Slashdot Mirror
Human Activity to Blame For 2003 Heatwave
Dirak writes "The temperatures of the summer of 2003 were almost undoubtedly the highest in Europe for over 500 years. New research shows how human influence, mainly fossil fuel burning, can be blamed for increasing the risk of such a heatwave and by the middle of this century every other summer could be even hotter than 2003."
It could be used to establish liability - just like the research into smoking causing cancer; before there was good research the tobacco companies could avoid liability (even though they knew fairly well that smoking caused various diseases), once the research was public they could reasonably be sued for carrying on their activities. Imagine Exxon getting sued for those excess 30,000-50,000 deaths per year due to anthropogenic global warming.
Don't think this is likely? The SCO nonsense should convince you that lawyers will do absolutely anything. On the example of the tobacco company lawsuits, I doubt such action would succeed, but it could cause serious costs and embarrassment to oil companies, car companies, etc., who fail to take action to moderate their impact.
-- Nothing unusual happened today
So -- using that old razor of Occam's -- either the entire world and every observable natural system is on the brink of an unheard-of disaster, or there is a noticable (and understandable) trend in scientific research to a) follow the herd, and b) doomsay.
True enough, Up here in the arctic the change in temprature is really noticable. Over the last few years all sorts of plants and animals that would hardly ever bee seen in here just 10-15 years ago have become common place. They do concede in this article that the climate is still colder than it was during the middle ages when people were able to grow wheat in quantity as far north as sub arctic Norway, Sweden and in Iceland: "...the temperatures of summer 2003 were almost undoubtedly the highest in Europe for over 500 years." So I'm still not convinced that this isn't just a natural fluctuation in the climate, althought is is probably not completely unaffected by human activity.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
There are really only two ways that folks will take drastic action to curtail global warming: economics & disaster. If fossil fuels become so friggin' expensive that people must cut back on their usage, then things will improve (environmentaly). Likewise, if New York goes under water governments will force people to comply.
Personally, I think there's a bit too much hype around global warming. On one side we have the "Oh my God, we're all gonna' die!" crowd. On the other, the "Just keep driving, everythings okay!" crowd. Like most things, the truth is likely somewhere inbetween.
As for the U.S. stance on the environment, I don't think we're doing horribly. Sure the Bush crowd may be a little too unconcerned, but they aren't completely oblivious. It's good that they don't adopt everything Greenpeace says or we'd all be living in huts.
Now, I do think that new technologies will make it easier for people to adopt cleaner ways of life. People, in general, in this country are becoming more and more aware of the importance of the environment, especially as compared to 30 or 40 years ago. Most would like to do the right thing, but they also want to keep their way of life.
I think the upcoming success of hybrids is a great thing and really indicates the mood of the nation on this issue. I worked in that industry about 5 years ago and really thought it was a rewarding job. Hybrids & their recent successes in the market (Accord Hybrid) are an indication of public perception. People are willing to pay a little bit extra for some good technology that helps them save gas and help the environment. Seems logical enough.
In reality, until cold-fussion comes on the scene or people decide that fission isn't so bad, fossil fuels aren't going away. They're just so darn cheap and easy to use. And as much as they might damage the environment, they are the best way to produce the power necessary for modern civilization.
Wow, that was long. Did I just rant?
In Sweden and Finland, and, to a lesser extent, Norway policy changes to industry, agriculture and the market in general are optimized to force the population into concentrated areas leaving these evacuated, desirable properties undervalued. Norway has been more stubborn or wiser about this. Sweden and Finland are currently getting hit harder. Not just in ghettoization of the population, but also in doleing out properties to foreign owners.
The price in some areas has doubled in the last 5 years as Germans become the majority. (e.g. a run down farm a day's drive from Germany underneath a noisy windmill and down wind from a pig farm went for 15 times what it would have 10 years ago) Denmark will get hit, too, once it becomes forced to allow desirable property.
The earth will lose it's ability to sustain our population long before all other earth life is extinguished. Civilization is still more fragile. We can still adapt, but better urban planning needs to take precidence over short term greed.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
This was published in Nature, which is one of the two most prestigious science journals (the other one is Science). It is based on climate models that predict that the probability of heat waves like that of 2003 has doubled due to greenhouse gas emissions. (According to the same models, by 2050 about 50% of European summers are going to be like the 2003 or worse.)
If we suppose the probabilities from the models are correct, the attribution of part of blame to greenhouse gases is correct, just like one can claim some lung cancers are caused by tobacco.
I have already seen speculation about the possible use of the results in courts against the polluters.
I read about a psychology experiment at a university. The subjects were asked to wait in a small anteroom outside the room where the experiment proper was taking place. The anteroom was equipped with a few ordinary-looking chairs, lights and pictures on the walls. Unbeknown to the subjects, the anteroom was also equipped with video cameras -- and the experimenter had a console which allowed pictures to be knocked down, chairs to collapse and light bulbs to blow at the flick of a switch. {Also plenty of spares so the anteroom didn't look too much like a war zone!} The experiment consisted of observing the subject in the anteroom, operating a self-destruct button at an appropriate time {e.g. bringing down a picture when the subject approached it} -- and then calling the subject into the room for debriefing. Most of the subjects ended up blaming themselves for the damage.
There is also the case of a DJ on a radio station in the Midlands who was playing a rather old, worn record one day, and the needle skipped. Several listeners rang in to apologise for jostling their sets and causing the record to skip!
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Also note that the year 2003 had one of the highest amounts of sun spot activity in recent history. High sun spot activity has significant effects on the global climate. As the end of this article says, "There's more to global climate change than just carbon dioxide."
Love sees no species.
Actually one of the side effects of Global Warming may be the shutting down of the Gulf Stream. Scientists have found that the Gulf Stream has shut down 4 times in the past 20,000 years. The shutting down of the Gulf Stream always coincided with warmer global temperatures.
The warm water from the Gulf Stream is what keeps Europe more temperate. Look on a globe and compare the latitude of London to Nova Scotia. If the gulf stream shuts down most of Northern Europe will become a tundra. Such a shift in climate will be financially and politically disasterous to the world.