Scientists fear a growing impact of global warming on humans

The costs of inaction on climate change will be "catastrophic", according to US Secretary of State John Kerry.

Mr Kerry was responding to a major report by the UN which described the impacts of global warming as "severe, pervasive and irreversible".

He said dramatic and swift action was required to tackle the threats posed by a rapidly changing climate.

Our health, homes, food and safety are all likely to be threatened by rising temperatures, the report says.

Scientists and officials meeting in Japan say the document is the most comprehensive assessment to date of the impacts of climate change on the world.

In a statement, Mr Kerry said: "Unless we act dramatically and quickly, science tells us our climate and our way of life are literally in jeopardy. Denial of the science is malpractice.
More Info:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26824943

Thank you for raising this. I'm quite the environmentalist - I read up about these things and try to warn those around me about what will inevitably happen. Global Warming is certainly not some hoax, as people have been calling it while putting off action.
A general idea of what the whole global warming process looks like/will look like:
Deforestation, burning of fossil fuels (oil) (the Earth is experiencing these two problems at much higher rates than ever in HISTORY)
Leads to -> Buildup of carbon in atmosphere, which traps heat in the Earth's atmosphere (greenhouse gas effect)
Leads to -> Gradual rise in the Earth's temperature
Leads to -> Certain species may go extinct because of the change in climate, which will impact food chains globally. Polar ice will melt, which will result in many coastal cities being flooded, and there will eventually be masses of climate refugees. Weather will become even more erratic - natural disasters will occur more frequently, and with more force.

Basically, climate change isn't something to be ignored. The consequences can still be avoided if we take action. Just starting with letting others know is undeniably important! Go dollars, spread the word!

>>2 I'm not a environmentalist myself but I find this to be more important than a piece of hardware going missing.

>>2 Don't forget that the melting of the ice caps results in more heat energy being held in the atmosphere, which starts off a lovely (and unstoppable!) snowball effect, but with fire and/or molten rock instead of snow.
Also the melting of permafrost, which adds even more methane to the atmosphere. Just what we needed.

Catastrophe is an understatement - I prefer to think of it as an impending hell on earth, because that's what it is.

>>4 How exactly does ice caps melting result in more energy being stored in the atmosphere? I would think the amount of methane gas being released would be negligible.

>>5 In essence, loss of ice results in less of the Sun's energy being reflected away while the increased amount of water absorbs more energy. I think a pretty recent study was done on the subject, though it's been hypothesised for quite a while.
And the methane thing isn't a major contributor, but I thought I might as well mention it anyway while the though was in my head.

>>6 The energy would be stored in the water, then, not the atmosphere, unless I am missing something.

As for the methane, a common argument from people who do not believe in climate change being caused by humans is that the amount of carbon being released by humanity is far less than that of natural processes. This is true, however as is stands (or stood) nature is finely balanced between large emitters of greenhouse gas (animals, etc.) and large absorbers of greenhouse gas (oceans, etc.). Adding anything to this process of repeated release and absorption of greenhouse gas will tip the scales significantly. All greenhouse gas we release slowly builds up over time, and we have been releasing it for a long time.

However, since we cannot accurately catalog every emitter and absorber of carbon in nature, we still can't say for sure that this balance is as fragile as it probably is.

I think this issue is an issue, but I do think it is a little over hyped.

This is from university of Arizona, .8 degrees C per 120 years doesn't seem that bad to me, but I have no idea how much difference a .1 degree makes, so please educate me if that is a "catastrophic".

edit: "catastrophic" amount.

>>8
This graph is increase in surface temperature, not just of a country, but of the entire surface of the Earth. The earth is massive, so 0.1C would be huge. Also note, the surface temperature increased more in the last 25 years than the previous 100 put together. That means it's accelerating.

You are right, though, it is over-hyped. People who say the Earth is going to destroy itself and us along with it in the next 50 years are completely overstating facts. It's going to happen, but slowly, and given that we have reached peak oil, I think it will be a while yet.

>>10 I agree its defiantly not gonna happen in 2050 but its gonna happen its inevitable.

>>4 Yes you're right, I forgot about the ice caps reflecting light.
>>8 The thing is, even if it's something that seems that tiny, the Earth was formed in a way that allows it to maintain itself in a condition that is JUST perfect for life to thrive. If we throw off Earth's natural cycles, small changes will be followed by bigger changes. There are in fact animals that can only survive in a tiny temperature range - the white lemuroid possum is one that is already being effected in large numbers by temperature rises (https://theconversation.com/as-climate-changes-animals-move-fast-to-escape-the-heat-18511).

Also with peak oil, it takes ages to create it but it gets consumed so fast, something like 90 million barrels a day by the world. We're unearthing carbon that the Earth has buried deep underground, with less and less forests to convert it back into oxygen and manage the carbon levels.
//On a completely different note can I just say that despite the grim topic, I'm quite excited to be able to talk about this with people online. I'm only in high school so my knowledge is limited, so it's great hearing what other people know~ XD

>>7 If I'm right, the fact that more heat is being retained is the problem regardless of where it's held. I agree on the methane thing; regardless of how you want to see it, we've created an imbalance.
>>8 You're not really seeing the big picture. The Earth is very, very old, and it's gone through a variety of climate changes throughout it's lifetime. But those changes came about slowly and over thousands of years. Taking that into account, .8 degrees over 120 years is a massive increase - especially considering that our climate has been relatively table for the past few thousand years. Though it's definitely over-hyped, it is a gravely serious issue.

While it isn't a huge problem now and won't be for a while, climate change is definitely there and ignoring it is downright stupid.

>>13 But if it gets retained in the ocean, we can just drop an ice cube into it.

>>14 Futuerama? lol

>>14 But to create an icecube, it requires machine energy (or just chipping it away from the poles?), which contributes to heat XD We may as well just start trying to save power, be less wasteful, take only what we need, etc.

>>16 Wait, didn't you know? Ice cubes just pop up from time to time in the atmosphere. We just have to catch them, like butterflies, and then put them in the ocean.

We need to completely redesign the way we use energy, no just use less of it the way we currently are. We really need to start considering energy efficiency over personal convenience.

My feelings towards this topic has varied over the years mainly due to extreme environmentalists and oiled winged politics, though I do believe this is without a doubt one of the greats in terms of problems humanity has created. Now what has been done is done now, but we can scrap up together what we have left and try to adapt, and possibly heal the wounds. In terms of economics and such I can understand why not many governments are embracing the thoughts of all these green energy sources. But none the less this is one of the ideas in which humanity as a whole must adopt in the need for preservation. Humans are selfish really, now not saying that we all don't care for the planet because if we didn't we wouldn't be talking about this, but give humanity a reason to be afraid of extinction and it will pony up. As for the earth's health I believe it can recover after a long period of time if there is little carbon emissions and etc. flowing up to the atmosphere and all. I mean its come back from worse, an example being the volcanic ash (my own opinions on how the dinos got wiped out but different topic) that filled the atmosphere billions years ago which killed the dinosaurs and other life. Maybe a little different but to me its the same equal vent. Anyways for an ending statement, I think this can be overcome, maybe over a long period of time but still, it just might require a re-haul of our fueling system. (Would be nice if we had the goddamn Gundam 00 solar towers but whatever lol.)

My favorite quote about this topic is as such:

"What if it's all a hoax, and we create a better world for nothing?"

What we could possibly lose by using less energy, understanding the world we live in better, and using less resources over-all is far overshadowed by what we can gain. A panel that literally provides you with free energy just by laying it out in the Sun? The ability to use this energy to run every system in your house? Surely that's worth halting research on fossil fuel driven engines. It's not about saving the planet for me, it's about obviously superior ideas for energy that are being ignored simply because we've invested too much time and money into a blatantly awful idea for energy that will eventually run out.

Even if you don't believe that, you should still be interested in using fossil fuels more conservatively, because I don't know if you know, but we will eventually run out. Sure, the supply won't run actually ever reach zero, but the price will become too high for anyone to afford it, which brings about the same consequence.

>>18 Environmentalism had/has it all wrong. The planet and its ecosystem don't give a shit about humans. When climate change reaches a point at which humans can't survive it, the planet will still survive, and adapt, and thrive. Humans will die off long before the planet's ecosystem does. We need to save our own species, it's the only thing that was ever in jeopardy in the first place.

>>19 Agreed. If we can improve the way that we use and produce energy, we should. Sustainability will help us greatly in the long term, and we won't get far without it.
But we humans aren't the only species at stake. Climate change will affect and even cause the extinction of a variety of species, though certainly not all of them. Life will go on as it always has, but there will be losses regardless.
That's one of the reasons why saving the planet and all that jazz is so important to me on a personal level. We're just a tiny fraction of the immeasurable population of Earth, but our actions influence the lives of many other organisms. We're not just ruining it for ourselves, so it's kind of a dick move to screw things up for our own selfish reasons.

>>20 Point taken, I supposed it is sad that many, many species have gone extinct as a result of our own laziness. However, consider that in the harsh climate we are creating for ourselves, certain species which did not thrive in this current environment will in the new one. There will likely be new species that rise up in the face of great change in the environment. That's what has happened for thousands of years before humans ever walked the earth. It is a natural process, after all, since humans are natural creatures too. It's only natural we'd put ourselves above everything else in the universe.

It's just too bad this is happening not because of progress or our species bettering ourselves, but out of laziness.