Slashdot Mirror
More Bad News About Global Warming
IZ Reloaded writes "A UK govt report says that greenhouse gases may have more serious impacts that previously thought. Greenhouse gases it says, is causing global warming at a rate that is unsustainable. From BBC: The European Union has adopted a target of preventing a rise in global average temperature of more than two Celsius. That, according to the report, might be too high, with two degrees being enough to trigger melting of the Greenland ice sheet.... A rise of two Celsius, researchers conclude, will be enough to cause:
* Decreasing crop yields in the developing and developed world
* Tripling of poor harvests in Europe and Russia
* Large-scale displacement of people in north Africa from desertification
* Up to 2.8bn people at risk of water shortage
* 97% loss of coral reefs
* Total loss of summer Arctic sea ice causing extinction of the polar bear and the walrus
* Spread of malaria in Africa and north America"
I don't know where the hell your getting your "data" from but as a programmer with a physics degree I am able to pick up these supposed "pseudo" scientific journals (you many have heard of Nature for example) and understand not only the data presented but the scientific arguements surrounding the conclusions. 2005 was the hottest year since accurate records began so where the hell is the cooling?? Arguing whether global warming is actually happening or going to happen has long ended, however there is still a chance someone will believe the we're coming out of an ice age go about you business ploy.
C3PO - We seem to be made to suffer. It's our lot in life.
In Russia we are having one of the COLDEST winters in history!
It looks here that not a global warming, but a global permafrost is coming!
we experienced -15 F here! and some experienced -20!
China signed AND ratified the Kyoto protocol.
The US signed the Kyoto protocol, but did not ratify it.
Australia signed nor ratified the Kyoto protocol.
try RealClimate.org and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
I've read all the papers (a few in summary form only) from the conference on which this report is based. The BBC report accurately reflects what I have read.
As the CO2 is increasing, the O2 is decreasing.
So when it gets 4 to 7 degrees C warmer, and Florida and many islands vanish,
that's bad - but what do we do without oxygen?
The bigger problem with fossil fuels is they are competition, not just a tool.
It might be a good idea to stop using technology that kills of all the microorganisms,
photoplankton, and trees and plants that produce the free oxygen we need to survive,
or homo sapien will be the next endangered species.
SpaceBalls wasn't a joke - it was a prophecy.
If 1 in 9 harvests are currently poor - that number will triple to 1 in 3. Is that not obvious or are you just trying to nit-pick? How a poor harvest is defined however - that is an interesting question.
At the moment the water systems are designed for a particular catchment of water over a period of time, but with the average summer temperature rising, it evaporates quicker than it's collected, aka drought.
That is presuming gloabl warming is real and that it's linked to CO2.
You may be completely right and it's great for everyone to have an opinion on global warming and carbon dioxide. But is your opinion based on what you got from the media or was it formed through scientific reasoning?
Wether for or against, could any of us make a good scientific argument to support theories?
How much do you we all know about climatology?
What models did the IPCC researchers use in temperature prediction?
How were the models verified?
What's the MBH98 hockeystick graph?
What are the criticisms of the MBH98 graph?
How is temperature measured?
What's an urban heat island?
What's a microwave sounding unit?
What's the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere?
What's Hubert Peak Theory?
For anyone who's unsure, may I suggest less BBC and more science. Here's some links.
IPCC Report
realclimate
CO2 science
Temp for last 100 years
You moron. The extinction of large mammals is a pretty damn serious effect. Go off and play with your toys and leave the talking to the adults.
Presumably, wooly mammoths and mastodons were victims of global warming. Please explain the "damn seriousness" of their extinction, and its long-term effects on whatever the fuck you were trying to talk about.
Citizens of the US: It's time to make your government take actions to stop global warming. You, the US, are the biggest contributor to global warming. In spite of this fact, the US does nothing. Join the EU and the rest of the world.
I'm going to ignore your silly troll, that got modded up, and provide some truth admist the $EMOTION-mongering:
Here is the data (mostly from 2002): Greenhouse gas emissions. As a point of information, while the US totally dominates total greenhouse emissions, we aren't #1 per capita, we are just #6. We are behind Paraguay, Luxembourg, Jamacia, Belize, and Australia. And before Canada gets all high and mighty, we are at 23.35, and you are at 23.11. And, for the record, the US has done alot to cut back on its GHG emissions, despite the fact that it is not part of Kyoto. Therefore, the quote "In spite of this fact, the US does nothing." is catagorically false. You may decide we haven't done enough, and I'd probably agree.
You have no right to damage the Earth! It's not yours.
Tell that to Luxembourg. Har har.
You forgot to mention that simply signing a treaty does nothing - most of the member nations who signed it years ago have failed to meet their obligations. It's simply a pointless treaty.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
We're not denying it, we're just questioning wether it's linked to CO2.
The cornerstone to the IPCC Report is the Michael Mann (et el) "hockey stick" graph of which the model used to generate it has been found to contain errors. I'm talking about errors according to climatologists, not politicians or newpaper editors.
Here's a wiki article that mentions it.
More info and details here.
Two reseachers from Canada, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, attempted to reconstruct the so-called MBH98 graph and wrote that the method used by Mann contained "collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data,"
AFAIK there is no more conclusive data available than what MBH98 gives. If MBH98 is fatally flawed then the whole of the IPCC's conclusions are drawn into question.
I've chosen one that is entirely based on wind and hydro power
From what I know from these alternative providers it is more likely that they are selling you standard energy but guarantee that they invest part of their profits into producing the same amount of energy they sell you with clean technology.This could mean that the energy you are using is still dirty, but that you are contributing to the growth of clean energy in the total energy produced. But it depends on what your energy provider is really doing, and it appears they are not equaly serious on this subject. So choose wisely your provider if you don't want to be just paying more for no other result !
In this aspect it is my belief that reducing dirty energy (including nuclear) must be pushed by state and government if we want to make a real difference.
With that aggravating beauty, Lulu Walls.
> Here in New York (USA), the energy sector has been decentralized, so we can choose our suppliers for electricity. I've chosen one that is entirely based on wind and hydro power. Sure, it costs me an extra $10-$20/month, but it is one small thing that _I_ can do.
Unfortunately I don't remember the details, I saw a news story a few weeks back that said that people who made that choice in whatever region they were talking about finally started coming out ahead money-wise, and they were having a lottery for the remaining sign-up slots because everyone was wanting to jump on board.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Scientific reasoning funnily enough. CO2 contributes
to the greenhouse effect by its absorbtion of infra red wavelengths. Add more CO2 and more infra red gets absorbed and the atmosphere (all other things being equal - though thats not a given) gets warmer. Its not rocket science.
But the US uses more fuel per capita than most countries (it beaten by Australia
and the Canadian Inuit states).
The US is almost certainly not leading the world in renewable energy reuse; this
would almost certainly be one of the extremely poor african countries.
We are probably not going to run out of fossil fuels--Iraq sits of a lot of oil, there is an enourmous amount of (currently unviable) fuel in the Canadian oil shale, China has vast coal reserves.
So, actually, the problem is that what we are doing to the weather. Still, you can sit there and say "what we do is not going to change much". Not worrying about things, and assuming that it is someone elses problem is always a constructive solution.
BTW, this is not US bashing. You are currently the worst, but will not hold this banner for ever, and the rest (including my own, the UK) are pretty crap.
Phil
Maybe science didn't tell the other guy that, but it certainly suggested it. This paper goes into great length discussing the causes of the earth's warming, and the effects. It certainly doesn't seem to me that the causes have much to do with us, nor that the effects will be too devistating.
Solar and wind power is great, but you need a lot of space, and continuous wind and sunlight for them to be worthwhile. Wind power gets maligned for the damage it causes to birds, but I'm not really worried about the sparrow, pigeon, and crow populations. There is some interesting wind research being done on Canada's Prince Edward Island, with vertical, horizontal, and variable-incidence and -wind-speed devices.
Hydro power is clean, endlessly renewable, and well understood, but gets bad-mouthed for the impact it has on migrating fish populations. Wave power is an interesting possibility, but more research needs to be done on it.
At the personal - ie non-grid - level, installing better insulation, efficient HVAC systems, and switching to fuel cells for home power supplementation/generation are all things many homeowners can do to improve their personal costs, and reduce their draw from the grid.
Since the world's population is likely to only expand for a while yet, it would be good for the countries that can afford it to move to better sources of power generation to start to clean the air of particulate matter over themselves. It's really a political decision, though, now, and not an economic one. For several years it has been more economically viable (mid- to long-term) to use non-fossil fuel generation, but the political will to do so hasn't been there. Maybe with current oil prices it will begin to appear.
antipaucity
Any sources? We are currently #6 in Carbon Dioxide production per capita. And Canada is barely trailing us.h ouse_emissions.htm
I will concede, the trends in the US are not good. The UK is doing a much better job of improving. In the next 10 years I could see us no longer being a leader in renewable resource usage. THAT is a problem.
http://unstats.un.org/unsd//environment/air_green
First, we need to delay
Many of the climate models you put so much stock in say that it's a runaway reaction once started. If you truly believe the models you refer to in step 3 of your plan, you should throw away step 1.
Regarding your second step, and alternative energies, absolutely. Fission Fission Fission. Ironically, and very sadly, environmentalists, with their short sighted and uninformed no-nucleaer agenda, may have done more to harm the environment than the oil industry.
If we can say with some level of certainty that our climate models are good enough to link humans to global warming and foresee serious consequences in the future, we need to take those same models and predict ways to offset those changes.
As a modeler, we cannot say with any certainty that our climate models are good enough. In any model with complex feedback cycles, neglecting a single factor can render all of your predictions wildly inaccurate. We know a lot, but we need to know just about everything to get it right if we're planning on being proactive.
Science on this level is really really hard. Much harder to do than it is to read newspaper stories and come up with 3 step plans.
I find it hard to believe that we have enough power to warm the planet, yet lack the power to cool it.
I can render a computer inoperative by running a steak knife across the motherboard. I couldn't then fix it.
PR firms are noted for producing bovine excrement. They are really good at polishing it to make it look good, but it doesn't change its essence. If you want to know where climate scientists stand, you should read stuff written by climate scientists.
Sorry, but that's an outright lie. See Myth #1 (and read the rest). You can find the Keeling curve and atmospheric composition data derived from the Vostok ice core (going back 650,000 years) at The Ergosphere.Sustainability and energy independence essay
>Animals and volcanoes produce far more CO2 than cars and industry. CO2 and Methane are greenhouse gasses, but they are also naturally occuring.
Completely incorrect.
http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html
"Present-day carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from subaerial and submarine volcanoes are uncertain at the present time. Gerlach (1991) estimated a total global release of 3-4 x 10E12 mol/yr from volcanoes. This is a conservative estimate. Man-made (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions overwhelm this estimate by at least 150 times."
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
People like to claim this, and there's some truth in that the solar energy output does fluctuate, but when I worked for NASA, when we calibrated our images, we treated solar energy output as a constant, because those variations were too small to affect the calibration. The eccentricity of orbit played a much larger role in varying the solar energy received on planetary surfaces.
The approximate average temperature of a body Tb illuminated by a blackbody radiator (which stars are close enough to to make little difference) of temp T, with radius R, where the body has an albedo A and is distance D away is given as:
Tb = T * ( 1 - A)**.25 * ((R/2.0*D)**.5)
If we assume Earth's albedo is .36, the temp of the sun is 5860 K, the solar radius is 696,000 km, and the Earth is 1.5e8 km away, we get 251 degrees K, which is very chilly, but this doesn't include greenhouse and convection effects (try this calculation on Venus to see what I mean!)
If we make the Sun 100 K hotter, the new temperature on earth goes to 255 degrees kelvin. Now, I'm not a solar scientist (and there's several on /. whom I've had the pleasure of meeting over the years who can correct me if I'm wrong), but I don't think the sun's mean temperature varies by anything close to that amount. With that, you get a 4 degree kelvin increase in solar heating. That's it.
Unless one wants to reject all of physics from Maxwell onwards, I think another explanation than increased solar activity would have to be found for warming effects. This doesn't mean that I buy the gloom and doom scenarios put out by those who warn of global warning (nor do I reject them), but I do believe that good science is required, and I've seen more than enough bad science brought up by both sides of this debate.
>> In Russia we are having one of the COLDEST winters in history!
... the balmy UK winters will start to look more like those of Siberia.
It's only the planetary average temperature that will increase with global warming, and not by a lot.
In contrast, local temperatures will both increase and decrease in a far more complicated pattern across the world, and by comparatively large amounts. Although simulations vary quite a lot in their predictions, the areas of major change are quite clear.
Northern Europe seems quite likely to suffer the largest downward changes, because an early consequence of the melting of the Greenland glaciers and surrounding ice shelves will be that the "Atlantic Conveyor" (a closed circuit of ocean currents) will grind to a halt. The Gulf Stream is already slowing, and there is absolutely no way to reverse this trend. The inevitable result will be that the quite warm climate in the coastal European countries up at around 50-60 degrees North will plunge towards the deep continental average
Likewise, the equatorial hot spots are expected to rise in temperature by a lot more than the planetary average, with quite appalling consequences for their populations. Anyone who thinks that "2 degrees of global warming" will be barely noticeable in Africa is confusing "global" with "local".
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Do yourself a favor and go read some studies on the history of climate change over the last 100,000 years (taken from ice samples). I don't argue that dumping stuff into the atmosphere is bad, but fluctuations in global climate is rather common. There have been times in the planet's past (within the last 100,000) years where the climate was MUCH warmer with much higher concentrations of C02.
Has it been warmer in the last 100,000 years? No, but if they stretch that to 150,000 then yes it has been warmer than it is now. "Much" warmer is perhaps an exageration though. Has there been much higher CO2 concentrations? Not even close. Current CO2 concentrations represent spike in CO2 levels twice as large as any previous spike in the last 650,000 years. What des that have to do with temperature? Take a look at a chart of and see how closely they correlate. Now realise that in that plot current CO2 levels are at 5.5 on that scale! Yes, correlation doesn't imply causation. Basic physics regarding absroption spectra of CO2 is hat implies causation, the correlation just shows that theory bears out in practice.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
The problem is that Bush is ACTIVELY ignoring the problem and actively stifling those who would
give voice to the reality of the problem. I'm sure the fact that the fact that Exxon Mobile
has had record profits this year has absolutely nothing to do with the Exxon's perspective on global
warming.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/30/business/30cnd-e xxon.html?hp&ex=1138683600&en=ed7ac90463244e93&ei= 5094&partner=homepage
I'm also sure that the secret meetings between Bush and the energy sector in the start of his first term
has nothing to do with Bush's disinclination to treat the issue of global warming with any kind of thought that it deserves.
The Bush administration has not placed any priority on climate research. It as if President Bush
doesn't really want to explore lines of research that might discover a link between various climatic
events and the possibility that these events have their roots in man made causes. Disputing various
reports about global warming is one thing, actively derailing avenues of research is another.
1. The Global Precipitation Measurement project has been delayed. This project would have helped us understand what is happending to our climate.
2. The Glory Project has been canceled. This would haved studied the behaviour aerosols in the atmosphere.
3. Our system of "system of environmental satellites is at risk of collapse." warned the National Academy of Sciences warned in April 2005. This happened in an unscheduled report, which underscores the importance that the National Academy of Sciences views this. Of course, the administration will conveniantly use the National Academy of Science when it aligns with their preconcieved notions but ignores them when it doesn't. When the Bush administration asked the NAS to find weaknesses in climate studies to justify their climate policy the commision's report didn't come back to their liking. So they dropped that report and used a study funded by the American Petroleum Institute (an independent unbiased organization fund by GUESS WHO: Exxon). So the Report on the Environment ended up with something that reflected Exxon policy instead of science.
4. Even relatively inexpensive systems like the Earth System Pathfinder missions and Explorer class satellites have been eliminated or subject to prolonged delays.
From
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/archives/2004/04-1 0-08.html
"To prove that he took the issue of global warming seriously, Marburger shamelessly cited a study that President Bush had commissioned from the National Academy of Sciences. The administration had asked the NAS to find "weaknesses" in climate science studies to justify their efforts to derail an international global warming treaty. When the commissioned report instead confirmed human-induced climate change and mentioned fossil fuels as a major culprit the EPA decided to replace the findings in its Report on the Environment with a discredited study funded by the American Petroleum Institute"
You remember who the American Petroleum Institute is funded by, right?
"Maybe this is a feature of global warming, but maybe not," Polyakov said of the presence of warm Atlantic water in the Arctic Ocean. "We should think about what's causing this, but it's just as important to monitor it."
http://www.sitnews.us/0605news/061205/061205_ak_sc ience.html
Powerful ocean currents are grinding slowly to a halt, raising the possibility of a catastrophic climate "flip" that could chill Europe and warm New Zealand, startling new evidence sug
50 posts and nobody calls "FUD" on this?
Can someone please answer the following questions concisely and clearly?
** I'll try.
- If I look at a graph like http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gat2005- 600x283.gif it is certainly convincing that there is warming going on. No question. But all of these graphs seem to start in the 1800s. I've seen other graphs showing longer spans in which the current temperatures, while high, are still well within the normal deviation. How is it that we KNOW that *this time* it's going to go higher? All the models I've read about that project this sort of thing are so full of assumptions and broad variables that they are pretty much useless.
** Exactly. We have never observed a man-made climate change before. So we can only guess many things. We can argue about the details, but we cannot argue that the billions of CO2 we blow into the atmosphere are going somewhere. And, no, we don't have a second planet in the trunk. If the predictions are wrong, we can be happy. Less SUVs, though...
If the predictions are right, we might all end up dead.
I am not going to stake the life of my children on the assumption that we can pollute like heck and nothing will happen.
A rise of two Celsius, researchers conclude, will be enough to cause: * Decreasing crop yields in the developing and developed world
- Don't plants prefer warmer, higher-CO2 atmosphere? Wasn't it much warmer than +2C at intermittent periods in humanity's past, as well as in more ancient geologic epochs?
** What plants? Any plant or the ones we humans like to eat? Our crops are adapted to specific temperatures, humidity levels and CO2 levels. Lots of tough weeds will love that extra CO2, but our wheat and soy won't.
* Tripling of poor harvests in Europe and Russia *
- What does this even mean? I presume they mean a tripling of the FREQUENCY of bad harvests? Last time I checked, Europe and Russia were not the major food producers of the world. Wouldn't increased temperatures open up large swaths of North America to cultivation more intensively than before? This shift of 'main agricultural region' northward also sort of neatly solves the issue about soil and water table exhaustion in the Central US too, doesn't it? Also, don't most of the tests of increased-CO2 environments show an increased growth, increased CO2 absorption using LESS moisture? That sounds pretty good to me?
Large-scale displacement of people in north Africa from desertification *
Up to 2.8bn people at risk of water shortage *
- I don't see how global warming is going to affect this? As far as I can see, the 'global warming' crowd is also predicting increased frequency and increased intensity weather events (ie rain?) which will be recharging aquifers faster than usual. Personally, I think there are just way too many people living in way too crummy of areas.
** The problem is not just water, but drinkable water. You can't drink polluted water, and we will get more polluted water when ocean levels rise and the seas flood human cities with all their waste. Look at all the filthy water in flooded New Orleans. Glaciers normally store fresh, good water in winter and slowly release it in summer. Without glaciers, much fresh water will simply flow away and not be there when we need it.
97% loss of coral reefs *
- Please. This one is utterly incredible. Maybe 97% loss of CURRENT coral reefs? But as far as I know there have been coral reefs all the way back to the Cenozoic, in conditions of FAR higher global temperature. Basically, if one area gets warmer, other areas that were previously too cool for reef formation will then be warmed into the reef-friendly climate range. Coral reefs are neither static nor permanent.
** Nope. Corals grow slowly, and if the temperatures rise as projected, our current corals will be wiped out before new coral reefs with better adaptation can form. We mi
I think you may want to re-look at that table. The 6 doesn't appear to indicate that the US is 6th in the world for greenhouse gas production. It appears to indicate that the US produced 6,796.3 tonnes of CO2 equivilant gasses. It imporves when you look at it per capita to only 23.35 tonnes / person. True, per capita the US is close to it's Northern cousin.
I'm curious how that compares when factoring in the vastly different climate in the two nations. With the exception of a relativly mild Alaska, all of Canada is inflicted with 7-8+ months of weather requiring heat for bare survival. This winter has actually been weirdly dry and mild compared to what is normal here. Even so, without a source of 24/7 heat in homes, people would turn into the fabled meat popcicle(Usual average temp across Canada excepting the west coast is -15 deg Celcius). Contrast that to the bottom half of the continental US/Hawaii.
I do admit that Canada wastes a huge amount of energy, as does every "Western Civilized" nation I've ever visited (Every EU nation, + most of the former Eastern Bloc). Change is occuring in peoples habits, but I don't think it will occur fast enough to matter.
Enjoy, and thanks for the interesting webpage.
1. Climate is not weather; this was kinda his point. No one is making 100 year weather forcasts, they are making 100 year CLIMATE predictions.
2. We now have over 600,000 years of good climate and CO2 data, from the ice cores.
3. When they retreived the earliest 200,000 years or so of that data, the ice core people released the temperature data, and challenged the modeling people to predict the CO2 accompanying levels. They did, and when the ice core people subsequently released the CO2 data, the modelers were spot on with their predictions. Close to 200,000 years of BLIND PREDICTED CO2 levels, tracked very, very closely to observed data.
That amounts to a little more than 100 years of observation.