Greenpeace: Stop Global Warming or NY Submerges (Same Old, Same Old from the "Watermelon" Crowd)

Yahoo! News - Science (Reuters) ^ | 10/27/02 | Sugita Katyal

[Pyro7480]

Greenpeace: Stop Global Warming or NY Submerges

Sun Oct 27, 1:08 PM ET

By Sugita Katyal

NEW DELHI (Reuters) - By the year 2080, Manhattan and Shanghai could be underwater, droughts and floods could become more extreme and hundreds of millions of people will be at risk from disease, starvation and water shortages.

That is the picture that a Greenpeace senior official painted of the future if the world failed to take urgent steps to curb greenhouse gas emissions and limit global warming (news - web sites).

"We're talking of about the submergence of islands, submergence of Shanghai, the submergence of Bombay, the submergence of New York City," Greenpeace climate policy director Steve Sawyer told Reuters late on Friday.

"Manhattan would be under water."

Sawyer, who is in New Delhi for a 10-day annual U.N. climate change conference, said global warming would lead to the melting of the Greenland ice sheet, which in turn would cause a five to seven meter (16 to 23 ft) sea-level rise and the inundation of coastal regions.

"Most coastal cities would be uninhabitable in their present forms...and that's a catastrophic change of the shape of continents."

Some environmentalists have said that recent climate disasters around the world -- from droughts in India, Australia and the United States to floods in Europe -- have been graphic harbingers of some of the expected consequences of global warming.

The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has predicted that by 2100 global average surface temperature will be 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius higher than it was in 1990.

Sawyer said an increase in temperatures would lead to more extreme droughts and a rise in frequency and intensity of tropical cyclones.

"What these temperature changes are going to do to the hydrological cycle, particularly in the tropics, is not a very pretty picture," he said.

Between 2050 and 2080, tens of millions of people would be more at risk of malaria, coastal flooding and starvation and hundreds of millions of people would be at risk from water shortages, he said.

Delegates from 185 countries are attending the climate conference, which is likely to be the last major climate meeting before the 1997 Kyoto Protocol (news - web sites) is expected to come into force early next year.

The Kyoto Protocol aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the developed world by 2012 to 5.2 percent below 1990 levels.

But the United States, the world's biggest air polluter, has refused to ratify the treaty, which it sees as flawed because it does not bind developing countries. It also says it would hurt the U.S. economy.

The Earth Summit in Johannesburg earlier this year was widely criticized by environmentalists and vulnerable Pacific nations for barely touching on the problem of global warming. The United States was singled out for criticism.

[Pyro7480]

Should we expect anything original from these clowns? They've been repeating this mantra for years. The fools at Yahoo! News had this as their lead article under "Science." This is junk science. Yes, the world has been warming since 10-12 thousand years ago, but there were no industrial action by humans in this time, so how do the enviro-nuts answer this? They can't. Natural forces such as methane emissions from biological and geological sources are probably at work here. The other major fact is that we don't have enough data to draw the "global warming" conclusion the greenies make. This is more stupidity from the anti-progress Left.

[Jason Kauppinen]

Wasn't there a Viking colony on Greenland that was wiped out due to a shift to a colder climate?

As far as this article goes....78 year projections. I guess it's _really_ urgent then isn't it? (/sarcasm)

[CounterCounterCulture]

More comments here...
Stop global warming or NY submerges--Greenpeace

(glub, glub)

[Larry Lucido]

By the year 2080, Manhattan and Shanghai could be underwater

All the more reason to rebuild the WTC even taller this time.

[Ditter]

Last year while we were in New Zealand, we visited the Fox Glacier. Not a very impressive sight when viewed from the ground. We had planned on a helicopter ride over it but the weather turned off bad. Anyway......... as you go up the road to the glacier you pass a sign....... The Fox glacier was >HERE< in 1750....... then you pass another sign about 1/4 mile up the road..... the Fox glacier was >HERE< in 1850.............. Wait a minute!..... what caused the glacier to melt between 1750 & 1850?????? Could it have been natural causes & not man? Maybe.

[Vidalia]

By the year 2080:

1 - Manhattan and Shanghai could be underwater,
2 - droughts and floods could become more extreme
3 - and hundreds of millions of people will be at risk from disease, starvation and water shortages.

Speaking with other associates who have done business in both cities mentioned in # 1, Most will vote for that.

As far as #2 is concerned, isn't the word "could" a dead issue, since we all could wake up tomorrow and "could see a green sky with 6 moons"? The premise is dead on its face.

To #3, the world is constantly at risk from disease, starvation and water shortages, and without the technology and applied sciences that have originated from the U.S. universities, the world's population would be much smaller (which might not be such a bad idea).

But these same asses who may have been saved from the scourges of disease and war, thanks to US technology, continue to belittle and attack us as a country.

How farking odd... let them die...

[Liberal Bob]

Yeap you can read the same thing from the crowd at

envirowacko.com

[Common Tator]

By the year 2080, Manhattan and Shanghai could be underwater

That is obviously the up side of global warming... What is the down side?

[Wissa]

...we all could wake up tomorrow and "could see a green sky with 6 moons"...

Kewl! I'm gonna set my alarm to go off early tomorrow so I can check it out!

[Glutton]

index bump

[Lessismore]

"Manhattan would be under water."

There are many parts of Manhattan that are more than 7 meters above sea level, so Manhattan would not be under water. A 7 meter sea rise would vastly improve the Port of New York. The East River would be navigable by ships. Navigation in Port Newark would be much improved and the largest tankers, container ships and bulk carriers could now use the port.

[Fzob]

By the year 2080, Manhattan and Shanghai could be underwater, droughts and floods could become more extreme and hundreds of millions of people will be at risk from disease, starvation and water shortages.

Boy am glad I'll be dead.

[Always Right]

"By the year 2080, Manhattan and Shanghai could be underwater"

New York under water by 2080.....something must be done! The process must be sped up!

[Clemenza]

Everywhere I go in Manhattan, I am confronted with these pasty-faced fools with sh-t eating grins and a clipboard asking me if I have "a minute for Greenpeace."

[Bigun]

Should we expect anything original from these clowns? They've been repeating this mantra for years.

No we shouldn't expect anything new from them and furthermore taking pitty on them and telling them that this BS has been COMPLETELY discredited wouldn't change that one iota!

[finnman69]

Yahoo...beachfront property...right ON Park Avenue! Love it.

[Maelstrom]

They certainly do know how to encourage us to actually try to create global warming.

Too bad Mankind is not able to impact the global climate significantly as we have been blamed.

[Vidalia]

They haven't a clue about Pinatubo or any of the rest of Volcanic activity that, according to their dolphinic mentalitic excursions, should have killed all of us and wiped out all living creatures many centuries ago.

The Wizard of Oz is a great movie, but living in the land of Odditic Knowledge is rather futile.

There is a reason why the vast majority of all planetary occupants don't give a short snot about the lies and falsehoods from the environmental looneys.

David Horowitz and many others have exposed their lies, but who has been awarded the Pieced Together Nobel Prizetation?

All the above misspelled on purpose and for approval from "those who know why"...

[ancient_geezer]

The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has predicted that by 2100 global average surface temperature will be 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius higher than it was in 1990.

 

The IPCC postulates a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration over current levels across a century, as a "story line", pretended as a scenario which, even if true, could not induce the temperature change attributed to it.

The so called prediction is a scenario tested, not one "predicted" by the IPCC or anyone other than the furtile imaginations of envirowhakos.

Climatic temperature change generally gives rise to changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration through increase of biomass, warming of the ocean & release of CO2 from solution and methane from hydrate precipitates with rising temperatures from variation in solar irradiation.

Climatic temperature is predominantly a consequence of Solar heating/cooling arising from change of solar radiance, plus astronomical & geophysical events affecting surface & atmospheric albedo.

A Lukewarm Greenhouse

Climate Catastrophe, A spectroscopic Artifact?

CO2-Temperature Correlations

A Picture Worth 10,000 Words

Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse

 

---

Global Warming Score Card

A Look at Environmental Changes and "Global Warming"

---

The Bottom Line:

 

Globally Averaged Atmospheric Temperatures
(NASA)

This chart shows the monthly temperature changes for the lower troposphere - Earth's atmosphere from the surface to 8 km, or 5 miles up. The temperature in this region is more strongly influenced by oceanic activity, particularly the "El Niño" and "La Niña" phenomena, which originate as changes in oceanic and atmospheric circulations in the tropical Pacific Ocean. The overall trend in the tropospheric data is near zero, being +0.04 C/decade through Feb 2002.