Climate scientists saying global warming trend is worsening

Summary: Global warming is accelerating says international group of climate scientists.

Today a 64-page "Copenhagen Diagnosis" was released by a group of climate scientists from several nations. They say now it looks like the average global temps couldclimb more than ten degrees Fahrenheit this century. Sea levels could increase more than three feet.

This report concludes that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are near the top of what the IPCC thought was possible when they issued their most recent report in 2007. The group says work on reducing man-caused greenhouse gasemissions must begin now.

"Our available emissions to ensure a reasonably secure climate future are just about used up," said Matthew England, co-director of the Climate Change Research Centre of the University of New South Wales in Australia.

The 26 scientists from eight countries also say the polar ice caps are melting faster than expected. That the need for international action is "urgent."

The group urges international action at the Copenhagen talks that begin December 7.

Topic: Tech Industry

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

46 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Pardon me while I yawn.

    This is the same bunch (climate change chicken-littles) that brought the hockey stick graph and pimped out statistics.
    txscott
    • I can't believe there are still people that are in denial of the problem.

      I boggles my mind that people can still think this is a non-issue. How much proof do you need that we are causing serious damage to the atmosphere? Or doesn't it matter because you won't be around at the end of the century?

      Fortunately there are enough smart people around to recognize that there is a real problem, and the good news is that more and more people are pulling their heads out of the sand and realizing that this is a serious problem.

      Do you also belong the Flat Earth Society?

      http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm
      Qbt
      • How about a prediction becoming true for once?

        "How much proof do you need that we are causing
        serious damage to the atmosphere?"

        How about a prediction becoming true for once?

        Like that idea that I'd be owning waterfront
        property by now.

        Okay, yeah - maybe there's some truth to this
        global warming stuff. But frankly, I think the
        "scare the truth into people" tactic is getting
        very old and tired. It's time for a new
        approach, and more realistic predictions.
        CobraA1
        • "top end of predictions" & "melting faster than thought possible"

          What part of that don't you understand.

          It's like being in a coach heading towards a ravine, and someone saying "we're a mile away, if we don't turn we'll go into the ravine in 2 minutes, because the speedo reads 30mph".

          Then the guy notices trees passing, taps the speedo, and the real speed is 60mph.
          "Bad news guys, we only have a 1minute, if we don't turn, we're toast".

          Then you say "this doom & gloom story is getting old - it's time for a new approach and more realistic predictions"........

          Unfortunately the guy who can see you're being dumb can't jump out and leave you to it.
          stevey_d
          • Stevey Stevey... don't get so alarmed.

            You shouldn't be, really. You're eating lies.
            http://ecotretas.blogspot.com/2009/11/rolo-compressor-de-verdades.html

            Now, chill out.

            Alternatively, make a little statue of Al Gore and kneel down for that each night before you go to bed. Go ahead, kneel, and lick his feet.
            The Flintstones
          • the ravine is still approaching, and you're just noise

            ....
            stevey_d
          • Ravine?

            :) Ok so much for the fun.

            Chill out man. Get informed. It will ease your mind.
            The Flintstones
          • "so much for fun". President has committed US to 17% reduction in 10 years

            Why do you think he did that? Fun??
            stevey_d
          • The part I don't understand.

            ...how someone who claims to have any intelligence at all can look at the facts that the IPCC crowd have been fabricating data for a decade and covering up the fact that global temperatures are in decline and have admitted it in emails (to each other while coordinating their little con game) and yet there are still people like you who buy into their con.
            magash@...
      • You "believe" - that's right.

        You have to 'believe' in global warming caused by mankind (note: there are 2 components here before you start screaming). Why? Because the science doesn't support the theory. What supports the theory is a lot of politics, vested interests (like Central America wanting $50 billion from us because of our - cough cough - 'climate debt'; yesterday's news), and naturally the mentally weak crowd. And with that I mean the people who have willingly turned their critical thinking capacities to an 'off' stand.

        Yes, you believe in man-caused global warming. Sad, but true.

        I stick to the facts. And hey - I don't give a shit it it gets 2 degrees warmer. Why? Nothing new under the sun, and we can't do anything bout it anyway (not man-caused, you know).

        Until you come up with some evidence, rather than referring to Anglia-type 'scientist' I am going to regard you as one of the above mentioned weaker ones.
        The Flintstones
        • As I said - head firmly planted in the sand...

          You stick to the "facts"? Most scientists agree that this is a man-made problem and it is severe. What research did you do to come to an opposite conclusion?

          It reminds me of those religious nuts that stick to the "facts" when it comes to proving the bible. Everybody is wrong but them no matter what the science says...
          Qbt
          • Don't feed the trolls

            These guys are classic trolls - they cherry-pick a few numbers that support their argument, then deny the weight of critical evidence that proves them wrong. Rational argument is beyond them.

            Funny how each time warming estimates are revised, it is always upward and always at or above the previous prediction.

            A claim of the sceptics was that Antarctica was getting bigger - oops! Research since 2007 has shown it is loosing ice faster than Greenland, so that's one arrow out of their denial quiver.

            Another is that since 1998, the earth has been getting cooler. But that assumes climate trends are smooth curves year to year, which they aren't - the occasional hot year has been replaced with a series of them. Sceptics have to look at "hottest on record" because if you look at the average over a few decades or centuries, the warming trend is undeniable.

            There are no absolute truths in science, there is observation and attempted explanation. The quality of the explanation is determined by how well it predicts future events. So far climate scientists haven't been all that great at predicting warming - they keep being [b]too conservative[/b]. It is happening faster than most predictions.
            Fred Fredrickson
          • Yeah so sad eh, that cooling period.

            Yeah let's ignore that. In fact - let's ignore ALL counter evidence.

            East Anglia anyone?

            Not much difference.

            :)
            The Flintstones
          • Right;-)

            "So far climate scientists haven't been all that great at predicting
            warming - they keep being too conservative. It is happening faster
            than most predictions."

            Name one "climate scientists" that predicted the observable
            temperature divergence from their models?

            The divergence from observe reality is of course entirely expected.
            Their models have failed to even correctly predict past (known)
            climate.

            Oh, the divergence is exactly the opposite of "faster than most
            predictions".
            Richard Flude
          • Ah - the 'dismissal' attitude.

            Still waiting for evidence though.

            Hey, how about that *annoying* cooling we've had the last 10 years eh?

            And.. 'oops'! What about that still oh so annoying medieval warming period? Yeah - all those industries at that time!

            Very very annoying facts, that 'conveniently' get left out of those sorry ass hockey stick graphs.

            :)
            The Flintstones
          • why not add a flat 6000 year old earth in there

            and some filming of moon walks outside Dallas.
            stevey_d
          • There you go. Read this. Your "honest" scientists!

            LOL!

            http://ecotretas.blogspot.com/2009/11/rolo-compressor-de-verdades.html

            Now, have some balls and get back to me and try to convince me that you're right. That will be fun.

            HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

            Losaaahhhh :)
            The Flintstones
          • Flintstone what is your problem. You keep commanding me to obey you

            I refuse. I am a free man. I am beholden to no one.

            You don't like what I say. Tough it's the truth, and I won't be told by you to do anything.

            Live with it, it's called freedom of speech.
            stevey_d
      • What problem exactly?

        "I boggles my mind that people can still think this is a non-issue.
        How much proof do you need that we are causing serious damage to
        the atmosphere?"

        Actually any proof. One piece would be enough.

        What's this atmospheric damage you refer to? Surely not CO2, given
        CO2 has always been a component, if very small, of our atmosphere
        and is at historical (geologically speaking) lows.

        "Or doesn't it matter because you won't be around at the end of the
        century?"

        Sorry even if we accepted the worst case scenario presented by the
        IPCC we'd still be around. Maybe you know sometime you'd like to
        share with the rest of us?

        "Fortunately there are enough smart people around to recognize that
        there is a real problem, and the good news is that more and more
        people are pulling their heads out of the sand and realizing that this is
        a serious problem."

        Assuming by "smart" you mean agree with you;-)

        "Do you also belong the Flat Earth Society?"

        The irony of this accusation deserves exposure. The concept of a
        spherical Earth went against the "scientific" consensus of the time. It
        was prove to be so, and not with models;-)
        Richard Flude
        • we'd still be around? Nope, some of us would still be around

          Australia's wheat production is declining again, like the top US agricultural states. Food output dropped this year, and will continue to drop.

          7 billion population is going to drop to 1.5 billion in a 10 year period.
          You think billions of starving people will stay put, or fight you for food.
          How many Nukes would you need to keep 5.5 billion people away? More than we have or can use.

          Say you had 300 tanks, each with between 10 and 30 rounds in them. Say each one kills 50 people. So each one kills 500-1500 people before being overrun. That means a huge tank army of 300 tanks could take out 0.5million invaders before being overrun.

          What if you're on the wrong side of the resources barrier? After all a lot of western countries have been a net importer of food (and energy) for over a century.

          Future not so assured.
          stevey_d