Global Warming

Global Warming

The subject of global warming is controversial. A report published by the UK government is outlined in the BBC NEWS site in an article on 30 January, 2006.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4660938.stm
In it

Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett said the report's conclusions would be a shock to many people.
"The thing that is perhaps not so familiar to members of the public... is this notion that we could come to a tipping point where change could be irreversible," she told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"We're not talking about it happening over five minutes, of course, maybe over a thousand years, but it's the irreversibility that I think brings it home to people.

Given the timespan of a thousand or so years, the likelihood of common action is questionable. The Bush administration has already demurred on a national plan and other countries have fudged.
While it is easy to focus in on that bad news, the likelihood of China, India and other rapidly developing nations to adopt stringent regulations is slim.

What do we do?
............................
Outcomes of the 2005 report are available at:
http://www.stabilisation2005.com/outcomes.html

1000 years for a change is an optimistic viewpoint, a more immediate scenario is given here.

This refers to the delicate nature of the Gulf Stream which warms Western Europe. A change in water temperature will result in the warm water being redirected with a consequent devastating change in climate.

Unfortunately that article is worth reading.

The above article was written a couple of years ago. Today's news is chilling (pun intended):

Stark warning over climate change
"Rising concentrations of greenhouse gases may have more serious impacts than previously believed, a major scientific report has said."

There are some maps in that article and it, too, is worth reading.

The Gulf Stream concern is "merely" one local catastrophe that will be mirrored all over the planet. For example, Goodbye Florida, South Sea Islands, The Netherlands, literally.

Let's also not forget about global dimming:

Some scientists now consider that the effects of global dimming have masked the effect of global warming to some extent and that resolving global dimming may therefore lead to increases in predictions of future temperature rise.

The phenomenon underlying global dimming may also have regional effects. While most of the earth has warmed, the regions that are downwind from major sources of air pollution (specifically sulfur dioxide emissions) have generally cooled. This may explain the cooling of the eastern United States relative to the warming western part

Wiki

Originally posted by string:

1000 years for a change is an optimistic viewpoint, a more immediate scenario is given here.

It's about the same report I cited. That's where the 1000 year citation came from.
In fact, both of your citations relate to the same 2005 report.

Originally posted by tpfkanep:

Let's also not forget about global dimming:

I was unaware of this idea, even though it's almost a no brainer. An article from the BBC highlights this, too.
"Intrigued, he searched out records from all around the world, and found the same story almost everywhere he looked, with sunlight falling by 10% over the USA, nearly 30% in parts of the former Soviet Union, and even by 16% in parts of the British Isles. Although the effect varied greatly from place to place, overall the decline amounted to 1-2% globally per decade between the 1950s and the 1990s."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_prog_summary.shtml

"What must we do" is asked:

I'm pessimistic that anything will be done in time to make a difference. With so many governments in denial about the whole thing, some paying lip-service to reducing Global Warming and some not even doing that, the outlook is bleak.

What we should do is reduce drastically our contribution to Greenhouse gases; stop using cars & planes, and manufacturing goods which have a heavy greenhouse footprint. Switch over to other energy sources and so on - but it won't happen, will it!

Kyoto was an attempt and it failed - Kyoto was not strong enough and the Human Race was not sensible enough to adopt it..


A worldwide nuclear holocaust would probably help.

As an afterthought to my last post; over some hundreds of years, the effect of this climate change could well be to reduce the human population drastically. That will help too.

"and the Human Race was not sensible enough to adopt it."

I'm sensible enough to adopt it. So are all the people I know. The ones bent on suicide are the oil companies, car makers, and the people they bribe -- oops, sorry, the people they "work closely with".

Originally posted by jimwager:

"and the Human Race was not sensible enough to adopt it."

I'm sensible enough to adopt it. So are all the people I know. The ones bent on suicide are the oil companies, car makers, and the people they bribe -- oops, sorry, the people they "work closely with".

Me, too. But my friends are not as enlightened as are yours. People I know are quick to react to facts that run smack into their wallets. I know lots of people who are cutting back on energy usage because of rising fuel costs. SUV sales are down. Thermostats are set lower. People even conserve water when rates increase. They learn to use gray water in their gardens.

1000 years down the road, however.............!

If only we could have realised that the oil, diamonds, gold, water, oceans, dodos, whales, etc. belong to us all. Not that anyone of us is "rich" enough to even own a rock, nevermind an animal/tree/microbe...fellow human being.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

The subject of global warming is controversial. A report published by the UK government is outlined in the BBC NEWS site in an article on 30 January, 2006.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4660938.stm
In it
Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett said the report's conclusions would be a shock to many people.
"The thing that is perhaps not so familiar to members of the public... is this notion that we could come to a tipping point where change could be irreversible," she told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"We're not talking about it happening over five minutes, of course, maybe over a thousand years, but it's the irreversibility that I think brings it home to people.


Given the timespan of a thousand or so years

A local tv put the timespan at a generation (100yrs) for a 7M rise in sea level. Might be a blessing in disguise. Maybe its time we WOKE UP?

To me, the really stupid thing is that we know the OIL is going to run out sooner or later. So, instead of planning for that day, which will require massive changes to the entire infrastructure which will likely take years, countries are running around trying to "secure their energy supplies" and some of them are killing thousands in the process, without a thought that these "secure" energy supplies are still going to run out!

We are misgoverned by idiots!

Perhaps an all-out nuclear war would be the best thing. If a few amoebas survive in the depths of the sea, perhaps next time, an intelligent sentient species will evolve!

I love the folks that claim that we were created in the image of god. That's not saying a whole lot for god, is it?

One has to ask oneself: How was the world before colonisation and now globalisation? Look at the places which were colonised: Most, if not all the tribes/savages (from the POV of the conquistadors, invaders, etc.) were really in harmony with their surroundings and had respect for nature. When these lands were invaded, some saw the oppertunity to rape the lands of their bounty: be it natural or human resources. It started an irreversible cycle of mayhem. More, more, more.

Things like owning of land, mining/mineral rights, etc. were totally foreign to most of these people. We are intelligent enough to at least do something about it. Now. To prevent further loss. That's just the naivety speaking.

Originally posted by tpfkanep:

That's just the naivety speaking

Not at all, the apathy of the worlds SYSTEMS will be made to realise their inferiority to natural SYSTEMS. Sooner rather than later one would hope. Welcome to D&D.

"We are intelligent enough to at least do something about it."

Perhaps we are, but so what? It's our so-called Leaders, Big Business, etc, who are the stupid ones! Well, perhaps not all.

Originally posted by tpfkanep:

If only we could have realised that the oil, diamonds, gold, water, oceans, dodos, whales, etc. belong to us all. Not that anyone of us is "rich" enough to even own a rock, nevermind an animal/tree/microbe...fellow human being.

Maybe that idea, that these things "belong to us all", is a large part of the problem. Or that we are stewarts of nature instead of just another part of it.

As a real aside, we hear NASA officials, etc, talking about "colonizing" the moon, Mars, etc. That's just the same old basically Imperialist mentality.

Yep. The Universe belongs to US! It's OURS to exploit and ruin!

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Originally posted by tpfkanep:

If only we could have realised that the oil, diamonds, gold, water, oceans, dodos, whales, etc. belong to us all. Not that anyone of us is "rich" enough to even own a rock, nevermind an animal/tree/microbe...fellow human being.

Maybe that idea, that these things "belong to us all", is a large part of the problem. Or that we are stewarts of nature instead of just another part of it.

I always had a big problem with the you-are-masters-of-the-animals-crown-of-the-creation mentality. I do not see "belongs to us all" as a problem: E.g. Oil = I dunno how many % found in Middle Eastern countries. Everyone needs it. If for one moment we could remove the political, regional, etc. boundaries, what are we left with? A resource that can be used to the good of all on the planet. Not as a bargaining tool, a we-have-and-you-don't-so-bow-down asset.

It seems as if we have not yet found our proper place and function on the planet. We came here yesterday, and yet we have the power to destroy everything. Maybe we do need the floods/nuclear fallouts/wars/etc. But I do share the sentiment expressed above: Unless it is a complete destruction of humans, it will be to no avail. The cycle will just start again.

Nature does not need us. We need nature.

Originally posted by radostsguy:

As a real aside, we hear NASA officials, etc, talking about "colonizing" the moon, Mars, etc. That's just the same old basically Imperialist mentality.

I guess it is. But in that sense without it we humans would all live somewhere in Africa. It seems to be rather ordinary. It's how people end up living in Churchill and Terra del Fuego. Even coconuts and Iguanas do it.

Yep. The Universe belongs to US! It's OURS to exploit and ruin!

(wonders if a visit would be ok)

how do we know these polar ice caps are not melting because we forgot to replenish the ozone layer 15 years ago by launching those rockets up to the south pole with fresh ozone...or has everyone forgot. It may not be co2 induced global warming that will flood the world, but forgetfulness…

Gee! What do we do ?
Adapt; evolve... And learn to recognize hubris.

If we don't learn to "control" the sun (...that would be, Sol...) then we're at the mercy of natural forces.

But I -for one- wouldn't "monkey" with such a complicated beast!

Some day, thousands of years from now, there will probably be fierce debates over the merits of various sun control schemes.

Did I fool myself?
I was in the "Why Is The Sun Hot" thread...

How'd I get here ? ...By paying attention:

And such debates -about methods of controlling the sun- will mean as much then, 1,000 years from now, as they do now; it's politics, follow the money, babe! The powers that be want controll... Myself, I don't know why; but I can't deny: The most promenant human impulse is -no, not procreation- Power! The wrongs done in whatever name are mostly done for...Power!
And that's Power, over other people... Go figure; makes no sense to me.

[But I'd argue with God; ask the Mohammadens here that have deigned to talk with me... I'm the devil incarnate! [But I'd argue with him too...])

Thought you, this had nothing to do, with Global Warming?
I'll tie it up for you:

The science doesn't support the prescriptions...; the anti-capitalist agenda does!
Myself, I'm not anti-capitalist. But I ain't rich, so I must be stoo-pid, right? Aue contraire, mon fraire...

I'm the recipient of a quite good education.
(The University of Chicago wasn't the only place where Economics was taught, by guys who knew what was what, and what was going on... You could even've gone to North Carolina...say.) [Send me an honorariam, 'k? - You know who you are...]

You can doubt me; but you'll need to out-shout me or give convincing evidence that's contrary to what I know, to change my opinion. (Oh, wait: you can't change my opinion by "out shouting" me; darn! Tuffer fer you, now, ain't it?)

What anti-capitalist agenda??? Where's the conspiracy?

Whether the science supports the prescriptions or not depends on which prescriptions you're talking about and what results are desired. For people who don't care about their grandkids, even if they fully accept the science they won't follow the prescriptions put out by those who do care about their grandkids. It's quite subjective.

Totally "wuss-y" post, ae. And not what I'd've expected from you...
Anthropogenic Global Warming is -I maintain- a hoax. But...you'd tax me to pay for (whatever...) prescriptions the World's politicians come up with? I won't pay! (Yeah, I will... I'm a sort of wuss, too. But that's beside the point.) AGW has no basis, in science. It'sall politics!

I'm posting this one in two threads because of its incisive approach to the problem of global warming. I heard it on National Public Radio yesterday while driving somewhere and almost lost control of the car. I SNOPESed it today and it passed their test.

Daylight Exacerbates Warning

You may have noticed that March of this year was particularly hot. As a matter of fact, I understand that it was the hottest March since the beginning of the last century. All of the trees were fully leafed out and legions of bugs and snakes were crawling around during a time in Arkansas when, on a normal year, we might see a snowflake or two.

This should come as no surprise to any reasonable person. As you know, Daylight Saving Time started almost a month early this year. You would think that members of Congress would have considered the warming effect that an extra hour of daylight would have on our climate. Or did they?

Perhaps this is another plot by a liberal Congress to make us believe that global warming is a real threat. Perhaps next time there should be serious studies performed before Congress passes laws with such far reaching effects.

Connie M. Meskimen

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

Totally "wuss-y" post, ae. And not what I'd've expected from you...
Anthropogenic Global Warming is -I maintain- a hoax. But...you'd tax me to pay for (whatever...) prescriptions the World's politicians come up with? I won't pay! (Yeah, I will... I'm a sort of wuss, too. But that's beside the point.) AGW has no basis, in science. It'sall politics!

It is only politics on one side of the debate - the side of corporate interests. It's annoying that they are so vocal that people believe there is a heated scientific debate on the issue. AGW is well supported by science. Do some research.

Depends on which prescriptions you're talking about. Fund research into solar energy and storage of such? Hell yes. Fund a space based sun shield? Hell no! See, that's why sometimes you have to say "it depends". If the person presenting the question or problem doesn't give enough information the possible solutions are many.

So, you say there's an anti-capitalist agenda and somehow this conspiracy has co-opted the majority of the world's scientists into lieing for them. Show me the evidence for 1) the existence of this conspiracy 2) it's relation to climate science. Because without some good evidence my reaction is "Oh, good grief, where do people get this nonsense?".

Or how about a prescription that won't use taxes? Regulations requiring more and more efficient cars, etc. Even better, one that will generate revenue: tariffs on imported fossil fuels. Or how about forbidding politicians from giving your taxes to oil companies? Decrease your taxes AND decrease CO2 emissions through a capitalist, market-driven scheme?

ae: It wouldn't take much, to search for my previous posts on the subject...
I've done a lot of research. I don't say it's a conspiracy. But it is a "Movement!" IPCC is pretty hard to take seriously, if you read, ya know?

IPCC (INFINITY PROPERTY AND CASUALTY CORPORATION ) ???

Actually, I find the search function of the forums to be ... low quality.

No. I disagree. Use Advanced... It ain't that hard, though I've had my problems...; if I can do it....
You're joshin me, right? International Governmental Panel on Climate Change -a lucrative arm of the United Nations, don'tcha know? Scientists who wrote for them can't edit their remarks, or retract them (...I know; and I think that a very bad thing!).
It seems to mean somethng else, if you leave out "Governmental," don't it?
Science is as science does!

IPPIC: International Pro-governmental Pick .is (your's) Cores beliefs! Crap. (A stretch, even I'll admit; but ain't ever been one for acrnyms. -Or spelling; I might'ov goofed. But I think you're smart. I don't worry, much, on that account.)

A1F1, is still the best I can see. (I'll provide a link, if you've forgotten; but if a year or two is too much for you, why do you worry about decades and centuries?

"The difficulty of prediction and the impossibility of verification of predictions decades into the future are important factors that allow for competing views of the long term climate future."

It's quite possible that honest activists will create a climate in the discussion that will bring discussion to a halt.

Global warming and ID have something significant in common. Both have right-wing political interests attempting to distort that facts and exaggerate the actual scientific controversy. ID has the so-called "Discovery Institute" to bring utter bullshit to the "debate" through logical fallacies, distortion and outright lies. The global warming deniers and people who are now smart enough to not deny global warming but seriously want tell people that all the green houses gases that spew into the atmosphere doesn't cause global warming have, get this The American Association of Petroleum Geologists. yeah, you read the right. The "scientists" that deny man made global warming work for the bloody oil companies, fsck's sake! I'm going plagiarize from that wikipedia article "The AAPG is the only major professional organization in the natural sciences that formally rejects the likelihood of human influence on recent climate." Global warming is real, at least of good chunk of it is man made and the (Un)Intelligent Design people and main anthropogenic global warming deniers have another agenda, which isn't the telling the truth.

“AstroTurfing”: best new word of the last quintennium .

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

main anthropogenic global warming deniers

I think we have to make room for honest people who question, not deny, the claims of those who support the anthropic notion of global warming. A few hundreds of years of estimated global climate change is the blink of an eye in the record of events happening over tens of thousands of years, as we know to be the case with glaciation, let alone the millions of years over which the Grenville Mountains eroded to nothing but sinuous folds of rock. As for the political goons and corporate thugs who attach themselves to what self-serves, I have no affection for them, but we do have to let the science play out and grant those with differing readings of the record to have their say without smearing everybody with a common brush.

For those who think a warmer earth is not a problem, and that reducing our greenhouse gas emissions is too expensive. The costs of a warming Earth aren't always intuitive and obvious. Here's one more coin on the scale:
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/An+earlier+thaw+can+trim+winter+logging.-a0173465057

Winter logging time is reduced, which resulted in a loss of around a million dollars in logging fees paid to landowners.

I well remember the '70s futurists craze, with all those scenarios... (Anyone else care to read this?) All well and good, for aging hippies, greens, and other counter-culture types. But not -I repeat, NOT- science, thank you very much.

Is there any way -short of instituting a world government, I mean- of achieving substantial anti-global warming, sufficient to halt and/or reverse the damaging effects of Man living on the planet?

If so, what does it entail? (See any good choices?)

the ipcc for starters was created by margaret thatcher so it is a political movement not scientific, second how much money does science earn from global warming?billions... check the budgets of youre countries... global warming equals power and money the rest is pure brain washing.

Most countries have to take some/more responsibility. This is really important, and we need to change what's happening.

I'm surprised that I can't see someone mentioning Al Gore's film: An Inconvenient Truth.

Originally posted by string:

As an afterthought to my last post; over some hundreds of years, the effect of this climate change could well be to reduce the human population drastically. That will help too.

I truly believe this is our course.

Now that's not a good solution.

Originally posted by Ugglee:

so it is a political movement not scientific

Originally posted by Ugglee:

global warming equals power and money the rest is pure brain washing.

God Bless you. I am glad that somebody else sees this. Gore the Bore heads this great movement of lies for a leap into the White House in 2012. When will the world learn to be leery of political orators?

lets not forget the political movement that is kyoto do we get to chose who will be elected into kyoto, no, yet they will make our environmental policies and kyoto along with the united nations and other world bodies (banks included) is slowing taking the planet to a point where on government controls every country, one world one system, lets hope its a democracy

Originally posted by Ugglee:

the ipcc for starters was created by margaret thatcher so it is a political movement not scientific, second how much money does science earn from global warming?billions... check the budgets of youre countries... global warming equals power and money the rest is pure brain washing.

If you think that, you have obviously been reading only political articles, not scientific ones. And only from one side. You need to look at some real research. The neutral, scientific observations came first. Much later, once people started paying attention, it became political.

Originally posted by aefields:

If you think that, you have obviously been reading only political articles, not scientific ones. And only from one side. You need to look at some real research. The neutral, scientific observations came first. Much later, once people started paying attention, it became political.

I've noticed on a few Documentaries that the government have been editing the scientists reports from NASA prior to release to the Public for years. I think Scientific organisations should be a untouchable stand alone entity kind of like the supreme court.
Makes me Ill.

Yes. Censoring the apostle, any apostle(?), seems a bad idea.

At times the message may suck and disagree with your plans/preconceptions, but you wouldn't value your doctor if he told you everything was peachy while you were coughing up blood.

Look there is evidence that clearly states that mister Goerge Clinton and the P funk all stars are about ready to open the mothership connection
and then well there you have it Global warming with hair dryers and hagandaz or Ben and Jerry's if you prefer.

Additional news on biofuels from Scientific American Online.

Biofuels Are Bad for Feeding People and Combating Climate Change
By displacing agriculture for food—and causing more land clearing—biofuels are bad for hungry people and the environment

By David Biello
Converting corn to ethanol in Iowa not only leads to clearing more of the Amazonian rainforest, researchers report in a pair of new studies in Science, but also would do little to slow global warming—and often make it worse.

"Prior analyses made an accounting error," says one study's lead author, Tim Searchinger, an agricultural expert at Princeton University. "There is a huge imbalance between the carbon lost by plowing up a hectare [2.47 acres] of forest or grassland from the benefit you get from biofuels."

Growing plants store carbon in their roots, shoots and leaves. As a result, the world's plants and the soil in which they grow contain nearly three times as much carbon as the entire atmosphere. "I know when I look at a tree that half the dry weight of it is carbon," says ecologist David Tilman of the University of Minnesota, coauthor of the other study which examined the "carbon debt" embedded in any biofuel. "That's going to end up as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere when you cut it down."
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=biofuels-bad-for-people-and-climate

My local newspaper (Modesto Bee) carried a gloss of this, too. GCMs don't seem "interested" in land-use issues... (Remember Dyson's remarks?)

Biofuels make greenhouse gases worse, scientists say

By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL

The New York Times

Related
Archive | Seattle area a new hub for "clean" technology
Archive | New ethanol goal offers challenge, opportunity for biofuel industry

Almost all biofuels used today cause more greenhouse-gas emissions than conventional fuels if the full emissions costs of producing these "green" fuels are taken into account, two studies published Thursday have concluded.

The benefits of biofuels have come under increasing attack in recent months, as scientists took a closer look at the global environmental cost of their production.

These plant-based fuels were originally billed as better than fossil fuels because the carbon released when they were burned was balanced by the carbon absorbed when the plants grew. But that equation proved overly simplistic because the process of turning plants into fuels causes its own emissions — for refining and transport, for example.

These studies, published in the prestigious journal Science, for the first time take a detailed, comprehensive look at the emissions effects of the huge amount of natural land that is being converted to cropland globally to support biofuels development.

The destruction of natural ecosystems — whether rain forest in the tropics or grasslands in South America — not only releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere when they are burned and plowed, but also deprives the planet of natural sponges to absorb carbon emissions. Cropland also absorbs far less carbon than the rain forests or even scrubland that it replaces.


man we cain't win