Updating the Science of Global Warming: A Q&A with Marine Biologist Katherine Richardson: Scientific American
Note this helpful illustration:
When the world's governments gather in December 2009 in Copenhagen to negotiate a treaty to restrain global greenhouse gas emissions, the science on which they base their decision could be as much as four years out of date. The United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) offered its synthesis of existing research in February 2007 and it was based on studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals only through 2005.
Stepping into that gap—at the request of the Danish government—will be the International Scientific Congress on Climate Change, a collection of the world's top scientists and economists set to meet in Copenhagen in March 2009 to deliver an updated state of the science on global warming. The prognosis is grim: Emissions throughout the world, both in countries pledged to restrain such pollution and those that have ignored or sidestepped the issue, continue to grow, and impacts can be felt from the Arctic and Antarctic to the Amazon.
...
[Richardson]...this meeting is coming in the middle of an IPCC period. The IPCC report is absolutely crucial for starting negotiations. That has been accepted by everyone so you don't need to argue whether it's right or wrong. It's based on consensus.
Note this helpful illustration:
Posts
1 comment:
CO2 and pollution are different. A carbon life form cannot exhale CO2 pollution. Letting the two get commingled and confused in the publics eye is a huge mistake.
CO2 is the stuff of life, take it away and all life on planet Earth will die. I assume that is the goal, no CO2 in the atmosphere -- Dead planet. If not, what level of CO2 are we to try and achieve. Ahh, there is the rub is it not.
Post a Comment