• Before posting an article from a specific source, check this list here to see how much the Orange Room trust it. You can also vote/change your vote based on the source track record.

Climate Change TOTW [23.04.07 - 29.04.07]

marisha

marisha

Active Member
procreer ou non.

Stella,

The article that I posted is simply giving another interesting perspective on the usual take on climate change that you presented. Your statement in bold isn't very accurate ; the earth's resources are NOT endless. Most natural resources (Oil, wood, water,coil...) will be gone after (hopefully) a long period of time. Even all people switch to electric cars, gas emissions will be reduced but not eliminated. "Clean" energy source when combined with maintaining our current living standards will reduce the damage each individual does but not eliminate the danger looming ahead. In order to preserve mankind, we will have to reduce our birth rate in order to maximize. This already happened in most Western countries where population growth is zero and in some cases (France) even negative. And it was done simply by raising awareness. I hope you didn't think that by posting this article I was condoning the horrible baby massacres that are happening in China.
[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]
P.S: I'd be really interested in discussing contraception methods in another thread but Finals never looked so close. :frown:

HI,

Il est vrai que ce que tu proposes (d'après l'article) est en partie applicable mais cela aura d'autres repercussions sur la population à la longue. EN effet, le taux de morts sera plus élevé que le taux des nouveaux nés et cela mènera à une extermination de la population voire de la race. Comme exemple je te donne une statistique sur la russie: légalement on compte 1 million de naissance en moins (et ce pour 2005) et illégalement (du aux avortements) ilya 6 millions d'embryons qui voient pas le jour! Je trouve ce chiffre catastrophique. Je dis pas que chaque année il faut s'augmenter de 6 millions et procréer non stop, mais si jamais il faut réduire ce chiffre (c'est vrai qu'on est trop nombreux et cela a un impact sur la terre en général et sur l'environnement en particulier) il faut tout de meme le faire judicieusement. Là ou c'est over populated je pense qu'il faut faire comme les chinois, un enfant par famille jusqu'à nouvel ordre :)
 
  • Advertisement
  • Stella

    Stella

    New Member
    How is the weather in Lebanon?
    Because here is really crazy, it is middle of December and at the weekend we had +20 Celsius instead of having -10 C for example, or just any signs that its winter now and not spring. The trees are beginning to bud as well, as they think spring has come.
    It seems we wont have a white christmas:(

    Besides there are extreme conditions all over Europe, either too warm weather, or heavy storms and floods. Our climate is changing slowly but definitely! The signs are all too much tangible, this process just accelerated in the last few years. If "all goes well" we can also wittness the dramatic changes which are forcasted long ago by the scientists, and who knows what will accelerate the events more in the future.

    Its high time we act today, or better yesterday, and start being more environment conscious each of us individually. On the level of international community the developed world should present a role model and promote a certain standard. Starting with USA ratifying finally the Kyoto Protocol, that would serve as a strong message indeed, are they up to take that committment finally, or are they still that opportunists and ignorant that they let the whole world`s future heading to disaster, in exchange for some short term gains?
     
    lebanesecanadian

    lebanesecanadian

    Well-Known Member
    Also on the subject of climate change is the pressure on scientists by politicians. Climate change is scientific debate (and it's over) and not political one. Good move by the Nobel laureates.


    US scientists reject interference

    <!-- S BO --> <!-- S IBYL --> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="416"> <tbody><tr> <td valign="bottom"> By Jonathan Amos
    Science reporter, BBC News, San Francisco
    </td> </tr> </tbody></table>


    <!-- E IBYL --> <!-- S IIMA --><!-- E IIMA --> <!-- S SF --> Some 10,000 US researchers have signed a statement protesting about political interference in the scientific process.
    The statement, which includes the backing of 52 Nobel Laureates, demands a restoration of scientific integrity in government policy.
    According to the American Union of Concerned Scientists, data is being misrepresented for political reasons.
    It claims scientists working for federal agencies have been asked to change data to fit policy initiatives. <!-- E SF -->
    The Union has released an "A to Z" guide that it says documents dozens of recent allegations involving censorship and political interference in federal science, covering issues ranging from global warming to sex education.
    Campaigners say that in recent years the White House has been able to censor the work of agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration because a Republican congress has been loath to stand up for scientific integrity.
    "It's very difficult to make good public policy without good science, and it's even harder to make good public policy with bad science," said Dr Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security.
    "In the last several years, we've seen an increase in both the misuse of science and I would say an increase of bad science in a number of very important issues; for example, in global climate change, international peace and security, and water resources."
    The statement was released at the American Geophysical Union's Fall Meeting. It is an annual gathering of Earth scientists.
    Last year, it triggered a major row when a discussion here resulted in the renowned US space agency climate scientist Dr James Hansen later claiming he had come under pressure not to talk to the media on global warming issues.
    Michael Halpern from the UCS said the statement of objection to political interference had been supported by researchers regardless of their political views.
    "This science statement that has now been signed by the 10,000 scientists is signed by science advisers to both Republican and Democratic administrations dating back to President Eisenhower, stating that this is not business as usual and calling for this practice to stop," he told BBC News.
    The Union said is was hopeful that the new Congress taking office in January would show a greater commitment to protecting the integrity of the scientific process.
    [email protected]
    <!-- E BO -->
     
    E

    elie_fpm_91

    Active Member
    yup and i heard too that the climate change may cause the death of all europe
    it will desappear under water
    and specialy sweden, france . holland//
     
    Moonlapse

    Moonlapse

    Active Member
    I would like to hear your opinions about climate change and its possible dangers, as well as what you can do personally to treat its root causes.
    There is nothing we can do about the climate change, simply because we are not the cause. Global Warming is unproven and probably nothing but liberal propoganda created by liberal environmentalists purely for financial and political gain. The climate change as far as we can tell is a natural process, until proven otherwise. The earth has gone through countless periods of warming and cooling, and in many cases a lot more extreme than the climate change we are experiencing now. Liberal environmentalists use fear mongering to further their personal agendas, politically & financially speaking they have benefited enormously from a myth. It's the biggest con of the 20th century and continues to be in this century.
     
    Stella

    Stella

    New Member
    There is nothing we can do about the climate change, simply because we are not the cause. Global Warming is unproven and probably nothing but liberal propoganda created by liberal environmentalists purely for financial and political gain. The climate change as far as we can tell is a natural process, until proven otherwise. The earth has gone through countless periods of warming and cooling, and in many cases a lot more extreme than the climate change we are experiencing now. Liberal environmentalists use fear mongering to further their personal agendas, politically & financially speaking they have benefited enormously from a myth. It's the biggest con of the 20th century and continues to be in this century.
    So you think all the pollution and environmental disasters (the list is way too long but I could list for you) caused by human activities throughout just the 20th century, had no dramatic effect on the climate?

    What you are saying just contradicts the very facts we wittness with our own eyes. Climate change is already tangible, whether you want to recognize it or not.
     
    fado

    fado

    Active Member
    yup and i heard too that the climate change may cause the death of all europe
    it will desappear under water
    and specialy sweden, france . holland//
    I live in Sweden and we don't have snow yet and this is going to be the first x-mas without snow since for ever. Everybody is going crazy, specially the swedes coz they are used to snow and can't live without it. And we are scared coz we heard too that Sweden is one of the first countries that can drown. :scared:
     
    Moonlapse

    Moonlapse

    Active Member
    So you think all the pollution and environmental disasters (the list is way too long but I could list for you) caused by human activities throughout just the 20th century, had no dramatic effect on the climate?

    What you are saying just contradicts the very facts we wittness with our own eyes. Climate change is already tangible, whether you want to recognize it or not.
    There is absolutely no proof, not a shred of evidence that the current climate change is somehow connected with human activity. There is more than enough proof that pollution and environmental disasters are bad for our health, food sources etc.

    Somehow you've already decided that there is enough proof for global warming and the current climate change to connect it to human activity. The current climate change is certainly tangible, but there has been countless of climate changes in earth's history, more dramatic than this one. So, where is the hard evidence that relates this climate change to human activity, rather than a natural process??? This is a theory, and you're treating as a fact.

    "Indeed, it’s warmer today around the world than at any time during the past 1000 years..." Do you realize that 1000 years is but a drop in the bucket when you consider the age of the earth, and how many climate changes have taken place. So, now because some environmentalist decided to come up with a theory claiming this climate change is human-made, we're suppose to believe it, no questions asked. For every scientist that buys into this theory, there is another one that dismisses it entirely.
     
    Stella

    Stella

    New Member
    Alarming consequences of climate change are tangible in Canada:


    Ancient ice shelf breaks free from Canadian Arctic
    POSTED: 11:31 a.m. EST, December 29, 2006


    TORONTO, Ontario (AP) -- A giant ice shelf the size of 11,000 football fields has snapped free from Canada's Arctic, scientists said.

    The mass of ice broke clear 16 months ago from the coast of Ellesmere Island, about 800 kilometers (497 miles) south of the North Pole, but no one was present to see it in Canada's remote north.

    Scientists using satellite images later noticed that it became a newly formed ice island in just an hour and left a trail of icy boulders floating in its wake.

    Warwick Vincent of Laval University, who studies Arctic conditions, traveled to the newly formed ice island and could not believe what he saw.

    "This is a dramatic and disturbing event. It shows that we are losing remarkable features of the Canadian North that have been in place for many thousands of years. We are crossing climate thresholds, and these may signal the onset of accelerated change ahead," Vincent said Thursday.

    In 10 years of working in the region he has never seen such a dramatic loss of sea ice, he said.

    The collapse was so powerful that earthquake monitors 250 kilometers (155 miles) away picked up tremors from it.

    The Ayles Ice Shelf, roughly 66 square kilometers (41 square miles) in area, was one of six major ice shelves remaining in Canada's Arctic.

    Scientists say it is the largest event of its kind in Canada in 30 years and point their fingers at climate change as a major contributing factor.

    "It is consistent with climate change," Vincent said, adding that the remaining ice shelves are 90 percent smaller than when they were first discovered in 1906.

    "We aren't able to connect all of the dots ... but unusually warm temperatures definitely played a major role."

    Laurie Weir, who monitors ice conditions for the Canadian Ice Service, was poring over satellite images in 2005 when she noticed that the shelf had split and separated.

    Weir notified Luke Copland, head of the new global ice lab at the University of Ottawa, who initiated an effort to find out what happened.

    Using U.S. and Canadian satellite images, as well as data from seismic monitors, Copland discovered that the ice shelf collapsed in the early afternoon of August 13, 2005.

    "What surprised us was how quickly it happened," Copland said. "It's pretty alarming.

    "Even 10 years ago scientists assumed that when global warming changes occur that it would happen gradually so that perhaps we expected these ice shelves just to melt away quite slowly, but the big surprise is that for one they are going, but secondly that when they do go, they just go suddenly, it's all at once, in a span of an hour."

    Within days, the floating ice shelf had drifted a few miles (kilometers) offshore. It traveled west for 50 kilometers (31 miles) until it finally froze into the sea ice in the early winter.

    The Canadian ice shelves are packed with ancient ice that dates back over 3,000 years. They float on the sea but are connected to land.

    Derek Mueller, a polar researcher with Vincent's team, said the ice shelves get weaker and weaker as the temperature rises. He visited Ellesmere's Ward Hunt Ice Shelf in 2002 and noticed it had cracked in half.

    "We're losing our ice shelves, and this a feature of the landscape that is in danger of disappearing altogether from Canada," Mueller said. "In the global perspective Antarctica has many ice shelves bigger than this one, but then there is the idea that these are indicators of climate change."

    The spring thaw may bring another concern as the warming temperatures could release the ice shelf from its Arctic grip. Prevailing winds could then send the ice island southwards, deep into the Beaufort Sea.

    "Over the next few years this ice island could drift into populated shipping routes," Weir said. "There's significant oil and gas development in this region as well, so we'll have to keep monitoring its location over the next few years."

    CNN
     
    Stella

    Stella

    New Member
    Scientists say 2007 could be warmest year


    LONDON, Jan. 1 (UPI) -- A British climate expert said 2007 could be the hottest year ever recorded because of a combination of global warming and El Nino.

    Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia said the year could be warmer than the previous record-holder, 1998, The Independent reported.

    "El Nino makes the world warmer and we already have a warming trend that is increasing global temperatures by one- to two-tenths of a degrees Celsius per decade," he said. "Together, they should make 2007 warmer than last year and it may even make the next 12 months the warmest year on record."

    James Hansen -- a professor at Columbia University in New York and head of the NASA Institute of Space Studies -- agreed with Jones, the newspaper said. In an interview, he warned that climate change could become irreversible unless emissions of greenhouse gases are cut sharply soon.

    El Nino is a warming of the waters of the tropical Pacific which occurs every few years and has an effect on weather worldwide. The last El Nino event was in 1997 and 1998.

    UPI
     
    El

    El

    Well-Known Member
    Climate trumps terror in Europe​


    January 14, 2007 The Washington Times


    A European Commission proposal to slash greenhouse-gas emissions by the end of the next decade has highlighted a growing trans-Atlantic split over global warming that is further stressed by a recent poll that shows Europeans are more concerned about climate change than terrorism.
    In a major package of measures aimed at combatting global warming last week, the European Union's executive arm urged the bloc's 27 member states to unilaterally cut emissions of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, by one-fifth by 2020 compared with 1990 figures.

    It also called on the United States -- which has rejected mandatory curbs on emissions -- and developing countries such as China and India to join it in signing up to a 30 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by the same date.

    "Europe must lead the world into a new -- or maybe, one should say, post-industrial -- revolution: the development of a low-carbon economy," Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said while announcing the plan in Brussels on Wednesday.

    "We have already left behind our coal-based industrial past. It is time to embrace our low-carbon future," he said.

    The European Union is currently committed to cutting a basket of six greenhouse gases by 8 percent by 2010, compared with 1990 figures. However, recent data from the European Environment Agency shows this target is unlikely to be reached without additional measures.

    The commission says its new goal can be reached if member states improve energy efficiency, accept competition between national energy suppliers, agree to produce 20 percent of their energy from renewable sources such as wind and solar power by 2020 and ensure that 10 percent of gasoline consumed is made from biofuels by the same date.

    The commission's plan, which was slammed as "unambitious" by green groups and members of the European Parliament, underlines the radically different approaches to tackling climate change in Europe and the United States.

    A poll released by the France 24 TV channel on Jan. 5 showed global warming to be a greater planetary challenge than terrorism in four of the five European countries where the survey was conducted.

    In France, for example, 54 percent said the greatest challenge to the planet was global warming, compared with 26 percent who cited terrorism. By contrast, 49 percent of Americans cited terrorism as the biggest threat, while 30 percent mentioned climate change.

    Simon Tilford, an analyst at the London-based think tank Center for European Reform, said Americans and Europeans differed over climate change because "in Europe, global warming is accepted as a fact, whereas for a lot of people in the United States, the jury is still out."

    However, Mr. Tilford said, attitudes toward global warming were changing in the United States and "whoever wins the next presidential election will take a very different line to the current administration."



    tayyar.org link
     
    El

    El

    Well-Known Member
    Climate trumps terror in Europe​


    January 14, 2007 The Washington Times


    A European Commission proposal to slash greenhouse-gas emissions by the end of the next decade has highlighted a growing trans-Atlantic split over global warming that is further stressed by a recent poll that shows Europeans are more concerned about climate change than terrorism.
    In a major package of measures aimed at combatting global warming last week, the European Union's executive arm urged the bloc's 27 member states to unilaterally cut emissions of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, by one-fifth by 2020 compared with 1990 figures.

    It also called on the United States -- which has rejected mandatory curbs on emissions -- and developing countries such as China and India to join it in signing up to a 30 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by the same date.

    "Europe must lead the world into a new -- or maybe, one should say, post-industrial -- revolution: the development of a low-carbon economy," Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said while announcing the plan in Brussels on Wednesday.

    "We have already left behind our coal-based industrial past. It is time to embrace our low-carbon future," he said.

    The European Union is currently committed to cutting a basket of six greenhouse gases by 8 percent by 2010, compared with 1990 figures. However, recent data from the European Environment Agency shows this target is unlikely to be reached without additional measures.

    The commission says its new goal can be reached if member states improve energy efficiency, accept competition between national energy suppliers, agree to produce 20 percent of their energy from renewable sources such as wind and solar power by 2020 and ensure that 10 percent of gasoline consumed is made from biofuels by the same date.

    The commission's plan, which was slammed as "unambitious" by green groups and members of the European Parliament, underlines the radically different approaches to tackling climate change in Europe and the United States.

    A poll released by the France 24 TV channel on Jan. 5 showed global warming to be a greater planetary challenge than terrorism in four of the five European countries where the survey was conducted.

    In France, for example, 54 percent said the greatest challenge to the planet was global warming, compared with 26 percent who cited terrorism. By contrast, 49 percent of Americans cited terrorism as the biggest threat, while 30 percent mentioned climate change.

    Simon Tilford, an analyst at the London-based think tank Center for European Reform, said Americans and Europeans differed over climate change because "in Europe, global warming is accepted as a fact, whereas for a lot of people in the United States, the jury is still out."

    However, Mr. Tilford said, attitudes toward global warming were changing in the United States and "whoever wins the next presidential election will take a very different line to the current administration."



    tayyar.org link
     
    Kakou

    Kakou

    Well-Known Member
    Deux articles français dans un hebdo libanais autour du changement climatique!

    Dans un magazine francophone libanais sorti la semaine passée, un article a traité ce sujet et il a été suivi d'une interview avec un expert! Je vous poste les deux articles!!

    1-
    Bouleversements climatiques dans le monde
    2007, année record de chaleur


    Des quatre coins de la planète, proviennent des images étranges et inquiétantes: la mer accueille des baigneurs en hiver, les arbres fleurissent en décembre et en janvier et les ours cherchent à se nourrir dans les régions habitées. A tous ces bouleversements, une seule cause: la douceur printanière de l’hiver. Un peu partout dans le monde, les températures sont exceptionnellement élevées pour ce mois de l’année. Prélude d’un nouveau record de chaleur mondiale.

    Les chances sont grandes pour que cette année batte des records de chaleur. Selon les services météorologiques britanniques, il y a «60% de probabilité». Effectivement, l’Office météorologique britannique (Met) a prédit que 2007 serait l’année la plus chaude dans le monde, depuis que l’on dispose de données mondiales.
    Des estimations qui s’inscrivent dans l’évolution climatique de l’année 2006. Toujours selon le Met office, les températures en 2006 ont été suffisamment élevées pour se classer dans les dix années les plus chaudes. Selon plusieurs experts, organismes et organisations mondiales, l’année écoulée a été la 4e la plus chaude, depuis les années 1860, pour l’hémisphère nord et la plus chaude en Grande-Bretagne depuis 1659. Aux Etats-Unis, il s’agit de l’année la plus chaude depuis que l’on a commencé à établir des statistiques, il y a 112 ans. En France, ça a été la deuxième après 2003. Cette année-là, selon les estimations, l’Hexagone a enregistré 15000 décès supplémentaires, à cause d’une vague de chaleur qui a causé la mort d’environ 35000 personnes en Europe.

    Etranges anachronismes
    L’année la plus chaude enregistrée jusqu’à présent est 1998, quand la température moyenne sur la planète avait dépassé de 0,52°C la moyenne à long terme de 14°C. Cette année, on s’attend à une moyenne mondiale de 14,54°C, détrônant de peu l’année 1998. En effet, les températures oscillent dans le monde, rivalisant de douceur en hiver. Du fait de cette chaleur hivernale, des phénomènes anormaux et étranges se produisent un peu partout dans le monde.
    Pour la première fois de mémoire d’homme, Montréal a été privé de neige à Noël. L’Espagne a connu, ces derniers jours, des températures de près de 20°C. Les nageurs, eux, en profitent, pour plonger dans une Méditerranée habituellement trop froide à cette époque. Les cerisiers ont commencé à fleurir dès le mois de décembre, alors que, ordinairement, ils bourgeonnent en mars et avril.
    La Russie, connue pour ses hivers rigoureux, est, elle aussi, victime des températures les plus élevées, enregistrées depuis 1877. Ces températures automnales, voire printanières, ont poussé des ours blancs à chercher leur nourriture près des humains dans le nord de l’Extrême-Orient russe. En cause, une glace trop fragile sur la côte arctique, les empêchant de pêcher. En Suède, aussi, des ours bruns sont devenus insomniaques, puisque leur hibernation a été retardée de deux mois, dans l’attente de la neige. Et dans les rares régions enneigées du Grand Nord, la neige, trop humide, menace des milliers de rennes de famine, puisqu’elle s’est transformée en plaques impossibles à briser.
    Dans plusieurs zoos, en Russie comme en Allemagne, des animaux s’accouplent comme si le printemps était déjà arrivé. Ce qui risque de perturber leurs rythmes biologiques, puis de menacer, au printemps, leur cycle de reproduction.
    Le rythme des migrations est également embrouillé: selon la Ligue pour la Protection des oiseaux, les oiseaux migrateurs ont tendance à retarder, de plus en plus, leur départ. Au fait, la LPO redoute les effets du réchauffement sur l’habitat de milliers d’espèces d’oiseaux. En 2004, une étude scientifique, publiée dans la revue Nature, avait tiré la sonnette d’alarme: le réchauffement climatique pourrait entraîner la disparition de 15 à 37% des espèces animales et végétales.
    En fait, deux facteurs contribuent à la possibilité que 2007 soit l’année la plus chaude. D’abord, ce que l’on appelle le phénomène El Nino et, ensuite, le réchauffement climatique. Tous les trois ou sept ans, El Nino entraîne une hausse des températures dans le monde. Ce phénomène climatique se produit, quand les eaux du centre et de l’est du Pacifique se réchauffent de façon importante, modifiant le cycle des échanges de chaleur et d’humidité entre l’océan et l’atmosphère. Selon Jean-Pierre Céron, directeur-adjoint de la climatologie à Météo France, El Nino est installé sur le Pacifique est, depuis la fin de l’été, et cela devrait durer jusqu’à la fin du premier trimestre.

    Un réchauffement climatique menaçant
    Au-delà du réchauffement global qu’il provoque, El Nino peut, toutefois, dans certaines parties du monde, mener à un climat plus doux. C’est ainsi que le nord-est des Etats-Unis devrait connaître moins d’ouragans cette année. Mais, en revanche, ce phénomène peut augmenter la gravité des catastrophes climatiques, comme les typhons aux Philippines, la sécheresse dans le sud de l’Afrique et en Australie. En 1998, l’année mondiale la plus chaude jusqu’à présent, El Nino avait provoqué typhons, inondations et sécheresse, tuant plus de 24000 personnes.
    Mais le phénomène El Nino ne suffit pas à expliquer le profond bouleversement climatique que subit la planète. Plusieurs experts s’accordent à dire que le réchauffement climatique, dû aux rejets de gaz à effet de serre par les activités humaines, est, en partie, responsable des perturbations de température aux quatre coins du monde. Selon Phil Jones, directeur de l’Unité de Recherche climatique à l’université d’East Anglia, «El Nino n’est pas aussi puissant qu’en 1998, mais la combinaison de ce phénomène avec l’augmentation constante des températures due au réchauffement climatique pourraient suffire pour battre le record». Michel Schneider, ingénieur de Météo France, lui, estime que l’actuel épisode de tiédeur hivernale est «cohérent avec les effets attendus des rejets de gaz à effet de serre et accrédite la thèse du réchauffement climatique». Autre constatation, celle de Jürg Luterbacher, climatologue de l’Université de Berne, en Suisse. A l’AFP, il a affirmé que, «sur les 30 dernières années, les températures de l’hiver ont globalement augmenté d’une façon anormale par rapport au passé, sans qu’on puisse l’expliquer par les seuls phénomènes solaires ou volcaniques».
    Une hypothèse qui est soutenue par le Programme des Nations unis pour l’environnement. Le PNUE estime que 11 des années les plus chaudes sur les 125 dernières années ont été enregistrées depuis 1990. Depuis l’époque préindustrielle, la Terre s’est ainsi réchauffée d’environ 0,75°C. Le PNUE pointe du doigt la principale cause de ce réchauffement: les émissions de gaz à effet de serre, notamment le dioxyde de carbone, le CO2. Le réchauffement au cours du XXIe siècle devrait, selon les prévisions, être compris entre 1,4 et 5,8°C, ce qui pourrait avoir plusieurs conséquences néfastes, comme un allongement des saisons de végétation et des modifications des aires de répartition des plantes et des animaux. Le réchauffement planétaire, s’il durait, pourrait aussi provoquer des modifications de l’étendue géographique et du caractère saisonnier de certaines maladies infectieuses, à l’instar du paludisme, de la dengue et la salmonellose. Le PNUE estime, donc, que les impacts négatifs du changement climatique sur la santé dépasseront largement ses effets positifs. Preuve en est: récemment, le journal britannique The Sunday Times a publié un cri d’alarme de certains scientifiques: des maladies tropicales, comme la malaria, vont arriver en Europe, notamment en Italie. Parallèlement, il y a une recrudescence du nombre de méningites. Seuls 18 cas avaient été enregistrés jusqu’en 1993. Depuis, ce nombre est passé à près de 100, surtout dans la région de Venise.
    Il est donc temps de tirer la sonnette d’alarme et de réagir. Plusieurs mouvements écologistes soutiennent que la nécessité de contrôler les gaz à effet de serre est devenue encore plus urgente.

    Un plan international de lutte contre le réchauffement
    La Commission européenne a placé, la semaine dernière, la lutte contre le réchauffement climatique au centre de sa stratégie énergétique. L’Union européenne est responsable de 14% des émissions de gaz a effet de serre. Aussi s’engage-t-elle unilatéralement à réduire d’au moins 20% ses émissions polluantes, en 2020, par rapport à 1990, et irait jusqu’à 30%, si les autres pays industrialisés la suivent. Ces propositions seront étudiées à la mi-mars par les chefs d’Etats et de gouvernements de l’UE, réunis à Bruxelles. Principal objectif: inciter les Etats-Unis, deuxièmes producteurs de CO2 de la planète après la Chine, à suivre l’exemple européen.


    2-

    Le réchauffement climatique
    Le pays du Cèdre risque de perdre son symbole


    Les cèdres du Liban sont menacés d’extinction, à long terme. Ce sera l’une des conséquences du réchauffement climatique, de la mauvaise gérance des autorités concernées et du désintérêt de la société civile. Mohammad Khawli, chef du département de Recherche au CNRSL, fait le point sur les conditions environnementales au Liban.


    Le Liban, comme d’autres pays, contribue au réchauffement climatique, mais de manière plutôt faible. Et comme les autres pays, il est aussi victime de ce réchauffement. Le Conseil national de la recherche scientifique libanais (CNRSL) a effectué plusieurs études sur l’impact de ce phénomène au Liban. Mohammad Khawli, chef du département de Recherche au CNRSL, explique que «le Liban, au sein du Moyen-Orient et dans sa situation géographique, subit les changements climatiques, dans l’immédiat et à long terme. Et les régions qui subissent une détérioration environnementale, soit une désertification, soit une détérioration, sont le résultat des phénomènes naturels et de l’activité humaine». Simple exemple des conséquences du réchauffement: au Liban, il n’y a pas de régions désertiques, mais des régions semi-désertiques, comme le Kaa, dans la Békaa. Toutefois, avec le réchauffement climatique, cette région est appelée à devenir désertique et à s’élargir, et une augmentation des régions semi-désertiques sera également notée.

    Les nuances du quotidien
    Bien plus proche du quotidien beyrouthin, une évolution climatique immédiatement perceptible: les variations de température. «Au cours des 20 dernières années, la différence de température entre le jour et la nuit devient l’équivalent d’un climat saharien», explique Mohammad Khawli. En fait, le Liban est situé entre deux tendances climatiques: l’une chaude et saharienne qui vient du sud et de l’est, et l’autre moyenne et humide qui vient du nord et de l’ouest. Or la tendance actuelle est au réchauffement, donc à la prédominance du climat saharien. «Notre taux de pluviométrie, par exemple, est équivalent à celui qu’il y a en Allemagne. Mais chez eux, la pluie s’étend sur plusieurs mois et graduellement, permettant à la terre d’absorber cette eau. Mais le Liban est, de plus en plus souvent, victime de périodes où la chute de pluie est ininterrompue et dense, ruinant tout sur son passage».
    Autres menaces: sur la faune, la flore, la vie marine et la côte. Certaines espèces, comme les lézards ou les serpents et même les oliviers, sont menacées. Ces espèces sont soit appelées à s’adapter, soit à muter, soit à être transférées dans d’autres régions plus élevées. Autre conséquence: le manque d’eau se fait sentir à tous les niveaux, autant dans le secteur avicole que de l’agriculture et même l’eau potable… «Des aspects critiques, importants pour le pays, notamment au niveau touristique, et auxquels il faut irrémédiablement remédier». Raison pour laquelle, Mohammad Khawli insiste sur les efforts à entreprendre pour préserver les ports touristiques et les mers libanaises, «qui sont également menacés par l’augmentation du niveau de l’eau et l’érosion». Il donne comme exemple, l’Ile des palmiers: une région qui figure sur la liste des Nations unies, des sites d’héritage mondiaux. Chaque année, une espèce rare de tortues vient de la Méditerranée pour y pondre ses œufs et, par conséquent, pourrait s’éteindre.
    Deux autres sites sont également menacés: la vallée de Kadicha et la forêt de Bécharré. «Il est très difficile pour les cèdres libanais de s’adapter au réchauffement climatique rapide. Et dans certaines grottes, les fresques, vestiges de la civilisation chrétienne, risquent de se détériorer par l’augmentation de l’humidité».
    Et d’ajouter que, mondialement, «il y a une véritable peur de l’extinction des espèces et de l’impact du réchauffement sur les humains et leur manière de vie». Le processus est déjà enclenché et progresse de manière incroyablement rapide. Mais si d’autres pays sont de plus en plus conscients de la nécessité de réagir dès maintenant, M. Khawli déplore le désintérêt des Libanais: autant au niveau des responsables que de la société civile.


    Discussions à Beyrouth sur le réchauffement climatique

    Du 5 au 9 février, au Centre culturel français, se tiendra, dans le cadre des Rendez-vous du Savoir, une série de conférences sur la biodiversité élargie aux grandes problématiques de l’environnement et des changements climatiques. Durant cet événement, organisé par l’ambassade de France au Liban en collaboration avec le CNRSL, quatre thèmes seront abordés: Face au réchauffement climatique: pour une écologie du XXIe siècle, La biodiversité végétale au Liban, La protection de la biodiversité en milieu urbain: l’exemple du palais de Baabda et du Bois des pins et L’impact de la marée noire sur l’écosystème marin au Liban.
     
    Stella

    Stella

    New Member
    There is absolutely no proof, not a shred of evidence that the current climate change is somehow connected with human activity. There is more than enough proof that pollution and environmental disasters are bad for our health, food sources etc.

    Somehow you've already decided that there is enough proof for global warming and the current climate change to connect it to human activity. The current climate change is certainly tangible, but there has been countless of climate changes in earth's history, more dramatic than this one. So, where is the hard evidence that relates this climate change to human activity, rather than a natural process??? This is a theory, and you're treating as a fact.

    "Indeed, it’s warmer today around the world than at any time during the past 1000 years..." Do you realize that 1000 years is but a drop in the bucket when you consider the age of the earth, and how many climate changes have taken place. So, now because some environmentalist decided to come up with a theory claiming this climate change is human-made, we're suppose to believe it, no questions asked. For every scientist that buys into this theory, there is another one that dismisses it entirely.

    Global warming real, likely to get worse, scientists say
    POSTED: 11:36 a.m. EST, February 2, 2007

    PARIS, France (AP) -- Global warming caused by human activity is real and will continue for hundreds of years, a panel of some of the world's top climate scientists said Friday.

    Officially releasing a 21-page report in Paris on the hows and the what of global warming -- though not telling the world what to do about it -- the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change gave a bleak observation of what is happening now and an even more dire prediction for the future.

    "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level," the report said.

    The head of the panel, Indian climatologist Rajendra Pachauri, called it a "very impressive document that goes several steps beyond previous research."

    A senior U.S. government scientist, Susan Solomon, said as the report was released, "There can be no question that the increase in greenhouse gases are dominated by human activities."

    The report said man-made emissions of greenhouse gases can be blamed for these problems: fewer cold days, hotter nights, killer heat waves, floods and heavy rains, devastating droughts, and an increase in hurricane and tropical storm strength (particularly in the Atlantic Ocean).

    And if you think it is bad now, the harmful effects during the 21st century "would very likely be larger than those observed during the 20th century," the report said.

    The panel predicted temperature rises of 1.1 to 6.4 C (2-11.5 F) by 2100. That was a wider range than in the 2001 report. However, the panel also said its best estimate was for temperature rises of 1.8 to 4 C (3.2-7.1 F).

    On sea levels, the report projects rises of 7 to 23 inches (18 to 58 centimeters) by the end of the century. An additional 3.9 to 7.8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters) are possible if recent, surprising melting of polar ice sheets continues.

    And the report said no matter how much civilization slows or reduces its greenhouse gas emissions, global warming and sea level rise will continue on for centuries.

    "This is just not something you can stop. We're just going to have to live with it," co-author Kevin Trenberth, director of climate analysis for the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, said in an interview. "We're creating a different planet. If you were to come up back in 100 years time, we'll have a different climate."

    A colleague from the center, Gerry Miehl, warned that continued global warming could eventually lead to an "ice-free Arctic."

    Scientists do worry that world leaders will take that message in the wrong way and throw up their hands, Trenberth said. That would be wrong, he said. Instead, the scientists urged leaders to reduce emissions and also adapt to a warmer world with wilder weather.

    "The point here is to highlight what will happen if we don't do something and what will happen if we do something," co-author Jonathan Overpeck at University of Arizona said. "I can tell if you will decide not to do something the impacts will be much larger than if we do something."

    "You make a difference on hundred of years time frame, but this is the future of the planet," Trenberth told The Associated Press. "We have to adapt to it."

    Trenberth said the world is paying more attention to scientists now than in previous warnings in 1990, 1995 and 2001. "The tension is more now," he said.

    The head of the U.S. delegation, White House associate science adviser Sharon Hays, called the panel's summary "a significant report. It will be valuable to policy makers."

    CNN
     
    Inanna

    Inanna

    Well-Known Member
    i saw 2 days ago an "inconvenient truth", a movie/documentary by Al Gore, put his political ambitions aside, this movie is really the "scariest movie ever" like it's written on the boards, it reveals what the earth would be like in 50-80-100 years!
    we're heading towards a disaster! we should stop all this pollution, be aware of our critical situation and what we will be leaving for our kids!
     
    Stella

    Stella

    New Member

    Polar bears on chunks of glacial ice in the Bering Sea in 2004. Much higher temperatures are forecast for the Arctic, climate scientists say.

    NY Times
     
    Stella

    Stella

    New Member
    Global warming happens: but is it "catastrophic"?
    Wed Apr 4, 2007 8:39AM EDT



    A mass of ice broken off the Upsala glacier floats on the waters of Lago Argentino in the Parque Nacional Los Glaciares, in the Patagonian province of Santa Cruz, March 27, 2007. Likely headlines predicting a global warming "catastrophe", "disaster" or "cataclysm" after a U.N. report due on Friday risk sapping public willingness to act by making the problem seem too big to tackle, some experts say. REUTERS/Enrique Marcarian​


    By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent

    OSLO (Reuters) - Likely headlines predicting a global warming "catastrophe", "disaster" or "cataclysm" after a U.N. report due on Friday risk sapping public willingness to act by making the problem seem too big to tackle, some experts say.

    The world's leading climate scientists, meeting in Brussels, are set to warn of more hunger in Africa, rising seas, species extinctions and a melting of Himalayan glaciers in the April 6 report about the regional impacts of climate change.

    But the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), grouping 2,500 scientists, does not use words to sum up the forecasts -- unlike some politicians or headline writers who describe it as a "crisis", "terrifying" or "Armageddon".

    "I'm a bit preoccupied that the media, having contributed to every day making another doomsday news headline, then in six weeks time will declare it hysteria and move on," said Achim Steiner, head of the U.N. Environment Program.

    Still, Steiner said it was clearly right to use words like "catastrophe" to describe effects such as a projected rise in sea levels in coming centuries that could swamp Pacific island states or cities from Shanghai to Buenos Aires.

    "It is legitimate to use those words in specific scenarios," he told Reuters. "But does that mean that the whole climate change debate should be about doom and gloom? No, because we are finding that we can do something about it."

    Mike Hulme, head of the British Tyndall research Centre, said headlines in the British media after a previous U.N. report in February, giving an overview of global warming science, used adjectives such as "shocking", "terrifying" or "devastating".

    PARALYSIS

    "Such appeals often lead to denial, paralysis, apathy and even perverse reactive behavior," he wrote in a letter to the journal Nature. He said U.S. media used less startling language.

    "Campaigners, media and some scientists seem to be appealing to fear in order to generate a sense of urgency," he wrote. "If they want to engage the public in responding to climate change, this is unreliable at best and counter-productive at worst."

    And skeptics, meanwhile, say strong words exaggerate dangers. U.S. Republican Senator James Inhofe in 2003 called the threat of "catastrophic global warming ... the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people".


    U.N. officials say the IPCC wants to avoid allegations of scaremongering in its reports that link greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels to warming. That means many people need a dictionary to read IPCC reports.

    The IPCC's main conclusion in its February report was that it was more than 90 percent probable that mankind was to blame for most global warming since 1950.

    It wrote: "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." Anthropogenic means caused by humans.

    Some U.N. agencies use clearer language.

    "The matter is serious," according to the U.N.'s Climate Change Secretariat in Bonn. "Predictions of future climate impacts show that the consequences could vary from disruptive to catastrophic."


    Reuters
     
    Top