|
Global Climate Change
Courtesy of the Rocky Mountain News
Nov 17, 11:11 PM EST
UN panel gives dire warming forecast
By ARTHUR MAX
Associated Press Writer
VALENCIA, Spain (AP) -- Global warming is "unequivocal" and carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere commits the world to an eventual rise in sea levels of up to 4.6 feet, the world's top climate experts warned Saturday in their most authoritative report to date.
"Only urgent, global action will do," said U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, calling on the United States and China - the world's two biggest polluters - to do more to slow global climate change.
"I look forward to seeing the U.S. and China playing a more constructive role," Ban told reporters. "Both countries can lead in their own way."
Ban, however, advised against assigning blame.
Climate change imperils "the most precious treasures of our planet," he said, and the effects are "so severe and so sweeping that only urgent global action will do. We are all in this together. We must work together."
According to the U.N. panel of scientists, whose latest report is a synthesis of three previous ones, enough carbon dioxide already has built up that it imperils islands, coastlines and a fifth to two-thirds of the world's species.
As early as 2020, 75 million to 250 million people in Africa will suffer water shortages, residents of Asia's large cities will be at great risk of river and coastal flooding, according to the report.
Europeans can expect extensive species loss, and North Americans will experience longer and hotter heat waves and greater competition for water, says the report from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which shared the Nobel Prize with Al Gore this year.
The panel portrays the Earth hurtling toward a warmer climate at a quickening pace and warns of inevitable human suffering. It says emissions of carbon, mainly from fossil fuels, must stabilize by 2015 and go down after that.
In the best-case scenario, temperatures will keep rising from carbon already in the atmosphere, the report said. Even if factories were shut down today and cars taken off the roads, the average sea level will gradually rise over the next 1,000 years to reach as high as 4.6 feet above that in the preindustrial period, or about 1850.
"We have already committed the world to sea level rise," the panel's chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, said. But if the Greenland ice sheet melts, the scientists said, they could not predict by how many feet the seas will rise, drowning coastal cities.
Climate change is here, they said, as witnessed by melting snow and glaciers, higher average temperatures and rising sea levels. If unchecked, global warming will spread hunger and disease, put further stress on water resources, cause fiercer storms and more frequent droughts, and could drive up to 70 percent of plant and animal species to extinction, according to the panel's report.
The report was adopted after five days of sometimes tense negotiations among 140 national delegations. It lays out blueprints for avoiding the worst catastrophes - and various possible outcomes, depending on how quickly and decisively action is taken.
"The world's scientists have spoken clearly and with one voice," Ban said, looking ahead to an important climate conference in Bali, Indonesia, next month. "I expect the world's policy makers to do the same."
The report is intended to both set the stage and serve as a guide for the conference, at which world leaders will begin discussing a global climate change treaty to succeed the1997 Kyoto Protocol.
That treaty, which expires in 2012, required industrial nations to reduce greenhouse gases and a smooth transition to a new treaty is needed to avoid upsetting the fledgling carbon markets.
"This report will have an incredible political impact," Yvo de Boer, the U.N.'s top climate change official, told The Associated Press. "It's a signal that politicians cannot afford to ignore."
The United States opted out of Kyoto in 2001, arguing that the science was unproven and that the burden of mandatory emission cuts was unfair since it excluded fast-growing China and India.
Chief U.S. delegate Sharon Hays said doubts have been dispelled. "What's changed since 2001 is the scientific certainty that this is happening," she said in a conference call late Friday. She did not indicate that Washington would abandon its policy of voluntary emission cuts.
China and India have said any measures impinging on their development and efforts to lift their people from poverty were unacceptable - a point likely to be heeded at the Bali talks.
The report offered dozens of measures for avoiding the worst catastrophes if taken together - at a cost of less than 0.12 percent of the global economy annually until 2050. They ranged from switching to nuclear and gas-fired power stations, developing hybrid cars, using more efficient electrical appliances and managing cropland to store more carbon.
Ban said a new agreement should provide funding to help poor countries develop clean energy resources, adapt to climate conditions and give them the technology to help themselves.
He said he witnessed the devastation of climate change in disappearing glaciers of Antarctica, the deforested Amazon and under the ozone hole in Chile.
"These scenes are as frightening as a science fiction movie," said Ban. "But they are even more terrifying because they are real."
BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes*
Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.
The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].
IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].
Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).
The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.
This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.
The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.
Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.
References and Notes
1. A. C. Revkin, K. Q. Seelye, New York Times, 19 June 2003, A1.
2. S. van den Hove, M. Le Menestrel, H.-C. de Bettignies, Climate Policy 2 (1), 3 (2003).
3. See www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm.
4. J. J. McCarthy et al., Eds., Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001).
5. National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate Change, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001).
6. American Meteorological Society, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 508 (2003).
7. American Geophysical Union, Eos 84 (51), 574 (2003).
8. See www.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.html.
9. The first year for which the database consistently published abstracts was 1993. Some abstracts were deleted from our analysis because, although the authors had put "climate change" in their key words, the paper was not about climate change.
10. This essay is excerpted from the 2004 George Sarton Memorial Lecture, "Consensus in science: How do we know we're not wrong," presented at the AAAS meeting on 13 February 2004. I am grateful to AAAS and the History of Science Society for their support of this lectureship; to my research assistants S. Luis and G. Law; and to D. C. Agnew, K. Belitz, J. R. Fleming, M. T. Greene, H. Leifert, and R. C. J. Somerville for helpful discussions.
10.1126/science.1103618
The author is in the Department of History and Science Studies Program, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA. E-mail: noreskes@ucsd.edu
Click Here for IPCC Climate Change 2007 Summary for Policymakers document
Myths About Climate Change
Highway Expansion - Creating Tomorrows Problems Today
“The overwhelming majority of scientific experts, while recognizing that scientific uncertainties exist, nonetheless believe that human-induced climate change is already occurring.” (Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2001.)
The 2006 Colorado College State of the Rockies Report Card, released in April 2006, cites a climate-trend model that shows that snow pack levels in Colorado could decline by as much as 82 percent in San Miguel County; 57 percent in Eagle County; 54 percent in Grand County; 50 percent in Summit, Routt and Gunnison counties; and 43 percent in Pitkin County by 2085 if the current global warming trend is not reversed. This would create such a short ski season, that ski areas couldn’t stay open long enough each year to be profitable.
It is ironic that CDOT leadership through the I-70 PEIS, along with the big Ski Corporations in Colorado are pushing for additional I-70 highway capacity over more energy efficient and lower greenhouse gas emitting electric mass transit alternatives that could help reverse the current global warming trend and protect Colorado's tourism economy. CDOT's motto, "CDOT doesn't do transit" is an example of their remarkable vision and total lack of concern for global warming implications due to greenhouse gas emissions.
WHOOPS!
Climate Change Forum Follow up
Enviro leader speaks to House subcommittee about global warming
By Scott Condon in Aspen, Colorado
March 20, 2007
The Aspen Skiing Co. gets a chance Tuesday to spread its message in the U.S. Congress about the potential effects of global warming on the ski industry.
Auden Schendler, the Skico's executive director of community and environmental affairs, is scheduled to testify before the House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources. The subcommittee is holding a hearing to explore, in part, how climate change could affect management of public lands.
Schendler said his opportunity to testify before Congress fits well with the Skico's strategy of using Aspen's high profile to draw attention to global warming.
"Using Aspen as a lever, that's what we want to do," he said.
Schendler has five minutes to testify. He is uncertain how many subcommittee members will be present during his presentation. However, he has a separate appointment with subcommittee chairman Rep. Jim Costa, D-Calif., to press his points.
"The mountain resort economy in the West is as endangered as the polar bear but a heck of a lot more valuable," Schendler's presentation begins, according to a copy he provided.
Schendler will draw heavily in his testimony on studies that show Aspen will warm by 6 to 14 degrees by 2100, depending on whether the world reduces its greenhouse gas emissions.
Warmer temperatures threaten to eat away at the beginning and end of the ski season, Schendler said. If Mother Nature provides less snow early in the season, the ski industry will depend even more on snowmaking.
Even that option is questionable: Schendler's prepared information noted that December was so warm that the Skico had trouble making snow.
Schendler said an analysis by Colorado College of potential effects on the state's snowpack from 1976 to 2085 showed Aspen could see a 43 percent loss in the amount of snow on April 1.
This month could be a sign of things to come: March is usually one of the snowiest months, but this year conditions are warm and dry. Instead of building the snowpack, the weather is gobbling it. As of Monday, the snowpack in the Roaring Fork basin was only 81 percent of average.
Schendler cautioned against saying this March could be normal. Scientists say global warming will bring unpredictable weather, he said, equating future March weather to a roll of the dice.
"You could have some great powder Marches. You could have those really warm March meltdowns," he said in an interview.
Business in March is vitally important to many ski area operators because it takes that long to reach the break-even point. March determines the size of profits.
"If you shorten our season on either end - take away March, for example - we go out of business," Schendler's prepared testimony said.
In the best-case scenario, global warming will increase the cost of doing business for the ski industry and drop profit margins, he continued.
"Aspen Skiing Company, along with the rest of the ski industry, is a reluctant warrior on the climate issue," Schendler wrote. "Our entire business model is threatened by the problem."
In energy news (courtesy New West Network):
-- Ethanol has become a big element of Colorado Gov. Ritter’s plan to create a world center of renewable energy in the state. And Colorado farmers grow lots of corn. But the ethanol boom could create a conflict between growing demand for corn, and water and land to grow it, and current agriculture and water interests, reports Cathy Proctor of the Denver Business Journal. “Ethanol consumed about 20 percent of the corn crop in 2006 and is expected to take 25 percent of the 2007 harvest, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.” And higher prices for corn means “soaring costs for the livestock industry.”
From August to December 2006, the cost of (largely corn-based feed jumped 24 percent across the country, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.
-- Wind-power interests in the Rocky Mountain West should take a look at what’s happening in the Texas Panhandle, according to a page-one feature in The Wall Street Journal (sub. req.). There, Shell plans to build the world’s largest wind farm – hundreds of turbines covering 120 square miles, a larger area than the island of Manhattan. The only hitch: state regulators have to approve the building of transmission lines to reach the turbines. A bill to allow such new-line construction in Colorado is currently making its way through the state legislature.
-- A highly anticipated study from MIT on the future of coal is out, and it’s a lot more optimistic than some thought it would be. The report, “The Future of Coal – Options for a Carbon Constrained World,” says that carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) can reduce CO2 emissions significantly while also enabling the burning of coal to meet the world’s growing energy demand. According to Professor John Deutch, co-author of the study, “As the world’s leading energy user and greenhouse gas emitter, the U.S. must take the lead in showing the world CCS can work.”
Denver Post
nation | world
Experts sound global-warming alarm
By Seth Borenstein
The Associated Press
Article Last Updated: 03/10/2007 10:46:43 PM MST
Washington - The harmful effects of global warming on daily life are already showing up, and within a couple of decades hundreds of millions of people won't have enough water, top scientists will say next month at a meeting in Belgium.
At the same time, tens of millions of others will be flooded out of their homes each year as the Earth reels from rising temperatures and sea levels, according to portions of a draft of an international scientific report obtained by The Associated Press.
Tropical diseases like malaria will spread. By 2050, polar bears will mostly be found in zoos, their habitats gone. Pests like fire ants will thrive.
For a time, food will be plentiful because of the longer growing season in northern regions. But by 2080, hundreds of millions of people could face starvation, according to the report, which is still being revised.
The draft document by the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change focuses on global warming's effects and is the second in a series of four being issued this year. Written and reviewed by more than 1,000 scientists from dozens of countries, it still must be edited by government officials.
But some scientists said the overall message is not likely to change when it's issued in early April in Brussels. The report offers some hope if nations slow and then reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, but it notes that what's happening now isn't encouraging.
"Changes in climate are now affecting physical and biological systems on every continent," the report says, in marked contrast to a 2001 report by the same international group that said the effects of global warming were coming.
"Things are happening and happening faster than we expected," said Patricia Romero Lankao of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, one of the many co-authors of the new report.
The draft document says scientists are confident that many current problems - change in species' habitats, loss of wetlands, bleaching of coral reefs, and increases in allergy-inducing pollen - can be blamed on global warming. But the present is nothing compared to the future. "We truly are standing at the edge of mass extinction" of species, said co-author Terry Root of Stanford University.
Denver Post
perspective
Climate report on deadline
By Kevin Trenberth
Article Last Updated: 02/18/2007 01:28:28 AM MST
The work of science is sometimes done late at night in crowded conference rooms.
But the last step leading up to the recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was just that sort of conference-room science.
"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal" and is "very likely" due to human activities - the key conclusions of the Summary for Policy Makers - were approved by the 300-some representatives from 113 nations in Working Group I, which studies the science of climate change and the role of humans in it.
The summary was approved in the early-morning hours of Feb. 2 after four days of intense negotiations in Paris.
A full report that's the basis for the summary was drafted by 154 lead authors and more than 450 contributing authors and runs to about 900 pages.
As one of about 30 lead authors attending the meeting, I found the experience both exhilarating and grueling.
We assembled on Saturday and Sunday, Jan. 27 and 28, to go over the written comments by governments on the draft summary. We prepared possible responses and text to update the report. The approval process is very demanding, as it requires unanimous consensus on the text, which is approved line by line. The rationale is that the scientists determine what can be said, but the governments help determine how it can best be said. There are detailed negotiations over wording to ensure accuracy, balance, clarity of message and relevance.
The meeting began Monday in a relaxed fashion, but unnecessary wordsmithing and some long- winded speeches quickly meant we were running way behind. Coffee breaks disappeared, and after two days we'd completed only a quarter of the report.
By Wednesday, lunch breaks were reduced to a minimum as sandwiches were brought in, and the dinner break disappeared as breakout groups met to negotiate text. Wednesday evening at 9 p.m., the six-language translation was lost, as the translators quit for the day. Fortunately, the delegates allowed the meeting to continue in English. The session adjourned for the day at 12:20 a.m.
On Thursday, the final day, the pace picked up under more rigid control of the chair, Dr. Susan Solomon of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Boulder. Wordsmithing was largely behind us, but some contentious issues slowed progress, and we finally approved the text and figures in the report at 10:40 p.m. The report was quickly assembled, copied and handed out for final approval Friday morning at 12:40 a.m.
Aside from a small staff, the IPCC is mostly a body of scientists from around the world convened by the United Nations and initiated in 1988. Its mandate is to provide policymakers with an objective assessment of the scientific and technical information available about climate change, its environmental and socio-economic impacts and possible responses. Previous major assessments were made in 1990, 1995 and 2001.
The IPCC process is very open. Two major reviews were carried out in producing the latest report, and climate "skeptics" can and do participate, some as authors. There were more than 30,000 comments by about 600 reviewers. The process is overseen by two editors for each of the 11 chapters. The strength is that it is a consensus report.
The new report is impressive in assessing a huge volume of scientific literature, and it assembles a vast body of evidence that indicates warming. The report documents the agents of change of the climate and found that by far the dominant influence is human activities, through increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The main source of carbon dioxide is fossil-fuel use.
The report finds warming of the climate system is "unequivocal" as the vital signs of the planet are responding in well-understood ways. These include increases in global average air temperature, atmospheric temperatures above the surface, surface and sub-surface ocean water temperatures, widespread melting of snow, decreases in the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice, decreases in glacier and land ice extent and mass; and rising global mean sea level.
The observed surface warming is also consistent with reduced duration of freeze seasons, increased heat waves, increased atmospheric water vapor and heavier rain storms, changes in patterns of precipitation, increased drought, increases in hurricane intensity and changes in atmospheric winds.
Moreover, these changes are now reasonably simulated in climate models for the past 100 years. The wide variety of observations gives a very high degree of confidence to the overall findings.
Twenty-three climate models from 11 nations were applied to simulate the past century or so, and to make projections for the future. Running the climate models with and without human-induced changes in atmospheric composition convincingly shows that it is humans who have very likely been responsible for the warming in the last 50 years.
Uncertainties remain, but the 2007 report definitively reaffirms in much stronger language that the climate is changing in ways that cannot be accounted for by natural variability.
The prognosis from the models is for continued warming and much larger but similar changes to those that are already apparent. Sea level rise is inexorable, although uncertainty exists over risk of major ice sheet collapse. Confidence has strengthened in projections of decreased rainfall in subtropical land areas (which are already trending dry), including the southwestern U.S., but with increases in more northern regions.
Later on Friday, news conferences were held and more than 400 journalists were there in force. The recognition of the importance of the report was gratifying. My colleague, Phil Jones from the University of East Anglia in England, was asked if he felt a sense of history about completion of the report. He told the Guardian newspaper, "Mainly what I am feeling is knackered." Seems about right.
Read the Summary for Policy Makers at http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/.
Kevin Trenberth is a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder
Denver Post
post columnist
Don't wait for global warming
By Gail Schoettler
Article Last Updated: 01/13/2007 08:21:14 PM MST
Snowshoeing across the hills by my house last week, I pondered global warming once again. So much snow has been a rarity over the last decade. Was this just an aberration of a rapidly warming global climate or a sign that things might be returning to "normal"?
Two recent stories came to mind. One was about the huge Arctic ice shelf that broke away from Ellesmere Island in the Canadian Arctic, alarming climate scientists. The other was an interview with a British skeptic who insists rising temperatures are part of just another climate cycle and no cause for worry.
It made me wonder how we would react if we knew we were experiencing a mere weather cycle, not the dramatic change most scientists fear. Should we act on the ecological problems facing us regardless of whether or not they result from climate change? Can we reach some consensus about how we should treat our environment, no matter what we believe about warming?
For example, auto emissions are clear culprits in ozone depletion and increased greenhouse gases. But our dependence on the automobile damages us in other ways. It requires us to rely on countries we don't trust, and who often don't like us, for a major strategic resource essential to our economy and our lives.
Even if global warming doesn't alarm you, our vulnerability to often-hostile countries should. That concern argues for cutting our foreign oil consumption through conservation, development of alternative fuels and energy sources and investing in research to create new technologies that put our future back in our own hands.
Traffic congestion is another negative effect of relying on oil-dependent cars. The "extreme commute" is all too common, not so much because of the distance between home and job but because the huge volume of cars on the road. Believe in climate change or not, reducing the number of cars on our highways by investing in public transit will improve our lives, and reduce emissions into the atmosphere.
Here in Colorado, the pine beetle is destroying vast areas of forest. Extreme cold, such as we used to experience in winter, kills beetle larvae. With the warmer winters of the last decade, summer beetle hatches are more frequent, greatly increasing the volume of insects attacking trees. Even those who don't believe in global warming are worried about the rapidly advancing beetle devastation.
Whether this is just a weather cycle or a permanent climate change, the voracious beetle is damaging to Colorado. Millions of acres of dead pine trees can fuel huge forest fires, destroying homes and wildlife habitat, hunting and fishing, hiking and forestry, all key to our economy. Finding solutions to this scourge matters to all of us. If changing our habits slows the pace of warming and the beetles' reproductive cycle, we all benefit, whatever our beliefs.
As we move into 2007, with many threats to our way of life, it makes sense to focus on how we solve problems we all recognize, whatever we believe the cause to be. Strategies such as energy conservation, research into alternative energy sources, public transit and telecommuting solve vexing problems and reduce greenhouse gases.
For example, Brazil has become energy self-sufficient by building its bio-fuel technology and capacity. Figuring out how to turn cooking oil and agricultural products into bio-fuels efficiently will reduce our own dependence on foreign oil, eliminate waste and create jobs. We should all be able to commit to this.
While it's important to understand the reasons for threats and calamities, it's equally important to focus on solving those problems rather than just arguing about their causes. Most of us can agree that many problems resulting from weather change, whether natural or human- made, require immediate action. We can't afford to fight and wait.
Gail Schoettler (gailschoettler@ email.msn.com) is a former U.S. ambassador, Colorado lieutenant governor and treasurer, Democratic nominee for governor and Douglas County school board member.
Denver Post
nation | world
Report: Global warming man-made, unstoppable
A U.N. group of scientists says temperatures and seas will rise for centuries no matter how much humans control pollution.
By Seth Borenstein
The Associated Press
Denver Post
|
