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"
Even with the best will in the world (and that is sorely lacking
from certain countries - and thats not just a pop at the US, I'm
talking china, australia, india etc) we can't suddenly all switch
to nuclear and wind/solar/wave power overnight. CO2 will continue
to be released and the temperature is likely to go over the 2C
rise this century. I suspect the writing is on the wall for a
large part of the next generation of people on this planet , and
possibly us too if we live long enough.
"If they had to resort to "extinction of the polar bear and walrus" for a seven-item list of "what could happen if there's global warming," we're not in such bad shape"
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.
It's inevitable, just what we were wanting to hear. Now we don't have to bother changing our ways, we can just sit back and wait for it, with a newly-invigorated sense of nihilism. If you were hesitating to buy that SUV you wanted, well, now, you may as well get it.
For a while I thought there would be the danger that we would have to do something....phew!
Yet around here people are glad of the "nice weather." This time of year there should be some serious snow on the ground around here, not partially green grass. Sooner or later, we're all going to pay for the "nice weather."
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Exactly, what are these folks not seeing when it comes to denying global warming?
Dollar signs.
Well, the type of $ that keeps them supplied with power and influence. Once they figure out how to stay in power without the rest of us being dependant on fossil fuels, greenhouse gases will begin to not be a problem.
Soko
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
Perhaps the loss of Krill is far more worrying, close to the bottom rung on many food chains (phytoplankton an algae are below them) many species rely directally and indirectally upon these tiny crustaceans. The lost of such an important species would be far reaching, and its effects would be felt in all the worlds oceans.
C3PO - We seem to be made to suffer. It's our lot in life.
Er ... if you read TFA closely, the report doesn't actually say what the headline seems to imply -- i.e., that greenhouse gases have been demonstrated to be more effective in causing global warming than previously thought. It says that the effects of global warming have been modeled to be more drastic than previously thought.
This is a subtle but vitally important distinction that the writers of the article themselves don't seem to grasp. To quote from TFA:
But Miles Allen, a lecturer on atmospheric physics at Oxford University, said assessing a "safe level" of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was "a bit like asking a doctor what's a safe number of cigarettes to smoke per day".
"There isn't one but at the same time people do smoke and live until they're 90," he told Today.
"It's one of those difficult areas where we're talking about changing degrees of risk rather than a very definite number after which we can say with absolute certainty that certain things will happen."
Given that CO2 is naturally found in the atmosphere, and was so long before humanity came on the scene, and is essential for the continuation of plant life on this planet, Allen's comparison of it to an external disease-causing agent is a very odd statement.
I'm waiting to see a study on global warming that actually takes into account the fact that we are still coming out of the last ice age (or out of the Little Ice Age); that the planet (and our species) has survived far more drastic climate change in the past; and that such climate change had nothing to do with human action. When those facts (and they are facts) are taken into account, how much actual evidence is there that the current climate change is due to human causes? Is there any at all?
I don't intend this as a troll. Seriously, if anyone can link to studies that take those facts into account, I'd very much like to read them.
How can a post be modded "overrated" or "underrated" when it hasn't been rated yet?
This is why we need to act now. Even if we don't do much and we only reduce the our CO2 emissions by an extra 1% (for illustrative purposes not actual figure) by doing easy things like turning our TVs off at the wall rather than putting them on standby, walking to places near our houses, not leaving our computers on all day while we are not at home etc. Then at least we will be giving our selves more of a chance to sort out this mess.
I am angry that countries like America, Austraila and China will not sign up to the Kyoto treaty as they are some of the largest contributers to CO2 emissions, and the other parts of the world that are doing thier bit to reduce emissions are then getting short changed because the good that they are doing is being made almost pointless because places like America are still polluting lots and the whole world will suffer not just America. The world is a "team game" we need to work together on this one. America (and the others) should stop thinking about thier oil centric economies and think about the future of our planet.
I am also irritated and scared that the American electorate keeps voting Bush in, he really is a moron, how can the American people trust such an idiot to run thier country. It would be much better to bring Clinton back in my view.
Michael-m.co.uk - Home of Michael Mulqueen
What exactly is "tripling of poor harvests"?
We'll have poor harvests that are three times as big as previous poor harvests? We'll have poor harvests three times as often as we do now? We'll have harvests that yield only one-third as much as we do now? Or something else?
And how is "poor harvests" defined?
How can a post be modded "overrated" or "underrated" when it hasn't been rated yet?
Back in the 70's it was a definite scientific fact that we were suffering from Global Cooling. We were going to lose all those species from loss of habitat, loss of crops due to lack of heat, blah, blah, blah.
My, how short-sighted we get when the natural climatological changes of the planet fit in with our political goals.
I'm still out on what's happening, but it seems as is some of these people believe the earth has never been warmer than it was last week. Where are the predictions that we'll once again have huge grape vineyards in England like we did 500 years ago but don't now because it is too cold?
I really wish that we would search for solutions outside of prevention. Breaks are nice, but if they fail, I would like a seatbelt, an air bag, a crumple zone, and a roll cage. The simple fact of the matter is that I honestly don't think that the world has the will to slow its green house gas output.
The US is not going to relocate its populace into central locations and build a massive public transport project. China (or any other developing nation for the matter) is not going to tell 1.3 billion people that are always on the verge of a violent revolution to come out of poverty slowly so that they don't dump green house gases with their inefficient industries. Hell, even the modest targets set up by Kyoto are going to be a struggle for most nations to reach. Simply put, the world is addicted and the addiction isn't going to stop. If the threat truly is sever and looming, hitting the breaks as hard as we can muster is a nice first step, but it sure as hell shouldn't be the last.
Billions of people are coming out of poverty and starting to really consume for the first time. These people simply well not accept being told they can't live like the people in first world nations do. Older first world nations like the US are already built on an infrastructure that is both physical and political that precludes massive societal alterations to truly reduce green house gas output. Even the EU has limits as to how far they can cut back. Combine these factors and it is pretty clear we can't back peddle. We can slow and delay which are good first steps, but with 3-4 billion or so people coming out of poverty, that is about all we can do.
I think we need a three fold strategy.
First, we need to delay. Reducing output and gathering climate data is something that has already been initiated. This is a trend that needs to continue in so much as far is possible, but it can't be the only thing that is done.
Second, we need alternative technologies to that can maintain our standard of living while reducing emissions. Perhaps more importantly, we need to have these technologies in place such that they can be transferred to rising third world nations. 1.3 billion Chinese can not live like Europeans, much less Americans, and have the same inefficiency that they suffer with now. Fusion, fissions, clean coal technology, hybrids, all of these things are steps in the right direction.
Third, we should seriously consider the possibility that the first two steps are not going to work and seriously consider methods to terraform Earth to maintain the status quo, or at least to blunt serious and dramatic changes. 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. I find it hard to believe that we have enough power to warm the planet, yet lack the power to cool it. If this really is a grave concern, money should start being funneled into global climate control now. An international treaty organization should begin hammering out the framework for altering the global weather in a manner that is agreeable to as many as possible.
In my opinion, it isn't enough to simply demand the insane and expect 3-4 billion poor to rise out of poverty, but do it such that they do it without creating a global impact. The wave is coming. If we truly have convinced ourselves that it is upon us, we need to recognize the fact that 3-4 billion people going through an industrial revolution is messy at best, and prepare in ways that recognize that environmentalism alone isn't enough to stop what is coming.
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.
It's laudable and and a worthy goal to reduce the crap being put into the atmosphere, but to attribute current climate conditions over the last 20 years or even 40 with human activity is more politics than science (there is SOME science but it's VERY anecdotal and inconclusive).
The question is not whether or not the Earth will survive. It is whether or not my future grandchildren will survive. It is not whether or not life will continue, it is whether or not our lives will continue. It's not a question of whether or not global warming causes are natural or not. It's whether we can do anything about it.
I've been reading up on this whole issue, and it seems that because of the lines drawn in the scientific fields about this issue, and the general unpredictability of global weather patterns, Doom and Gloom scenarios that keep popping up should be moderated. After all, screaming "We're all gonna DIE! (may take several centuries)" isn't very productive.
And the data is, geologically speaking, insufficient. A century is no more than a sneeze not only to the planet, but to EVERY SPECIES ON IT. It's like looking at an apple with a worm in it and immediately announcing that "All apples are suffering from a worm infestation because of us, and if we do nothing, surely ALL THE APPLES WILL HAVE WORMS IN THEM (eventually)". It's empirical data, not necessarily backed by theory.
Certainly the facts are inconclusive. A bold statement, I agree, but:
Interesting. On the facts above, it's sheer hubris to claim that anything that we do now can damage the planet in the short, medium or even long term. I mean, looking at it, was there a hole in the ozone layer before we could measure it? Antartica certainly was not always covered in ice (although that could be location, not climate).
Then you look at the other side of the argument, which is mainly common sense
It seems a little ridiculous to be making such a ruckus about this. The change will have to be made. So stop fiddling and start it. One of the recommendations made by the NASA expert (who's currently out of favour) gave a presentation at the White House where the reduction of soot (which has a similar, if maybe not as long term, effect as CO2) could be started in to. No more name calling, just common sense... man, I wish there was more of it about
Rational thought is the only true freedom
"Some estimates suggest the Chinese fires could be accounting for as much as 2-3% of the annual world emissions of CO2 from burning fossil fuels."
Link
Fact is, if you clamp down on US carbon emissions, the manufacturing sector will only accelerate its moves to other countries that have no such limits. If you make it so every KWH of electricity costs $100, then suddenly it becomes economically viable to build transmission lines from China. Without very harsh controls on everything, the economy will simply ooze into another direction that is not so heavily taxed or controlled.
Your raving makes no sense. If reducing pollution is somehow going to destroy the world economy, wouldn't that provide sufficient "adversity" to motivate exploitation of other energy sources?
And how is it that no previous fuel transition caused such catastrophic results? By your alarmist thinking, Londoners should still be heating their homes with soft coal -- "Burn coke? Might as well just hand the Empire over to the French!"
Mind the Gap
Well done. You've successfully shot down a great many assertions that I never made. I believed such a tactic is known as "a straw man" argument.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
The US touts itself as the last Super Power, a world leader. It's not about how much you pollute or not. It's about how you set the agenda. By not signing to Kyoto, that's a huge signal to the rest of the world that "you" (the US) don't give a rats arse about it and are quite happy to ride that SUV into oblivion.
thankyou and goodnight.
Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious
"Exactly, what are these folks not seeing when it comes to denying global warming?"
Well, my guess is they're not seeing an apocalyptic trend when they look at a single data point.
Which is what you just did, by the way, use a very small set of data to imply that there is a trend.
More importantly, there aren't a whole lot of credible people denying global warming, they just seem to be bickering about the consequences and sources of it.
And frankly, I think that's a valuable debate (until it gets reduced to "doesn't BELIEVE in global warming" like you did) because it's ridiculous to insist on making "changes" when the outcome of those changes may well be far worse.
Rushing into something like this because of ideology is STUPID, yet inevitably that's what get's suggested over and over, because "if we don't do something NOW we may not get the chance!!!!"
Look up "law of unintended consequences" and then get back to me when we're not cavemen bumping around in the dark when it comes to this subject.
And save me your "ice core" and "statistical model" bullshit, you may comfortable dicking around with the climate based on such evidence, but it's predictive ability has never been established, and it's simply not good enough.
We nned more information, and in the absence of it, posts like your only serve to encourage thoughtless interference with no concern for long term consequences.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
But "per capita" doesn't stop America from being so damnbig, and therefore significant in the debate.
... and then they built the supercollider.
I love the smell of burning strawmen in the morning.... Seriously... take a look at germany, for example. Huge investments into cutting down emissions and establishing clean energy sources. Those did in fact lead to the creation of jobs, and the establishment of world-class industries in the eco sector.
This comment does not exist.
We have NASA ice cores that show more wild swings in our temperatures and more extremes than we see now.
Well, when we're at the extreme for a temperature swing, that's a little too late to act.
We're already off the charts for something else - carbon dioxide. We know that CO2 plays a huge role when it comes to temperature, life, and oh, a half dozen other things.
Why isn't it enough that CO2 is off the charts (and accelerating off the charts) for the current geologic epoch? We know it's anthropogenic. It's not sustainable to have the rate of CO2 emissions that we have. Why isn't that enough?
I agree it's very difficult to convince the general public that they need to be concerned about something that's 100 or 1000 years off. If you want to get people to do something about it now then you have to push home the very real, measurable and immediate effects such as air quality.
Tell people they'll have trouble breathing in 10 years and you'll get more results than telling them that in 1000 years the Great Lakes will be ocean front property.
Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
I couldn't disagree more. What kind of interested would "those people" have in spreading this? This IS science. It's not chat talk, it's experimental studies. You can be skeptical, that is fine. But you cannot bash this as "not-science". You either are not a scientist, or you have no idea of what you are talking about. Nobody is imposing anything to anybody.
Let's say I roll dice with the normal six sides numbered 1 to 6. You can't predict any one roll, but you can do very well at predicting the distribution of results of 100,000 roles, presuming the dice aren't loaded. So "predicting the weather in five days" you'll be very poor at, but "predicting the long term weather" you'll be fairly excellent at.
Now let's load the dice. Let's put an off-center weight in that makes them 50% more likely to come up 6s than anything else. If you know how the dice have been loaded, you'll still only be negligably - if at all - better at predicting the roll in five days (although if 6s are considered "hot," the odds are a bit better for a "hot" outcome, and you can bet on that and win over time, although it's uncertain for any given day). But knowing how the dice are loaded, you'll still be able to do as excellently as before at predicting the long-term results.
Increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide by 30-40-50% loads the dice. (When I went to school the logic of rolling dice was taught by 8th grade. With a post like "but we can't even predict the weather in 5 days" I have to wonder: Are you lacking basic math education, or do you know better and just expect to sway the uneducated people who've modded you up?)
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Am I the only who finds the idea that a modification of only 100 K of the sun surface temperature means a 4 K change on earth frightening?
Iraq: war to save the U
Beyond that, what's wrong with weaning ourselves of fossil fuels? I simply don't understand this nonsensical idea that we should just keep wasting oil, when it's value for producing synthetic materials is so huge. There are other ways to run engines.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The problem is, while you are correct in that the data does not unconditionally prove the dangers of global warming, neither does it disprove them, and by the time there is enough data to inconclusively demonstrate the dangers it will be too late to avoid them, if it's not already too late.
You have to ask yourself what are the risks vs benefits? If global warming is not a danger, there's still no harm in cutting back emissions. Even if global warming is not a danger, air quality certainly is. Any harm with this approach would be a short-term negative effect on certain industries, which are living on borrowed time anyway due to supply issues. On the other hand, if global warming is a danger, even if it's already too late to avoid significant effects, it may not be too late to mitigate them to at least some extent.
The problem is, we are talking about the oil, coal and lumber industries primarily, which basically have full control over the US government in this regard. Which means that any statement regarding global warming coming from either industry spokesmen OR the goverment policymakers, is suspect due to its conflict of interest. I don't see the same sort of conflict of interest on the other side of the fence, those arguing that perhaps caution is in order in case global warming might be a real problem for future generations. Where's the financial stake in such a position? Do you figure they're all holding short positions in oil company stock, or what?
Perhaps one might conclude that God will sort it out, we don't have to worry. Given how ineffective His global flood was however, I personally, don't think we should rely on such a dependence :-).
Let's start by finding out why you think the overwhelming majority of climatologists state that there is such a thing as global warming, and why you think there isn't.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.