what do you think that means "significant disruptions"? and when it says we "must" reduce emission, what does the mean? we must? or else what?
Why guess? Here is the whole statement so that you can see it in context. It is less than 13 pages, so your attention span should not be an issue. Remember these are physicists, not climatologists, so they are thinking in terms of physics. " . . . without mitigating actions significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and health are likely. Such predicted disruptions are based on direct measurements (e.g., ocean acidification, rising sea levels, etc.), on the study of past climate change phenomena, and on climate models. Climate models calculate the effects of natural and anthropogenic changes on the ecosphere, such as doubling of the CO2-equivalent concentration relative to its pre-industrial value by the year 2100." I can't answer for someone else's writing. What the statement says is . . . "Thus given the significant risks associated with global climate change, prudent steps should be taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions now while continuing to improve the observational data and the model predictions."
i was actually referring to this part, i should have been more specific: significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health" i am curious about the damage to humans, not the "damage" to the earth, which doesnt really get "damaged" because it has no state at which a change from should be considered inherently worse. i only care about disruption to the earth inasmuch as if affects humans. otherwise we may as well be talking about storms on jupiter. you said you agreed, i was asking for your opinion. risks to humans, right? what sort of risks? death? how much death? lots of things cause death. will climate change kill more than the flu? aids? malaria? poverty?
It's relevant in terms of some things are in our power and some are not. Reciting the Serenity Prayer would help just as much as reducing emissions, (relative to the earth's future not pollution or environmental concerns).
Sad, but probably true, prayer might be our best hope. Investigate the importance, and study the consequences of altering thermohaline circulation. In the earths past minor alterations have resulted in mini-ice ages of 5,000 years or so. Major disruptions have occured, As when plate techtonics closed the deep current's path through the isthmus of central america. The earth turned into an ice ball for hundreds of thousands of years, and it wasn't the only time. I've heard that the deep current cycles every 1800 years, and it takes several cycles to regain it's equilibrium. Untill the balance is restored the weather becomes increasingly "unusual" and violent. It's not even important how it became altered, if it has we're f*cked. There is a lot of evidence, a ton of evidence that suggests changes. Doubtfull, anyone alive will see any major obvious differences, the consequences are down the road. Doesn't matter if people bury their heads in the sand.
Earth is gonna do what it's gonna do. What humans do is of no import. Our little fires and smokestacks are drops in the ocean. Enjoy life and quit worrying about things you cannot control. If the dinosaurs had gotten together and all agreed to stop farting, they would stil be extinct.
