UN panel: Eight reasons to worry about global warming

Mar 29, 2014 by Kaori Hitomi
This Nov. 13, 2013 file photo, shows typhoon damaged fuel tanks along the coast in Tanawan, central Philippines. A United Nations panel of scientists has drafted a list of eight ``key risks" about climate change that's easy to understand and illustrates the issues that have the greatest potential to cause harm to the planet. The list is part of a massive report on how global warming is affecting humans and the planet and how the future will be worse unless something is done about it. The report is being finalized at a meeting on the weekend of March 29, 2014 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (AP Photo/Wally Santana, File)

If you have already read "12 Pieces of Practical Advice from Housecats," now you can move on to "8 Reasons to Worry about Global Warming."

A United Nations panel of scientists is joining the list craze with what they call eight "key risks" that are part of broader "reasons for concern" about climate change.

It's part of a massive report on how is affecting humans and the planet and how the future will be worse unless something is done about it. The report is being finalized at a meeting this weekend by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

They assembled the list to "make it understandable and to illustrate the issues that have the greatest potential to cause real harm," the report's chief author, Chris Field of the Carnegie Institution of Science in California, said in an interview.

But a draft of the list—called by the acronym RFCs—includes science-heavy language, caveats and uses lowercase Roman numerals, for example using iv instead of 4.

A boiled-down version of what the scientists say the warmed-up future holds for Earth if continues:

1. Coastal flooding will kill people and cause destruction.

2. Some people will go hungry because of warming, drought and severe downpours.

3. Big cites will be damaged by inland flooding.

4. Water shortages will make the poor even poorer in rural areas.

5. Crazy weather, like storms, can make life miserable, damaging some of the things we take for granted, like electricity, running water and emergency services.

6. Some fish and other marine animals could be in trouble, which will probably hurt fishing communities.

7. Some land animals won't do much better and that's not good for people who depend on them.

8. Heat waves, especially in cities, will kill the elderly and very young.

So far, the scientists haven't come up with the next step, common on Facebook pages: The interactive quiz to determine which global warming problem you most resemble.

In this Aug. 3, 2012 file photo, an Indian farmer shows a dry, cracked paddy field in Ranbir Singh Pura 34 kilometers (21 miles) from Jammu, India. A United Nations panel of scientists has drafted a list of eight ``key risks" about climate change that's easy to understand and illustrates the issues that have the greatest potential to cause harm to the planet. The list is part of a massive report on how global warming is affecting humans and the planet and how the future will be worse unless something is done about it. The report is being finalized at a meeting on the weekend of March 29, 2014 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (AP Photo/Channi Anand, File)


Explore further: Big climate report: Warming is big risk for people

2.7 /5 (26 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Big climate report: Warming is big risk for people

Mar 24, 2014

Top climate scientists are gathering in Japan this week to finish up a report on the impact of global warming. And they say if you think climate change is only faced by some far-off polar bear decades from ...

Global warming's record-setting pace

Feb 17, 2014

The pace of global warming over the last century has been about twice as rapid over land than over the oceans and will continue to be more dramatic going forward if emissions are not curbed. According to ...

UN scientists see grim future if no climate action

Mar 23, 2014

UN scientists are set to deliver their darkest report yet on the impacts of climate change, pointing to a future stalked by floods, drought, conflict and economic damage if carbon emissions go untamed.

Recommended for you

EU sets new energy savings target at 30%

15 hours ago

After months of tough negotiations, the European Commission recommended Wednesday a new energy savings target of 30 percent so as to combat climate change and ensure self-sufficiency.

User comments : 38

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

orti
1.9 / 5 (15) Mar 29, 2014
The UN report "uses lowercase Roman numerals". It notes that it "will make the poor even poorer in rural areas". It assures us "the future will be worse unless something is done about it". And what must be done about it? Why, give the UN a blank check of course. Do I believe anything the UN says? No, I have seen their history.
casualjoe
4.2 / 5 (14) Mar 29, 2014
I have seen their history.


Have you really though? The UN is a large organisation carrying out multidisciplinary work on complex issues in many different parts of the world, and have been doing so for a long time. I couldn't claim to have seen their history.
Or have you constructed a simplified version of their history in your mind based on rhetoric you have absorbed through your chosen form of media?
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (14) Mar 29, 2014
"The forthcoming report apparently admits that climate change has extinguished no species so far and expresses "very little confidence" that it will do so. There is new emphasis that climate change is not the only environmental problem that matters and on adapting to it rather than preventing it. "
"The data suggest we probably face less warming than the models indicate, but we would rather not say so."
http://online.wsj...43962840
Howhot
4.3 / 5 (12) Mar 29, 2014
"The forthcoming report apparently admits that climate change has extinguished no species so far and expresses "very little confidence" that it will do so. There is new emphasis that climate change is not the only environmental problem that matters and on adapting to it rather than preventing it. "
"The data suggest we probably face less warming than the models indicate, but we would rather not say so."
http://online.wsj...43962840

That is unfortunately the kind of rightwinger koch licker article we've all come to expect from the WSJ. It probably came from FOX. Typical.
tekram
4.7 / 5 (12) Mar 29, 2014
"The forthcoming report apparently ..."
http://online.wsj...43962840

That is an opinion piece about an unpublished report, hence the wording "apparently". And that is by WSJ, a paper owned by Murdoch, the same person who brought you Fox News. Although the Journal has not been directly linked to any journalistic misconduct, the Murdoch hacking scandal has raised the question of how it has fared under Murdoch's ownership.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) Mar 29, 2014
The information is from the IPCC.
If Hotties socialist AGW sites won't cover the story it does not exist?
That's the entire modus operendi of the AGW movement with their incestuous peer review system,govt funded 'research', and complicit 'science' journals.
Howhot
4.4 / 5 (13) Mar 29, 2014
"Climate change has already left its mark "on all continents and across the oceans", damaging food crops, spreading disease, and melting glaciers, according to the leaked text of a blockbuster UN climate science report due out on Monday. "
The Gaurdian. That's not me R2. Thats from the Guardian, but regardless of the source, the fact is man made global warming, AGW. is already visible, impacting society, and causing global destruction of a vast number of eco-systems. If you find it so objectionable to spend gov money on research the identifies the the problem, and provides solutions to the AGW problem, then maybe you should move to a country that doesn't support science like Somolia. If you think 'science' is so complicit in this conspiracy, You would certainly be welcome at the creation museum over in Kent- ucky.


3432682
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 29, 2014
All the dire predictions of the IPCC have failed. Their elaborate computer temperature prediction models have failed. The alternative fuel demonstration projects have failed to reduce the cost of electricity, and in fact have driven it much higher in those nations so foolish as to mandate mass installations. Warmer temperatures and more CO2 are a great boon to farming. There has been no net warming for 15+ years. Yet the name calling continues. For how many more years of failed predictions can the alarmists hold on?
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (14) Mar 29, 2014
All the dire predictions of the IPCC have failed. Their elaborate computer temperature prediction models have failed.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam
The alternative fuel demonstration projects have failed to reduce the cost of electricity, and in fact have driven it much higher in those nations so foolish as to mandate mass installations.
Argumentum ad baculum
Warmer temperatures and more CO2 are a great boon to farming.
Ad Hoc fallacy
There has been no net warming for 15+ years.
Argumentum ad nauseam
Yet the name calling continues. For how many more years of failed predictions can the alarmists hold on?
Argumentum ad populum.

A typical denialist rant.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 29, 2014
AGW. is already visible, impacting society, and causing global destruction of a vast number of eco-systems.

Where?

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Mar 29, 2014
AGW 1500 years ago?
"Heracleion's ruins span an area that is 11km by 15km – deservedly so considering the classical tale of Heracleion which was said to be a prosperous, brilliant, thriving city before it was engulfed by the sea around 1,500 years ago."
http://www.collec...r-years/
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 29, 2014
The only thing you must be worried about, is the UN is telling you a list of things to worry about.
Vietvet
4.4 / 5 (13) Mar 29, 2014
@ryggesogn2
It was "engulfed by the sea" didn't mean the seas rose. Heracleion was built on a series of low laying islands consisting of Nile silts. Earthquake=subsidence="engulfed by the sea".
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 29, 2014
@ryggesogn2
It was "engulfed by the sea" didn't mean the seas rose. Heracleion was built on a series of low laying islands consisting of Nile silts. Earthquake=subsidence="engulfed by the sea".


Sea levels can rise without AGW?
Howhot
5 / 5 (9) Mar 29, 2014
AGW. is already visible, impacting society, and causing global destruction of a vast number of eco-systems.

Where?

Just pick a place. http://ete.cet.ed...how/3/43

Buf if you want just American places, I would pick Texas and the south, where droughts have disrupted significant agricultural production. Droughts cause a large concern for food production obviously.
Of course, everyone is probably aware of the massive stink bug invasion of 2013 attributed to climate change.
http://diseasecli...ion.html

Everyone is aware of the impact sea level rise is having on the Maldives, but several other island nations are currently endager,
http://www.busine...-10?op=1

ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 29, 2014
The southwest has suffered droughts for centuries without AGW.

A statue of Apollo was found ~100 offshore from Gaza not long ago. Assuming is was not dropped off a boat centuries ago, The Med has been rising for hundreds of years without AGW.

Stink bugs are from China. What does AGW have to do with species who hitch rides, or even worse, are imported, like Asian carp?
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 29, 2014
Looks like sea levels are leveling off after the last ice age.
http://commons.wi...evel.png
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (12) Mar 29, 2014
The southwest has suffered droughts for centuries without AGW.
Ad hoc.

A statue of Apollo was found ~100 offshore from Gaza not long ago. Assuming is was not dropped off a boat centuries ago, The Med has been rising for hundreds of years without AGW.
Anecdotal evidence

Stink bugs are from China. What does AGW have to do with species who hitch rides, or even worse, are imported, like Asian carp?
Begging the question.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 29, 2014
So Maggy has nothing to say.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 29, 2014
"The convergence of prolonged warming and arid conditions suggests the mid-12th century may serve as a conservative analogue for severe droughts that might occur in the future. The severity, extent, and persistence of the 12th century drought that occurred under natural climate variability, have important implications for water resource management. "
http://www.pnas.o...283.full
"The second century A.D. saw an extended dry period of more than 100 years characterized by a multi-decade drought lasting nearly 50 years, says a new study from scientists at the University of Arizona. ."
http://wattsupwit...uthwest/
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 29, 2014
"Reliable forecasts of future 'megadroughts' would be a boon to farmers and water managers. But results presented last week at the annual assembly of the European Geosciences Union in Vienna suggest that such forecasts are still beyond the reach of current climate models."
http://www.nature...-1.12810
Vietvet
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 29, 2014
@ryggesogn2
It was "engulfed by the sea" didn't mean the seas rose. Heracleion was built on a series of low laying islands consisting of Nile silts. Earthquake=subsidence="engulfed by the sea".


Sea levels can rise without AGW?

The sea level Didn't rise. http://www.agiweb...bay.html
We can add geology as another subject you know nothing about
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 29, 2014
So Maggy has nothing to say.
Communicating with a person suffering from schizoaffective disorder often triggers a deeper episode, usually leading to paranoid claims of conspiracy and an imaginary government program to imprison or otherwise deprive the sufferer of some right.

It is best to avoid interacting with the sufferer until the appropriate medicines have been administered, as excitement will often lead to a deeper psychotic break with the possibility of physical danger to the sufferer and those around him.

ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 29, 2014
Maggy still has nothing to say when data challenges his faith in AGW.
eric_in_chicago
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 30, 2014
I don't think any intelligent person owes answers to Corporate Whores like Mr. ryggesogn2, and that is a technical definition that I used, not an Ad Hominem attack...it's either a Goebbels- style paid sock-puppet or just a mad fascist...doesn't matter.

"It" asks a question and then will not own the answer...

For example, there are no more stag beetles, monarch butterflies and barely any fireflies or grasshoppers here in Chicago, where I live.

There were swarms of them when I was growing up. I should know we tormented and dismembered many of them (not the butterflies(!)) as anarchic little boys will do....

I haven't seen any for decades. Maybe I single-handedly magnifier-glassed and fire-cracked the whole species to death.

So where are they ryggy, you nickel-worshipping nature-nazi!
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Mar 30, 2014
So Maggy has nothing to say.
LOL. I catch him at this all the time. I guess he thinks he is being clever, not realizing he is simply conceding.

Worse, are his non-argument arguments. In the latest, he tried to take credit for my use of the word "ergo." as if I never heard of it until he used it (I've been using it here for more than 5 years before he even showed up).

Before that, I caught him in circular argument where he essentially claimed the IPCC isn't arguing climate change is a direct result of CO2, because they actually claim it's a direct result of CO2.

Before that he claimed food cannot grow in a dessert...

His arguments are irrelevant, because he is irrelevant.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Mar 30, 2014
I don't think any intelligent person owes answers to Corporate Whores like Mr. ryggesogn2, and that is a technical definition that I used, not an Ad Hominem attack...it's either a Goebbels- style paid sock-puppet or just a mad fascist...doesn't matter.

"It" asks a question and then will not own the answer...

For example, there are no more stag beetles, monarch butterflies and barely any fireflies or grasshoppers here in Chicago, where I live.

There were swarms of them when I was growing up. I should know we tormented and dismembered many of them (not the butterflies(!)) as anarchic little boys will do....

I haven't seen any for decades. Maybe I single-handedly magnifier-glassed and fire-cracked the whole species to death.

So where are they ryggy, you nickel-worshipping nature-nazi!
Perhaps the recent severe freezes in Chicago have killed them. Did you think of that?

Or maybe the wide and increasing use of insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, and the like. Did you think of that?

Do you ever think?

Mimath224
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 30, 2014
So what's the answer? If we are the cause what do we do about it? AND even if there was an answer there would never be global agreement. People where I live come out every morning to find their cars covered as ash...not from a volcano but from the burning after harvest. They have done this for centuries and they will never change.
If we not the cause but simply a periodic warming phase then we will have to find a way to cope.
In either case while we gathering statistics time MAY be running out.
Howhot
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2014
I think you hit on the point Mimath;
In either case while we gathering statistics time MAY be running out.
While we are arguing with the deniers, (an evil group of people IMHO), time is running out to stop any further damage to the climate system. That is a big challenge too because we have massive, truely humongous CO2 emissions above background. Globally in 2012 we produced 35.62 Gigatons of CO2. The year before that, 34.75. Before that it was 33.72.... etc. CO2 in the atmosphere has a lifetime of about 100 years before being absorbed into the earth or oceans.

Given that, coal need to be wiped out almost immediately! As an energy source or source of heat, its responsible for well over half (53%) the tonnage of CO2 in the atmosphere. It's followed by oil at 1/3 and natural gas making up most of the difference to 100%. http://www.eia.go...ions.cfm

Anything the US does to reduce the CO2 foot print of each citizen will have immediate impact on AGW
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Mar 31, 2014
there are no more stag beetles, monarch butterflies and barely any fireflies or grasshoppers here in Chicago, where I live.


So?
Move.
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 31, 2014
LOL. I catch him at this all the time. I guess he thinks he is being clever, not realizing he is simply conceding.
.

As to Rygg:
"Never argue with an idiot; he'll drag you down to his level, then beat you with experience" - George Carlin

As to Uba
"Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." –Mark Twain
"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." –Mark Twain

Neither provides an argument worth debunking. It is far easier to sit back and watch them make fools of themselves then point out the foolishness of their arguments. They do more harm for their own causes just by opening their mouths than any reasoned debater could do by engaging them.

That they are both too stupid to realize that, is a source of endless amusement for me!
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 31, 2014
there are no more ...monarch butterflies

http://www.learne...tml#maps

Maybe you have not been looking.
They require milkweed which usally found in around farm land. How many farms are in Chicago and how many milkweed plants do you see?
Plant milkweed in your backyard and maybe you will attract monarch butterflies.

truely humongous

What a precise, scientific term!
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 31, 2014
First milkweed in WI!
http://www.learne...96129110
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Mar 31, 2014
Neither provides an argument worth debunking.
Says the idiot who thinks the IPCC isn't arguing climate change is a direct result of CO2, because they actually claim it's a direct result of CO2.

Poor Maggnus can't make a valid argument to save himself.

Howhot
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 31, 2014
@maggnus says
It is far easier to sit back and watch them make fools of themselves then point out the foolishness of their arguments.
Yeap. I agree. And it does make for great entertainment when these flatearthers panic and try to pull a fact out of their back side crack. Instead of talking about the 8 major effects of global warming on society the IPCC reports, R2 and Ubbatubba think butterflies are thriving and we should pay attention to their natural rarity when milkweed is-isn't available.

@R2 and friends are plain and simple, flatearthers and no amount of science will ever convince them of how foolish their arguments sounds. They are just born to argue that the sun is black and your mother doesn't know how to wash cloths. If you think otherwise, your a GD sociialist in his mind, and probably believes your disposable, like most of civilization.


Mimath224
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 01, 2014
@Howhot, the sad thing is that the R2's etc will fry, drown, starve etc. just like the rest of us...so will the butterflies.
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2014
Says the idiot who thinks the IPCC isn't arguing climate change is a direct result of CO2, because they actually claim it's a direct result of CO2.


Poor Maggnus can't make a valid argument to save himself.


What kind of convoluted, nonsensical, misrepresentation are you trying to peddle with this gem? Getting desperate are you? What a moronic display of stupidity!
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 01, 2014
AGWism is not science. It is faith based upon computer simulations, hatred of humans, love of Gaia, fear of change and a desire for power.
These are the traits of the faith I have observed so far.