the report.

"This isn't the day. This is not the time to make an announcement," he said.

"Countries are running away from the Kyoto Protocol," said Artur Runge-Metzger, the chief negotiator for the European Union.

Canada's withdrawal would not immediately affect the Durban talks, he said. But doubts about the Kyoto deal were one reason the EU was conditioning its acceptance of new commitments on an agreement in Durban from China, India and other major emitting countries that they will adopt legally binding commitments by 2015.

Developing countries say Kyoto is the only instrument that binds wealthy countries to specific targets.

The protocol was "the cornerstone of the climate regime, and its second commitment period is the essential priority for the success of the Durban conference," Chinese delegate Su Wei told the inaugural session.

U.S. chief delegate Jonathan Pershing said the United States, which shunned Kyoto as unfair, would accept legally binding emissions limits in the future as long as all major emitters took on equal legal obligations.

But the U.S. wants to know exactly what such an agreement would contain before it agreed to the principle of a legal treaty – which would require the endorsement of two-thirds of the U.S. Senate.

"Putting the form of the action before the substance doesn't make a great deal of sense," Pershing told reporters.

Opposition in Congress, which includes outspoken climate skeptics and a Republican majority generally considered climate-unfriendly, has prompted a widespread belief that U.S. negotiators are foot-dragging on emissions issues.

Christiana Figueres, the U.N.'s top climate official, said Kyoto's future is "the defining issue of this conference." She said an extension of Kyoto targets is linked to pledges that developing countries must make to join the fight against climate change.

The task is daunting, she said, then she quoted anti-apartheid legend and former President Nelson Mandela: "It always seems impossible until it is done."

In his address opening the conference, Zuma said global warming already is causing suffering and conflict in Africa, from drought in Sudan and Somalia to flooding in South Africa.

"For most people in the developing world and Africa, climate change is a matter of life and death," said the South African leader.

Zuma said Sudan's drought is partly responsible for tribal wars there, and that drought and famine have driven people from their homes in Somalia. Floods along the South African coast have cost people their homes and jobs, he said.

"Change and solutions are always possible. In these talks, state parties will need to look beyond their national interests to find a global solution for a common good and benefit of all humanity."

One of the greatest threats of global warming is to food supplies.

In its first global assessment of the planet's resources, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization estimated that farmers will have to produce 70 percent more food by 2050 to meet the needs of the world's expected 9 billion-strong population.

But most available farmland is already being farmed, and in ways that decrease productivity through practices that lead to soil erosion and wasting of water, the FAO said in a report released Monday in Rome.

Climate change compounded problems caused by poor farming practices, it found. Adjusting to a changing world will require $1 trillion in irrigation water management alone for developing countries by 2015, the FAO said.

___

Associated Press writers Nicole Winfield in Rome and Rob Gillies in Toronto contributed to this report.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

DURBAN, South Africa — With heat-trapping carbon at record levels in the atmosphere, U.N. climate negotiations opened Monday with pressure building to salvage the only treaty limiting greenhouse...
DURBAN, South Africa — With heat-trapping carbon at record levels in the atmosphere, U.N. climate negotiations opened Monday with pressure building to salvage the only treaty limiting greenhouse...
Filed by Joanna Zelman  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 665
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (5 total)
12:49 AM on 01/18/2012
Yes, The earth is warming. It has been doing this since the ice age.Its not new. What is not proven is that man is a major cause. Climate is a very complex science and no one or group has a complete knowledge of it. Areas of the world have seen complete reversals of the climate in the past 5000 years. Are we really trying to say that man had a hand in it? Of course not. We know that Greenland has been warmer in the past. We know that the Sahara was much wetter. We know that some mountain areas in South America experienced very rapid cooling that flash froze plants that were buried under a glacier for 5000 years. The discovery was revealed when the glacier receded after years and years of global warming. The same pattern of cooling will happen again and man will have no power to stop it. This heating cycle will give way to a cycle of cooling. I believe that the physicist, Henrik Svensmark , is correct in his analysis of the correlation of sun and solar activity with global warming. If he is correct, the earth will begin to cool as the sun and solar activity change. It would be premature to reduce CO2 emissions based on the existing science. We need to have a little patience to better understand climate before we rush to conclusions.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:11 AM on 11/30/2011
There are less than 10 years left until human caused Climate Change becomes irreversible, according to the UN.

"A senior environmental official at the United Nations...says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed.....Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of "eco-refugees", threatening political chaos...governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control...."

Link

http://tinyurl.com/6x8r9yc
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
01:41 AM on 11/30/2011
And right on schedule, here comes Orkney driving by tossing out a spam for la Framboosie's
hatchet piece. Orkney has had some 30 or 40 of these spams deleted recently. Orkney shows no remorse or shame for hijacking Huffpost. She will do it again the next day, and the next.

Which Big Energy propaganda front do you shill for Orkney? Why do you never stop to discuss your 'steamers?' Do you have so little respect for Huffpost and its readers that you treat it as merely your advertising board?

This is pure dishonesty.
photo
ILoveFiction
That's unbelievable!
07:54 AM on 11/30/2011
Well I'll be Thelma...

... if you'll be Louise.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:52 PM on 11/29/2011
Indeed, $7.4 Billionair­e, Rupert Murdoch, initiated his transforma­tion more than 4 years ago.

"As many of you know, I grew up in Melbourne, Australia and the last few months and years have brought some changes there:

In Melbourne, 2006 was the 10th consecutiv­e year with below average rainfall. And 2005 was the hottest year on record throughout Australia.

Australia is suffering its worst drought in 100 years.

Now, I realize we can't take just one year in one city or even one continent as proof that something unusual is happening. And I am no scientist.

But there are signs around the world, and I do know how to assess a risk.

Climate change poses clear, catastroph­ic threats. We may not agree on the extent, but we certainly can't afford the risk of inaction.

We must transform the way we use energy, and of course not only because of climate change...

When I look around the world today, I see continued dependence on oil from vulnerable regions... and oil money going to leaders of countries hostile to us. Then there's accelerati­ng developmen­t in China, India and other developing economies that are reliant on fossil fuels."

http://www­.newscorp.­com/energy­/full_spee­ch.html
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:29 PM on 11/29/2011
And 4 years later, RUPERT MURDOCH, head of News Corp., which owns Fox News, announced that:

"I am proud to announce that News Corporatio­­n has reached its first major sustainabi­­lity milestone: we have become carbon neutral across all of our global operations and we are the first company of our kind to do so."

http://www­­.huffingt­o­npost.co­m/­2011/03­/01­/ruper­t-mu­rdoch­-news­-cor­p-carb­on-­neutral­_n­_829640.­h­tml?ir=Gr­­een

Imagine that!

The guy who pushes all the buttons that run your favorite news channel

BELIEVES IN MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:29 PM on 11/29/2011
And he's already done his part to address it!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dadfirst
Reasonable comments in an unreasonable world
10:39 PM on 11/29/2011
Just look at the jokesters in this picture.
10:43 AM on 11/29/2011
I am truly impressed with this article - just for example the 3rd from last paragraph in this article makes the statement - "In its first global assessment of the planet's resources, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization estimated that farmers will have to produce 70 percent more food by 2050 to meet the needs of the world's expected 9 billion-strong population."

Since going from 7b to 9b people is only a 28% increase in population, an increase of 70% food production must be astonishingly accurate. We should willing accept the science coming out of the UN supported organizations when the math and scientific basis for their conclusions is so accurate.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chrisd3
Excelsior!
01:28 PM on 11/29/2011
I don't suppose by any chance you actually READ the report to find out why they said this, right?

Of course you didn't.
01:53 PM on 11/29/2011
I did read the report - I can also recognize BS - you should also be able to recognize BS - if not - time to learn
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:35 PM on 11/29/2011
Well, chrisd3

Joe Dallas

gets an F, as he displays that he's too lazy a/o ignorant to look up anything he can't immediately wrap his head around - assuredly par for him.

But the answer is mainly that it's rising global demand for meat, which requires more crop production to feed livestock, plus rising demand for higher nutritional value/lower calorie crops.

E.g., an East Indian vegetarian, who eschews meat publicly, while sneaking his recent for cholesterol in the privacy of his home.

That times 2 billion.

"The latest UN estimates of population suggest that by 2050 the planet will be populated by 9.1 billion persons, up from the current population of 6.8 billion. This
represents a 34 percent increase over the next 41 years. The latest FAO estimates
indicate, however, that agricultural production would need to grow globally by 70 percent over the same period (by almost 100 percent in developing countries) to feed this population, because of a shift in demand towards higher value products of lower caloric content and an increased use of crop output as feed to meet rising
meat demand. Further, these predictions of additional output are likely to be a low
estimate, as they do not take into account any increases in agricultural production
to meet possible expansion in demand for biofuels."

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/docs/Issues_papers/HLEF2050_Investment.pdf

Of course, Joe Dallas is unlikely to learn anything from this short little lesson.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ClimateHawk
Think before posting.
09:27 AM on 11/29/2011
So now Orkneygal insists that we are going to get at least 3 degrees F of heating with doubled CO2.

And doesn't bother to think about what the impact of that would be, or what happens after that.
09:06 AM on 11/29/2011
We can already see that we have not a long wait to come face to face with what happens where the straight superhighway we have been traveling with effortless ease becomes a narrow, curved cliffside passage; for we are the ones who are alive in a pivotal moment in human history, when economic and ecologic systems fail, a global empire (like a house of cards) collapses and self-proclaimed masters of the universe (who are primarily responsible for the colossal catastrophe looming before humanity) take off in private jets and yachts for secret hideaways in faraway places....come what may.
08:15 PM on 11/30/2011
It is almost 2012. Why have many academicians apparently been rendered dumbstruck during my lifetime by what is all-too-obvious? Absolute global human population numbers can be clearly seen skyrocketing since the end of World War II. Are experts playing stupid? Have they been mislead by personal arrogance, extreme foolhardiness and wanton greed or overcome by a lust for influence, privilege and power? Or all of the above? When I was born, 2.3 billion human beings lived on Earth. In a single lifetime of threescore and ten years (1945 – 2015) human population numbers are projected and fully expected to increase by 5+/- billion people. How can so many economists and demographers not see what is happening? Do their professional activities have something to do with science? I say no, definitely not.

I find much preternatural thought and unscientific research but cannot locate adequate scientific evidence that supports the idea of “human exceptionalism” with regard to the population dynamics of the human species. Although the idea of human exceptionalism is known to be specious from a scientific point of view, because it is of vital importance to ideologues and those who primarily benefit from the way the global political economy is organized and managed, human exceptionalism has not been the subject of sufficient scrutiny by scientists and consequently allowed to stand uncontested during my lifetime.
08:27 PM on 11/30/2011
They have failed to stand up for science and humanity by speaking truth to the greedmongering movers and shakers of the global political economy who rule the world in our time and appear dead set on ravaging the Earth and degrading its environs until the planet is an unfit place for children everywhere to inhabit. If my perspective could somehow be on the right track, then we are bearing witness not only to the greatest failure of nerve, intellectual honesty, moral courage of all time, but also to an incomprehensible loss of capacity to do the right thing, according to the lights each of us possesses.

If the population dynamics of the human species is essentially similar (not different from or exceptional) to the population dynamics of other species, then the most attractive, widely shared and consensually validated idea of a seemingly magical, automatic, benign demographic transition to population stabilization of the human species on Earth in the middle of Century XXI is a colossal mistake with potentially profound implications for future human well being and environmental health.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:01 AM on 11/29/2011
IPCC values for Climate Sensitivity thrown into the trash bin with this new Peer Reviewed Study.

"Scientists say the Earth will warm in response to increasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, but since the 1970s, they have not made much headway in narrowing down exactly how much it will warm.

Typical forecasts say that if humanity doubles the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere before emissions cease, the temperature will most likely rise by about 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit, though the figure could be as low as 3.6 degrees or as high as 8.1 degrees. And scientists have not entirely ruled out far higher numbers.

Now comes a new entry in the effort to specify the value known as “climate sensitivity,” and it falls on the low side of the existing estimates. The paper, in the journal Science, calculates that a doubling of carbon dioxide will most likely lead to a warming of 4.1 degrees Fahrenheit, though the number could be as low as 3 degrees or as high as 4.7 degrees.

“Our study shows that very high climate sensitivities are virtually impossible...."

http://tinyurl.com/ch4pswq
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chrisd3
Excelsior!
07:09 AM on 11/29/2011
"IPCC values for Climate Sensitivit­y thrown into the trash bin with this new Peer Reviewed Study."

That's weird, since the number is within the IPCC's range.

It's also interesting that you fall prey to "single-study syndrome" even though that's mentioned in the very first sentence of the Revkin piece you link to.

But Single-Study Syndrome is just one facet of the larger Denier Syndrome: Any study that finds something you like MUST be right, and all other studies MUST be wrong. That kind of tunnel vision is hard for the rest of us humans to understand.
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
08:13 AM on 11/29/2011
Yawn. Here we go again with the Schmittner paper. First of all, this is a newspaper interpretation of a science article. Second, it isn't published in Science magazine as they say. (Science is a magazine, not a journal.) It is published online in Science Express. Very real difference, and it shows how a newspaper misses detail.

The world of science will want to allow this one to steep and brew. It will take some time. Other studies will be conducted. Much conversation will be had. Hey Orkney watch this one, many emails will be privately exchanged over this. Get your FOI requests started now. If other studies tend to confirm these results, eventually it will become accepted science, and eventually maybe it will become consensus science like the CO2 theory.

Science won't lose their minds over a single paper. They won't rush over to paste top post their results exclaiming vindication, like some deniers we know. Scientists are conservative that way, they remain skeptical, not jumping to conclusions. They publish for other scientists, who will get around to confirming this, or not.

As it stands, the wide range of predictions stands. Shoot, depending upon the methane, a rise over ten degrees is possible. We show no interest in slowing our CO2 emissions and so the Keeling curve continues its rise, ever more steeply. The Chinese and Indian emissions trajectories may factor more heavily in the future.

Orkney, what is the temperature going to be when the CO2 has tripled?
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
01:55 AM on 11/29/2011
American Physical Society:
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm
12:24 PM on 11/29/2011
"Even with the uncertainties in the models, it is increasingly difficult to rule out that non-negligible increases in global temperature are a consequence of rising anthropogenic CO2."

Why is that increasing of anthropogenic CO2 less than 1 ppm in the world, because of irrigation from rivers, which feed Aral sea, and deforestation in Zimbabwe, which also use machinery, bring disasters exactly to these two areas?

Is it a punishment from science of climate change for bad behavior, dear Publicola?
In my opinion, it is again crap, which you bring to us.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
12:50 PM on 11/29/2011
mioffe: "Why is that increasing of anthropoge­nic CO2 less than 1 ppm..."

Your premise is wrong.

HTH.
12:28 AM on 11/30/2011
The increase is more like 120 ppm, approaching a 50% increase and headed for a 100% increase over anything seen in at least 650,000 years (longer than humans have existed as a species).
11:33 PM on 11/28/2011
Publicola
2 hours ago (9:13 PM)
U.S. Natio­nal Academy of Sciences, 2010:
"http://www­.nap.edu/o­penbook.ph­p?record_i­d=12782":
"Water vapor is the most important GHG in terms of its contribution to the natural green-house effect (see Figure 6.1), but changes in water vapor are not considered a climate forcing because its concentration in the lower atmosphere is controlled mainly by the (natural) processes of evaporation and precipitation, rather than by human activities."

If this crap somebody will call science, I will put him on board of shame.
We must check, who wrote this book and bring them to court for crime against humanity.
I checked many of anothers site, provided by posters supporting science of climate change.
There I found the same mistakes, which posters never explain to me, what that mean, and how serious person could take them as real science.

IT IS SHAME FOR SCIENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE.

I am, Michael Ioffe, sign this my post.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
01:54 AM on 11/29/2011
What's sad is you actually seem to believe the crapolla you spew.

You say you've tried to get your "research" published - ever wonder why no one takes you seriously?

But yeah, it's you against the world, isn't it. If only actual experts in climate science could see what you see, Napolean.
11:14 AM on 11/29/2011
Do you understand, what crap you recomend to read:
Human activities by irrigation evaporate Aral sea, create rain problem in Zimbabwe, by deforestation, change evaporation by tilling almost half of the earth land...
and still you invite everybody to believe: "but changes in water vapor are not considered a climate forcing because its concentrat­ion in the lower atmosphere is controlled mainly by the (natural) processes of evaporatio­n and precipitat­ion, rather than by human activities­."

Is it seriously, or it is lie?
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
12:01 PM on 11/29/2011
Dear mioffe,

If you understood 1) basic physics and 2) what "forcing" means in this context then you too would know that not only is the U.S. National Academy of Sciences "seriously" [sic] but moreover what they are saying here is patently obvious.

HTH.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:08 AM on 11/29/2011
Michael Ioffe-

Since you seem interested in the impact of water vapour on Atmospheric Physics, you may be interested in this analysis of the Missing Tropical Hot Spot.

Enjoy!

http://joannenova.com.au/2008/10/the-missing-hotspot/
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
08:17 AM on 11/29/2011
Perpetual flogging of old dead horses is an Orkney specialty.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
10:37 AM on 11/29/2011
Yawn.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot.htm

"Skeptic" Bob Carter Commits De Facto Global Warming Fraud

Orkneygal smears, but she won't debate.

Dear Orkneygal,

Isn't prominent global warming "skeptic" Dr. Robert M "Bob" Carter committing de facto global warming fraud by misrepresenting increasing global temperature trend lines as flat?* 

Isn't that like a climate science scam, a global warming hoax, a blatant and indefensible lie?

Also:

You have indicated that you live in New Zealand - what relationship do you have with Bob Carter's "skeptical" New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC), if any?

Please finally answer these questions instead of continuing to run away from them - thank you.

[ Que: continued silence from "truth seeker" Orkneygal with respect to Bob Carter's de facto global warming fraud and her relationship to Bob Carter's global warming "skeptic" organization the NZCSC. ]
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:53 PM on 11/28/2011
Yes, on one side, there's a smear campaign astroturfe­d by the Koch Brothers (oil/coal/­gas companies)­.

On the other side, we have

a climatolog­­ists' consensus:

http://www­­.sciencem­a­g.org/co­nt­ent/306­/57­02/168­6.fu­ll

http://tig­­ger.uic.e­d­u/~pdora­n/01­2009_­Doran­_fin­al.pdf

http://coa­­st.gkss.d­e­/staff/s­to­rch/pdf­/Cl­iSci20­08.p­df ;

And 11 separate “Climatega­­te” review/exo­neratio­ns­, plus 13 “hockey stick” corroborat­­ions:

http://www­­.huffingt­o­npost.co­m/­social/­max­wells/­clim­ate-e­mail-­leak­-unive­rsi­ty-east­-a­nglia_n_­1­107929_12­­0351269.ht­­ml ;

Plus, starting with Rupert Murdoch, a set of billionair­­es, who're collectively worth ~1/3 of a $Trillion dollars, who've acted on a/o publicly stated their belief in global warming:

http://www­­.huffingt­o­npost.co­m/­social/­max­wells/­clim­atolo­gist-­phil­-jones­-sp­eaks_n_­11­10389_12­0­093635.ht­­ml ;

+ statements by Shell, Exxon, Chevron, Walmart, Apple, Ikea, Tesco, the DoD, CIA, 200 CEOs, and major investment groups collective­­ly controllin­­g $20 Trillion in assets that they believe global warming is a fact of life:

http://www­­.huffingt­o­npost.co­m/­social/­max­wells/­clim­atolo­gist-­phil­-jones­-sp­eaks_n_­11­10389_12­0­093380.ht­­ml
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:48 PM on 11/28/2011
Yet another example of an AGW denier, Fumes below, who cites a denier blog that cites a news article that cites an abstract. As is typical, Fumes was too lazy to comprehend or more likely even read the actual abstract cited.

Fumes, either way, you're doing your empty case no favors.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/fumes/climate-conference-durban_n_1116043_120516825.html

Note the final sentence of what follows below:

Science

2500 Years of European Climate Variability and Human Susceptibility

Ulf Büntgen, Willy Tegel, Kurt Nicolussi, Michael McCormick, David Frank, Valerie Trouet,
Jed O. Kaplan, Franz Herzig, Karl-Uwe Heussner, Heinz Wanner, Jürg Luterbacher and
Jan Esper

Abstract

"Climate variations have influenced the agricultural productivity, health risk, and conflict level of preindustrial societies. Discrimination between environmental and anthropogenic impacts on past civilizations, however, remains difficult because of the paucity of high-resolution palaeoclimatic evidence. Here, we present tree ring–based reconstructions of Central European summer precipitation and temperature variability over the past 2500 years. Recent warming is unprecedented, but modern hydroclimatic variations may have at times been exceeded in magnitude and duration. Wet and warm summers occurred during periods of Roman and medieval prosperity. Increased climate variability from ~AD 250 to 600 coincided with the demise of the Western Roman Empire and the turmoil of the Migration Period. Historical circumstances may challenge recent political and fiscal reluctance to mitigate projected climate change."

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/01/12/science.1197175
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
09:13 PM on 11/28/2011
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations...

Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782
07:02 PM on 11/28/2011
7. Droplets of water solved partially all gases, including GHG and bring them down as nutrition. Mostly properties of water clean atmosphere from GHG and reduce them.
8. 99% of water vapor condensed in upper troposphere. If we will remember, that these properties of water released energy in process and it energy close to space, we will understand it help cool atmosphere.
9. Band of IR radiation for H2O and CO2 is different. That’s mean, if CO2 present after upper troposphere, most of IR radiation from water vapor, which going to space do not trapped in CO2 molecules.
07:02 PM on 11/28/2011
Let look on nine (9) properties of water, which could cool the atmosphere.

1. We need 539 kcal to evaporate 1 kg of water. It cool air close to surface of evaporation - oceans, seas, rivers, leaves of trees, bushes, grass...

2. Water vapor is lighter than most gases in air, it help convection forces to bring all (ALL) GASES UP.
3. PdV work stop convection forces around 500 m from sea level. You could see it in smoke, from chimney of power plants. In Green section of every magazine you could easy found this pictures.

4. Only partial condensation of water vapor release energy to heat parcel of surrounding air, including GHG. It property of water recreate convection. It helps bring all gases on next level UP from land or oceans.
5. Droplets of water in rain, as cleanest water take from atmosphere almost all particles of Black Carbon and others aerosol, and bring them to land, oceans. It process decrease heating the atmosphere by trapping direct sun radiation in Black Carbon.
6. Only new snow is cover soot on the old snow on the land and ice in oceans. It process increase reflection of direct sun radiation back to space, and only properties of water could provide it.
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
08:20 AM on 11/29/2011
5 years and counting, Don ioffe and his trusty steed rocinante have been questing to enlighten all of science on the properties of water. Modern science doesn't listen. There is still time. mioffe will save the world just in time.

OCD is truly debilitating.
11:05 AM on 11/29/2011
It is Physics,...
The same as:
It is economy,...
12:34 AM on 11/30/2011
Out of curiosity, what is your native language?