Slashdot Mirror
Another 150,000 Years of CO2 Data
An anonymous reader writes, "We've known since 2004 that the past 440,000 years have shown atmospheric carbon dioxide levels varying between about 200 and 300 ppmv, the difference in extremes being the difference between advancing ice sheets and our current clime. In 2005 the data were analyzed back to 650,000 years and were found to be much the same — Al Gore was proud to be able to show that then-new analysis in his 2006 movie An Inconvenient Truth. Now all 800,000 years of the ice column have been analyzed, and the data show much the same pattern, according to the researcher: 'When carbon dioxide changed there was always an accompanying climate change. Over the last 200 years human activity has increased carbon dioxide to well outside the natural range' — to 380 ppmv."
Just one more reason to support the colonization of Mars -- it is obviously that we shouldn't be keeping all our eggs in one basket...especially when the people steering the basket are pretty sure the world is only 6,000 years old and everything that happens upon it is the will of Xenu.
Mars ho!
These stories are free but worth money.
I reject any conclusions that could be drawn from this on the basis that it's cooler than normal in my neck of the woods. Obviously, even though I don't understand the science behind any of this, I have cleanly disproven all silly liberal claims about "global warming" and whatnot that are about to pop up.
No, you can't have another planet. Learn to take care of the one you got first.
I'll turn this rocket right around!
We need to start working on carbon sequestration right now, unless you want 140 degree summers across the entire midwest belt. And we need to use carbon taxes as our main source of governmental revenue, not stupid things like employment taxes.
I really think that unless we do something immediately, the habitability of at least half the landmass on Earth will be be jeapordy.
True leaders will rise to lead the people ahead of a crisis, and not just react. In the world arena, I do not see any one nation or leader that can motivate human kind into action to reduce CO2. Therefore we will have to endure severe devestation, and then with the pain and suffering that it brings, people will THEN react to rectify the problem.
O'Reilly points out that if igorants in a 3rd-world country like Brazil can wean it off oil and onto ethanol, there is no reason why people in the supposedly most technologically advanced country (i.e., the USA) cannot do the same. O'Reilly claims that the reason for America's still being dependent on foreign oil is that Washington is in the pockets of Big Oil: ExxonMobile, Chevron, and Shell.
Not being a climatologist....but how are we sure that the air trapped in bubbles embedded in the ice are unchanged from the time the ice formed? Ice that has been in my freezer for a few months tastes different from that fresh made. I'm sure that any change / reaction / leak would be slow, but 800,000 years is a long time. Anyone know details?
"Our position is that the unnatural levels of CO2 are the direct result of the Left's insistence upon breathing and speaking. Our studies show that, if they were to halt both of these annoying habits, a more natural level of CO2 would be quickly achieved. The course of action is clear. You are either with us or against us. Period. The End."
I really liked the move, I've got just one complaint. There are way too many shots of Gore being driven around in a big car or being flowin around in a jet. The whole movie, he talks about reducing our carbon footprint, but he doesn't use public transit once in the movie. I can't believe the filmmakers didn't see this jumping right out at them.
We need to start working on carbon sequestration right now, unless you want 140 degree summers across the entire midwest belt. And we need to use carbon taxes as our main source of governmental revenue, not stupid things like employment taxes.
;)
Hey, I live in Canada... Up here global warming sounds like kind of a nice idea, unless you like shoveling snow...
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
If you are going to claim that as CO2 went up, the climate changed, and vice versa, then you are stating, unequivocally, that CO2 drives climate. So, the question then becomes, if the CO2 varies from 200-300ppm over the last 800,000 years, then what drove those changes?
s un.html and http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html
9 /5613/1728 Although the folks at RealClimate like to just sweep this little fact under the carpet as unimportant. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13 To them, apparently, man made CO2 causes instant warming, but natural CO2 takes up to 800 years to have an effect.
Once again, this article confuses correlation with causation. If you are going to state that CO2 changes cause climate change, then you must also demonstrate a mechanism for the changing CO2. If, on the other hand, climate change causes changes in CO2 levels, then you need only explain climate change, something which has been adequately explained by solar cycles. http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/var
In fact, it's more correctly stated that CO2 levels tend to lag behind climate changes by up to 900 years. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/29
Again, be very careful about assigning cause and effect in a system as complex as the atmosphere.
In other words, this extra datum is nice to have, but it changes nothing in any ongoing debate.
Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
It seems that politicians want you to think it's as simple as "CO2 makes the world hotter." But humanity is not the climate's keeper. For instance, the oceans dissolve tons of carbon dioxide and slowly deposit it in rocks. The hotter the climate, the more carbon dioxide can be dissolved in the water. And I am still waiting to hear how much volcanoes pollute, because we certainly don't control them and they look like they might be contributing to the contents of the atmosphere just a tad. Yet nobody is trying to find out how much the oceans help regulate the atmosphere, nobody is trying to defame volcanoes. There just isn't any money there. First you scare people by threatening the apocalypse, or even worse: change! Then you have something to base your campaign on, or something to get grant money with.
Esoteric reference.
"You mean, we have no idea how to properly predict climatology? Any changes we attempt to make may be a moot point, because the planet in the end may have complete control?"
The climate scientists do appear to be making predictions. Those predictions aren't pleasant. Further, they are making these predictions based -- now -- on 800,000 years worth of ice core data (rather than ~600K years of data as before). There are other indicators, from tree ring data to a range of species from warmer regions migrating up north and down south as temperatures change. And then there's all that glacial freshwater being dumped into the sea due to arctic warming, as well as unprecedented permafrost melts.
There's plenty of data to back the assertion that human activity is the cause for increasing CO2 density in the atmosphere. --M
I believe in global warming, I believe CO2 plays a part.
I'll even accept that it is quite likely human behaviour is a contributing factor.
However AFAIK there is no solid proof that human activity is a major or even significant factor in the changes over the last 200 years.
This claim has been made many times, but so has the claim that human activity is only responsible for some tiny fraction of global CO2 emissions.
I haven't seen anyone link this apparent discrepancy, or prove/disprove either statement.
I would like to see someone prove their answers to the following.
1. Our current cycle of global warming isn't natural. Note "hasn't happened before" isn't proof.
2. Human activity is a major factor in global warming.
3. Identify the other factors influencing global warming. If it was ONLY human activity there wouldn't be other factors to cause a positive feedback loop, then we wouldn't hit the tipping point "soon"
#1 is unlikely to happen because it really doesn't matter. Natural or not global warming could be disasterous. Plus many experts rely on panic for funding. This is why expensive cause of the day gets all the attention.
#2 This is actually possible.
#3 This is possible, but someone other than anti-* environmentalists will likely have to do it.
Carbon dioxide that's generated from metabolic proccesses come from carbon present in what we eat. Since all our food get's its carbon in turn from the air (plants via photosynthesis, animals via eating plants), the total carbon in the system remains in balance.
This is the same reason why biofuels aren't considered a greenhouse gas contributor - it takes as much carbon from the air to produce them as they release when burned.
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
>But now, with all theses numbers, what should I do ?.. What should we do ?..
Until the rich are gasping for air alongside the poor, nothing will be done.
Steve
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
As usual, what's good for the environment/consumer/voter takes a back seat to politicians' special interests.
I would start stockpiling perri-air immediately if I were you. Also, begin constructing a large starship capable of transforming into a maid. You'll thank me later.
I'm glad he has said things like this on national television - it can only help the cause.
Occasionally O'Reilly says something reasonable or admits a progressive cause(conservation, actually is historically a conservative cause, hence the name), and we should applaud him for doing so.
Likewise, we should applaud a thousand monkeys with typewriters when they write occasionally write something reasonable.
Evolution needs positive reinforcement.
Over the last 200 years human activity has increased carbon dioxide to well outside the natural range
How is it un-natural just because we influenced it? Aren't we a part of nature? Matter (which includes the elements composing Carbon and Oxygen) cannot be created or destroyed, so our behavior is simply re-arranging pre-existing (or "natural") matter. That act is neither good nor bad, normal, nor abnormal, but has (arguably) measureable consequences.
Before you mod me a troll... My personal view is that we need to be good stewards of the Earth we are given, therefore if we are causing damage then we need to adjust our behavior. For example, we changed farming practices after learning the effects of soil erosion (geological and economic) - now it is a problem we know that we have influence over and encourage others to follow sound practices. I am beginning to view atmospheric conservation the same way.
With farming, nothing changed until the damaging practices made a key resource (tillable soil) scarce. I don't think we can expect any change in human/industrial behavior until climate change gets to the point of causing tangible economic impact. What is the atmospheric equivalent of having all your topsoil blow away?
We argue over whether people BELIEVE it is happening - the real problem is whether people CARE, regardless of who is right. Science and research can educate forever, but until a problem affects people's wallet or the food on their plate, they won't care and they won't change.
Why, oh why, didn't I take the Blue Pill?
If you'd like to use some of the data these articles discuss, the EdGCM project has wrapped a NASA global climate model (GCM) in a GUI (OS X and Win). You can add CO2 or turn the sun down by a few percent all with a checkbox and a slider. Supercomputers and advanced FORTRAN programmers are no longer necessary to run your own GCM.
Disclaimer: I'm the project developer.
Space and Computers.
Sometimes they tell the story better.
Not only does Gore fly around in a jet and drive a big car, but none of his multiple homes use the more-expensive Wind Power that is available from his respective local utilities.
I got one for you: he doesn't sequester the carbon dioxide that comes out of his nose. He complains about carbon dioxide and in the same breath he contributes to the problem with carbon emissions from his multiple nostrils. What a hypocrite. Clearly nothing needs to be done about this. Do I win a cookie?
Now, as always, we can cue a horde of astroturfers and deluded followers, rushing in to tell us all how global warming is a myth, and that the shocking recent rise in CO2 levels is somehow not demonstratable, or not significant, or something.
Well, that's okay: Now that the Siberian permafrost is melting, along with Antarctica, it looks like the Earth's processes have been pushed into a region within which global warming will continue, even if humans reduce their carbon emissions, which itself isn't likely. So congratulations, guys: you won. You kept us from doing something about the problem until it was too late, and now we're going to be stuck with it.
You "skeptics": in twenty years, when the problems caused by global warming make Katrina and heat waves that kill 35,000 people look pretty trivial, are you going to look back on your postings on slashdot -- and whatever else you're doing to spread the idea that global warming can be ignored -- and feel ashamed? Are you going to feel partly responsible?
Probably not.
"taking care of mother earth is very important and we should do everything in our power to preserve it."
Too true.
I've heard a lot of people talking about colonising Mars and mentioning the 'because earth will be ruined soon' argument.
The BIG problem with this is that if we as a species are so stupid that we wreck this planet, moving to another one won't help in the slightest, we'll be just as dead, it'll just take a little longer.
Also, though many seem to forget this, we are the evolved product of a complex ecosystem. You can't just send humans to a new planet and expect everything to be just fine. Mars has lower gravity, so our current shape isn't so apropriate, we'd revolve to a shape better suited, making Earth inhospitable to our new form (possibly taller and frailer, certainly lower muscle mass and bone density)
Plus we need a whole bunch of bacteria to keep ourselves healthy. Those are constantly replenished from our environment. That wouldn't happen on Mars, so guess what, we've evolve further to cope with this or die off. That means our entire digestive system, exposed mucosa (mouth and stuff), and skin would undergo fundamental changes.
Or we keep Earth going by sorting it out, and give Mars time to be properly terraformed (taking around a thousand years I beleive, from estimates I've heard), so there is a comparable and stable ecosystem there. We cope with the lower gravity by accepting that we will end up with two, possibly distinct species of human. They may even not be able to interbreed after a few thousand years.
I do beleive that we need to expand out to mars, but not to escape Earth. Instead I think we should do it so that if one planet gets properly spanked by an asteroid or comet, humanity, and hopefully a fair bit of earths current flora and fauna would survive.
Staying one one place is just asking for it....
Increased CO2 levels trap more heat in the atmosphere making it *warmer*, not colder. And what do you know! consistent with this prediction, the the global temperatures are on the rise and the glaciers are melting. Why don't you learn a little about the issue before opening your mouth?
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
I take it you make a lot of assumptions about people without actually knowing anything about them and sprinkle smiley faces into your comments to make it seem like what you are saying isn't a thinly-veiled(or not so thinly veiled) invective.
I used to watch the O'Reilly factor with one of my conservative friends. He lost me within the first five minutes. I'm not sure if it has changed since then. I can't stand how the text on the right side of the screen mirrors what he says. I can't stand how he sucks out a lot of the nuances and complexities of issues to make them match his (in my view) simplistic moral world-view. In short, I think he's full of crap most of the time.
He's a bully. He doesn't let people speak if he disagrees with them - even if he says that he's going to give them the last word. He lies, often blatantly("I've been in combat!").
His show is definitely not the no-spin zone it is billed to be and he is definitely not an independent.
You disagree, obviously. You have your O'Reilly world and I have my world, where just telling someone to shut up does not win you an argument, and does not promote a reasoned, bipartisan discussion of the issues. We'll just have to agree not to cross each other.
Problem: they've weaned themselves off dead dinosaurs, and on to TOPSOIL. Before irrigation, Egypt was green. GREEN! Now it's a fucking desert. The same is in Brazil's future if they elect to continue to overproduce sugar cane in order to make ethanol out of it so that they can use it to make fuel.
The simple fact is that agriculture should be kept at a bare minimum, to preserve topsoil which takes up to hundreds of years to build, so that we can use it for food production - if we must. Ideally, ALL agriculture would go hydroponic at some point. Brazil is only growing economically and if they continue to expand, then they will end up with a soil crisis, where we have an oil crisis, and peak soil is a fuck of a lot more serious than peak oil.
Don't point to Brazil as a positive example. They're currently in the process of destroying their country. The only way they're superior to all us oil-guzzlers is that for now, they're only hurting themselves, as opposed to our "stomp around the globe in heavy boots" tactics of securing oil.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Steven Milloy, founder of Junkscience isn't exactly an above-board type of person. I mean he was trying to give you a hint by calling his site "junk science", but I guess that was too subtle. ;)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
well, that's certainly a lot of fallacies in one post!
2 1337 4 u!
Don't worry the dimwits are on both sides.
Want to see how many of them pointed to the last two years of above normal Atlantic hurricanes as "proof" of global warming? Most experts stated that the Atlantic was in a natural peak hurricane cycle.
So far this year is running below normal. I guess global warming is over.
In this case both sides seem equally willing to abuse science to prove their point.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
What the fuck was Al Gore doing to combat this when he was in power?
Urging the world to adopt the Kyoto Accords, maybe?
With respect to the first knock yourselves out. With respect to the second pull your heads from the magical oil sands.
But for the third here is what you can do: Contact your reps.
Those of you in the U.S. will find that election day is fast approaching. The Mid-term congressional elections as well as many state elections are next week!. Now is the time to call, write, and fax your elected reps. Quote this data to them and demand to know what they will do telling them, in plain form, that they will forefit your vote and your money if they do not make you happy.
Don't just focus on the federal politicians California recently showed how a state can aggressively (start) limiting greenhouse gasses. States also control the vast majority of funding for public transit and are in charge of monitoring many polluters. Local Govenrments can do more as well by tackling transit issues as well as local pollution control efforts.
Right now many of them are desperate and worried. Now, more than ever, they can in should be bombarded with calls and moved very clearly in the right direction.
I know that it's fun to sit on
Those of you in other countries do the same thing neither whining nor lunatic dreams of carbonless oil will get us there.
Karma is not action.
Sadly, subsurface nuclear detonations won't do bugger all for you. I seem to recall 7th Form Physics saying that a decent sized Nuke, if detonated inside a block of ice, will only melt a sphere about 15 metres (or so) in diameter, such is the specific heat capacity of water.
:)
Of course, if it's not buried deepish, it'll also make a fairly decent crater, and irradiate the sirface for miles.
But the principle remains the same: you aren't doing yourself any favours by trying to melt ice, or frozen gasses with Nukes.
No, far better (but less easy!) to use Nukes to create craters on NMOs (Near Mars Objects), or Asteroids (preferabl;y water bearing ones) and then use those craters as rough rocket nozzles to direct nuclear blasts such that you can bombard Mars with thousands of asteroids for a few hundred years. That'll raise the surface temperature, provide much needed gases, and if you timed them right, and had them strike at the right angle, you'd be able to decrease the periodicity of Mars, and reduce the day down to 24 hours. That extra time past midnight will be a real stinker.
How many escape pods are there? "NONE,SIR!" You counted them? "TWICE, SIR!"
4. Watch the atmospheric CO2 and water vapor escape into space
5. Get baked to a crisp during the next solar flare
But CO2 levels we are low on the million year scale, if you believe stuff in wikipedia...
5 .html
Graph at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide levels were 10x what they are now
"Changes in carbon dioxide during the Phanerozoic (the last 542 million years). The recent period is located on the left-hand side of the plot, and it appears that much of the last 550 million years has experienced carbon dioxide concentrations significantly higher than the present day."
Plus, mars is warming with receding ice caps. Maybe solar effects are what is driving our change? http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/336237
I am always a bit skeptical, since I was the generation that had both Igloo effect and global warming in the same textbook in middle school...
We're currently approaching a minimum in solar output (end of 2006) for the current 11-year cycle. The high was more than 5 years ago. 2005 was the hottest year on record.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
We have warmer temperatures. Higher CO2 could be an effect more than a cause. Anthropogenic CO2 is averages about 80 g/m3/yr. Rain is 800 kg/m2/yr. 1e4 times more is likely to have a much bigger effect. CO2 might even have a cooling effect if it increases cloud nucleation and increases albeido.
For those actually paying attention, there is no "ongoing debate" in scientific circles over human influence in climate change. The only people "debating" it are the conservative politicians and anti-environmentalist special interest groups, in order to seed doubt and to prevent any action to be taken.
Which "developing countries? As far as I can tell, the only developing countries that have not signed the Kyoto Protocol are the US and Australia.
Look at the map and list of List of Kyoto Protocol signatories. China, Russia, the EU, all of South America, Canada, Asia (inc both N. & S. Korea) have all signed and ratified the treaty. That means that those countries will be reducing their emissions to 55% of their 1990 levels.
Tell the truth and you won't have so much to remember.
Now I would admit that human action is probably responsible for some of the CO2 build-up. But what if it's only 80, and not 300? What if the Earth was already moving towards a 'hot spell'? And 800,000 years is not that much time, along geological time scales.
What bothers me is how so many people (including Al Gore) are -so sure- they understand this stuff!
I'm waiting for someone who can explain the "Little Ice Age", and ice ages in general, which seem to have been happening long before there were significant amounts of fossil fuel combustion.
I don't doubt global warming, I just have a lot of skepticism that we really understand climatic processes on geologic time scales and in particular the human contributions to same.
dave
CO2 is a horrible greenhouse gas. http://www.icbe.com/emissions/calculate.asp Methane is 21 times more powerful. Some of the other chemicals are thousands of times better greenhouse gases. Secondly, despite the hype, overall, CO2 makes up only 0.5% of the greenhouse effect in the Earth's atmosphere, with assumed human contribution (the total increase from 280ppm to 360ppm) equaling 0.28% of the total "greenhouse effect" of the atmosphere. In fact, most of the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere comes from a far more abundant greenhouse gas, namely, water. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data. html
Now, your argument has become: a change of 0.28% is responsible for all heat increase over the last century, despite the fact that solar cycles far better follow the actual temperature profile of the same period of time.
So, as I've stated in other responses, you must ignore the fact that (in the article you're commenting on) 800,000 years of data show vast (50%) swings in CO2 concentration without human intervention, but human produced CO2 must be causing the current warming trend of the last three decades/12 decades/future 10 decades (based on your current belief).
And it causes more hurricanes, except for this year, when it causes fewer.
Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
You folks fail to relize that they can't have data dating back 800,000 years if the earth is less then 6,000 years old.
They are in no way related in today's definition of "conservatism." There are many definitions of conservatism, however. In addition, I said historically, and I meant in terms of what historically were conservative values.
Moreover, conservationism is an element of traditional Christian morality and social values - preserving God's creation. You are correct that it is not an element of the messianic, Rapture-anticipating values of contemporary Christian evangelism and fundamentalism.
I wasn't clear about the name thing. I mean "conservation" sensibly follows from "conservative" values, not the other way around.
From the Wikipedia article about conservatives:
"In early liberal philosophy 'Nature' and the environment were treated as a resource to be exploited: value derived from their human use, in accordance with the labor theory of value. Most early conservatives, however, saw the value of Nature as inherent. Both strands have influenced conservative politics in many countries, since the 19th century. The etymology emphasises the close correlation between the early conservation movement and conservative ideals."
The Repubican party definitely has a history in conservation. Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican, lead conservation efforts. While he was a progressive conservative as conservatives go, he still brought nature as an issue to the forefront of American politics.
There is an interesting book about environmentally-minded conservatives
Yeah, it's starting to look like it's already too late for Brazil. It's amazing that people can go through school, learn how trees work, and then forget entirely when they go into politics :P
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Care to cite a source on this? The whole region (the Sahara) was much greener in the past, this is true, but desertification started long before the advent of agriculture, and has been creeping along for the last 30,000 years or so. Egypt, at least as long as it has held civilization, always been mostly desert, which is why the largest population centers there (now, and thoughout history) have been next to the Nile. Also do a brief refresher of Egyption mythology to see the importance of annual Nile flooding for their agriculture thoughout the ages. 60,000 years ago Egypt indeed might have been more grassy than today, or even 30,000 years ago, but it changed previous to the advent of heavy agriculture.
I think Brazil is doing much better ecologically than we are, even if this "risk" to topsoil is real. Top soil can be managed through intelligent farming techniques, it can even be retained and replenished thanks to modern farming technology. Even fertilizers can be used to replenish mineral and nitrogen content of the soil, and while if used unintelligently this can lead to enviromental impacts, this is not a necissary consiquence.
In the end, the enviromental consiquences of ethenol is much much less than using fossil fuel (which, BTW, has nothing to do with dinosaurs, or even prehistoric fauna, it is the result of ancient, but much after dinosaurs, swamps and boglands decaying).
I really don't see how Brazil is destroying their economy. All indicators say that their succesfully applying a socialist model to it, with great results. Granted, their not quite up to "first world" standards, but in light of the region, and history, they're doing great for an progressive emerging economy.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
The problem is that there is so much BS from various 'environmentalists' that a rational person has to question the validity of what is being reported. Just listen to how often the comment 'What right do we have to exploit Mar's environment?' comes up. There is a very large contingent of Neo-Luddites who feel that post ~1960 tech is evil and will destroy the world. (mind you the exact date moves around a bit) These people often have fancy titles, and sometimes even legitimate education. It does not stop them from making dishonest statments for the benefit of thier religious beliefs.
There are plenty of examples of fake "good guy" industries that make a lot of money by spreading fear. It keeps the funding coming. Given most peoples limited resources to do world wide, large scale research, not taking the word of someone with a financial incentive to push an idea irrelevent of whether it is true or not, is not a irrational.
You intentionally (it seems) misinterpret the information provided. There are very few people who actively disagree with the concept of global warming. No, the disagreements are threefold:
1) The rate at which the warming is occuring.
2) What proportion of it is due to human activity.
3) Whether spending several trillion dollars trying to prevent it is a worthwhile activity.
My personal belief is that YES, global warming is a reality. But I also believe that it is more to do with the Sun, than with our burning fossil fuel. I also believe the consequences are/will be less severe than predicted. Also, I do not believe that science is yet at the stage where a prediction about efforts to stop global warming are anywhere near accurate.
ALL (without exception) predictions in the past have been 100% wrong: over population, over pollution, lack of food and even Global Cooling (!! Remember all the predictions in the 70s and 80s that we were heading into an ice age??) -- all have proven to be completely false.
Now, you want us to accept that THIS time the scientists are right, and that we should expend a significant proportion of the world's income on reducing emmissions - when we have no idea if it will do what we hope it will?
Sorry, that's no way to spend a few tens of trillions dollars.
Far better to invest that money in protecting humanity from global warming, and to continue to develop strategies and techniques to live on a changeable and changeing world - just as we have always done.
How many escape pods are there? "NONE,SIR!" You counted them? "TWICE, SIR!"
If you aren't in the room you don't need them on. And just do it with a switch. Many of those motion sensors draw more power than you want for no good reason. When you enter the room, flip the switch, when you leave, flip it again. Simple yes?
Seriously Unless the machine is actually doing something (and the screensaver doesn't count) then turn it off. I don't care what rumour you heard that powering off your pc at night is bad it isn't and it doesn't help to keep it running 24/7. Those of you who are stuck with bad admin policies (updates that run at 2am at the office) get it changed. Point out to your bosses that PCs can be made to shut down or power up automatically and that updates can be set for just before or after work meaning that the machines can in fact be off most of the night to save power, and money, and the earth.
There is no reason to keep any electronic goods running (or even plugged in) unless they are in use. You will find that many things (e.g. the TV and DVD player) still use a nontrivial amount of power even when they are "off". Many systems that use remotes constantly draw power to wait for the remotes. You might put said systems on a power strip and then switch the strip off when you are out of the room. After all if you can't be troubled to come and turn them on mechanically then you need to work on laziness.
This is especially an issue for AC/DC converters. Most AC/DC converters (the small boxen that come with lamps, cellphones, palm pilots, etc. continue to draw full power even when nothing is attached. Even if the phone is not being charged the AC/DC converter is drawing power and then dissipating it as heat. Unplugging those (or just putting them on a power strip and turning it off) can save a large amount of money and environment over time.
At one point I managed to halve my electricity bill simply by aggressively attaching devices to power strips and unplugging unused AC adapters. It turns out that the TV/VCR/DVD-Player collectively used about the same amount of power when they were "off" as when they were on. Just a single power strip and some good habits saved me some serious money.
Those of you who get the daily latte, get a to-go cup. If you are spending $2.50 a day on caffene you can probably spend $10 once on a permanent cup. If you go to most places you will even get a discount for doing so.
Changing the oil and jkeeping the car tuned up also keeps the gas mileage up. Cars that are out of tune or filled with gunk tend to run rich and burn excess oil and gas throwing up more pollution than necessary and fouling the earth heavily.
I know that many of us don't have the luxury of purchasing a new prius, but some do. Those of you who have a hummer just break down and get an electric car for the daily drive. At 8am noone cares what kind of car you arrive in and if you have to have the truck to impress the girls do it in Friday night. Noone cares about a hummer on Wednesday morning anyway.
Never underestimate the power of a large number of small things. We keep looking for the magic single act. We forget that what got us here was not one act but many and what keeps us here is not outside forces but inside habits. Change the habits and you change the world. Even if your neighbor still drives his dumbass hummer your changed habits will still be good.
Care to cite a source on this? The whole region (the Sahara) was much greener in the past, this is true, but desertification started long before the advent of agriculture, and has been creeping along for the last 30,000 years or so.
Egypt may be a bad example, because the climate change in the Sahara was naturally occuring, but if I'm not mistaken Mesopotamia -- the famed "Fertile Crescent" -- is a good example of what irrigation and deforestation can do to a region if that region is not capable of supporting it. The problem was simply that the region doesn't receive enough rainfall to easily replace what was taken. Most of Europe was treated equally badly as Mesopotamia, but because it receives more rainfall it was able to sustain itself.
I think Brazil receives more than enough rain fall to sustain itself, if as you say it is done intelligently. The only reason it was ever in danger was because of modern industrial techniques that allow completely flagrant abuse of natural resources.
The enemies of Democracy are
They will just start paying big business big bucks to build co2 scrubbers for the air. Then every one will be happy. Companies get government pork, polititions get kick backs/contributions and people get fresh air and screwed at the same time.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
Which process do you think is easier?
Lech Walesa once said something to the effect that it's easier to make a fish soup out of an aquarium than the other way around. He was referring to Poland, but he could have been referring to the whole world as well.
mt
That extra time past midnight will be a real stinker.
Hell, make it longer. I'd have killed for an extra 39.5 minutes this morning.
We need to start working on carbon sequestration right now, unless you want 140 degree summers across the entire midwest belt. And we need to use carbon taxes as our main source of governmental revenue, not stupid things like employment taxes.
Oh great, tax people for working out, breathing out CO2, and not the fatties, storing carbon in their blubber.
That won't backfire, will it?
I really think that unless we do something immediately, the habitability of at least half the landmass on Earth will be be jeapordy.
And as I demonstrated above, your plan will hit their hitability. By gods man! What's a few floods compared to that?!
You can't take the sky from me...
Not an insult - but a mechanism for helping to maintain topsoil.
Agriculture does not consume "topsoil which takes up to hundreds of years to build". Sure, you can bulldoze it out of the way or arrange for it to blow away, but that's stupidity rather than agriculture that's doing that. As an example, the part of England that I was born in was originally natural deciduous forest, and over the last 2000 years was farmed first for trees, then for a mixture of everything (with cows doing their bit to maintain the topsoil), and now mostly for barley. If your argument was correct we'd have had a dustbowl in the 1700s. It didn't happen - and in fact even where people have been growing wheat on chalk (with only a few inches of topsoil, and using mostly nitogen fertilizer in place of the aforementioned organic one) what soil there is is incredibly resilient.
There's a "when it's gone it's gone" argument for saying that the Brazilians should preserve their old-growth forest; but it's a bit rich coming from Europeans (in my case) who have already got rid of theirs.
Thomas Malthus was wrong when he said we'd run out of food in the 1800s, and you are too.
Well, and of course, there's the inconvenient fact that in order to get the yields one needs to support a ethanol-based economy, the corn fields in question need a large amount of artificial fertilizers which come from (you guessed it) fossil fuels (And, yes, I grew up in an Illinois farming community, so I do know a thing or two about growing corn and where fertilizers come from). In reality, it's not clear that switching to an ethanol-based economy would decrease our dependence on fossil fuels (it might switch us to greater use of natural gas over crude, but we're starting to have depletion issues in that supply department, as well). In reality, the sooner we can switch over to fully electric vehicles that get their initial energy supply from wind, hydro, or nuclear power, the better off we're going to be. The hydrocarbons remaining underground are far too precious as materials feedstocks to be wasted burning them in our cars.
That is all.
Before irrigation, Egypt was green. GREEN! Now it's a fucking desert.
I'm sorry, but this is exactly the kind of falsely alarmist crap that's causing so many people to be skeptical of the environmental movement.
Egypt and the surrounding desert was green about 6,000 BP because of an period of unusually heavy precipitation in the region called the Neolithic Subpluvial. It supported agriculture in what is now desert, yes, and also a pastoral economy. Desertification resumed about 5,000 BP not because of these activities -- there were, for example, no forests to cut down -- but because the rain stopped. (And this was also not due to human activity, which was at a relatively low level at the time.) Agriculture in the Nile Valley has ever since, and until the construction of the dams at Aswan, been reliant on the annual Nile flood. This flood irrigates fields all by itself, without human intervention. There was a degree of artificial irrigation, true, but it had little effect on the progress of desertification.
Stick to the truth; you'll be more convincing.
And the brethren went away edified.
We produce all sorts of ethanol, too. We just consume, FAR FAR more oil. We also don't have a lot of rain forests to chop down to replace with cane plantations.
The "Brazillian model" is absolutely irrelevant to the US, unless you expect three quarters of people to give up their cars and for us to rip up most of the national forests and parklands to plant fuel crops.
Los Angeles had 118 "stage 1" smog alert days in 1975 (lowest threshold). After strict emissions controls were put in place, the number dropped down to 7 by 1996 and 0 by 2000 (http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/brochure/history.htm)
Well first of all, you could try reading the article again... It doesn't say we are bringing about dangerous climate changes (which is what the media and politicians will say it says), it says we "could be bringing about dangerous climate changes". Yes, it also doesn't say we won't bring about dangerous climate changes, and virutally no one is arguing So claiming we are 'doomed' is a bit premature (except in the sense that eventually, human interference or not, the Earth's environment will naturally change to something we cannot survive in).
Second, climate change is nothing new. Yes, it unfortunately happens too slowly for us to have a collective memory of it happening (after a few generations of an unusually stable climate, we begin to think that the current climate is 'normal' and 'unchanging'). But it does happen more often than one would think. The little ice age may not have been that big compared to other changes (including those that humans have faced in the past), but it had a tremendous impact on human civilization. Yet despite the fears of those living at the time, there was no apocalypse. The human race was able to adapt, and I'm fairly certain we (or our children or our grandchildren or whoever has to face the next disaster) will be able to adapt as well, regardless of what they have to face (a climate changed by greenhouse gases, a climate changed by the sun's output, a climate changed by a few major volcanic eruptions, or whatever).
Finally, with regard to your Katrina question, tell me where you live and I'm sure I can find some potential natural disaster that could kill you and your family. Does that make you dumb for living there? Actually, since we can usually detect hurricans for some time before they hit land, they acutally are not all that dangerous compared to other disasters like earthquakes, volcanoes, crippling blizzards, tornadoes, etc.). You just have to follow certain precautions (for instance if you are told a category 5 storm is headed to your city and your house happens to be at or below sea level, GET THE ROYAL FUCK OUT OF THERE!!!!).
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
ALL (without exception) predictions in the past have been 100% wrong: over population, over pollution, lack of food and even Global Cooling (!! Remember all the predictions in the 70s and 80s that we were heading into an ice age??) -- all have proven to be completely false.
These aren't really fair comparisons. Overpopulation was a concern, if population growth had continued along trends current at the time. It's still a concern, as someone else pointed out, in areas like India and China where the population is still growing. What came as something of a surprise here was that economic prosperity is the chief indicator of zero population growth.
Over-pollution was indeed a problem. You're probably too young to remember the Cuyahoga River catching fire, and how hazardous it once was to come into contact with the waters of the lower Hudson River. (The river itself was a Superfund site!) It stopped being a problem because we put significant pollution controls in place. Again, had current trends continued the problem would have been serious. It became less so because we did something about it.
There is a food problem in much of the world. Count yourself fortunate that you don't live in a place where this is so. But for unanticipated technological advances in farming, even the US would be a tad hungry right now.
Global cooling theories were creations of the media. They never represented the consensus opinion of climatologists.
The lesson here is not that problems go away on their own, but that we have it in our power to do something about them when they arise. We did it for the ozone layer, which is now recovering thanks to the banning of the substances that were damaging it. If a significant proportion of global warming is in fact anthropogenic, then what you have really shown us here is that not only should we do something about it, but that we probably can.
And the brethren went away edified.
*sigh*
So
I'm seriously scared by your argument that because science is sometimes wrong, we should pay absolutely no attention to anything that science says and claim that we happen to know better, even if it's in the face of all the evidence. Do you also do your own surgery, because sometimes doctors make mistakes and you, of course, are much smarter than they are? I simply don't know what to say to this line of reasoning - it's an attitude that just appals me.
Now that's still a defensible position - most climate scientists agree about the approximate magnitude (several 2.5-4 degrees C) and timescale (a century or two), but not about the intermediate path to that, and certain not about localized phenomena.
Yes, by definition. When a scientific community comes to consesus, whatever it presently concludes is accepted as correct until it's proven wrong. That's how science works. If you don't believe the climate science community, you don't believe science.
A signification proportion? Let's be realistic here - we're talking about taxing emissions at the level of a sales tax. That's what we've always been talking about. While we've been sitting on our thumbs, gas has increased in price far more than any proposed carbon taxation would have done. And shockingly, the sky hasn't fallen.
Why should you wear a seat belt? After all, there's no evidence you're going to get in a crash today, and you're a safe driver. The reason is that the risk is non-negligible and the consequences are extremely severe. And nobody forbids you to drive on account of the risk, just to take some mitigating steps by buckling up. That's what the climate science community is saying - take mitigating steps: reduce emissions as quickly as is feasible, without draconian economic measures (e.g. bans on oil) or other measures that might shock the world's economy.
As it happens, most human infrastructure on the planet has been developed in an extraordinarily short period of time, and hence we have felt approximately zero climate change on our timescale. So maybe, just perhaps a good place to start protecting ourselves from global warming is to stop causing it in the first place. Like, ya know, if you're slipping on the ice out front, maybe turn the hose off or something.
You can be carbon neutral. Check out terrapass. An SUV's yearly CO2 output can be offset for about $80, a standard car is about $50 (depending on how much you drive). The cost of making a round trip cross country flight carbon neutral is about $15. It's not a license to pollute but it certainly makes a difference.
Check out their faq for more info.
The changes we ought to make aren't that extreme or terribly expensive -- $15 extra for a flight is about what the TSA tacks onto your ticket for passenger harassment, er security.
fear is the mind killer
The problem you cite with Mesopotamia (and much of the Middle East) had little to do with deforestation and farming, and everything to do with Bedouins and goats.
Cattle just eat the top part of the grass.
Sheep eat the grass down to the ground, which damages the grass, but doesn't usually kill it off entirely, at least not if pasture rotation is practiced.
But goats pull up the roots, and that kills grass outright. (D'oh!)
And without ground cover (not necessarily trees -- grass is better for retaining topsoil and moisture), any dry region can be transformed into a desert in a very few years.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Try not to use absolutes. It paints you simpleminded.
and go first. Unless you are one of a very small minority (generally having no children and living in one of a few select metro areas), having a car is a necessity in the US. In the future, cars will be changed, not eliminated, as a response to rising fuel costs. However, this will take years. Far fewer Brazilians have cars as compared to Americans, and for various historical reasons, have much smaller ones. Therefore, their cane crop can cover a lot of their fuel use.
Studies have shown that biofuels, with currently available technologies, can only supply a small fraction of our fuel use, even if we plant every inch of even semi-arable land in the country. Of course, technologies will improve, but for now, biofuels are still going to be a bit player in the US.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. But I didn't think that science worked on consensus. I thought science worked on verification of repeatable tests. No consensus necessary. As soon as you rely on "consensus" to determine the truth, aren't you stepping more into the realm of politics than science?
In one of his speeches Michael Crichton (yes, that one) had some really interesting commentary on the value of consensus in science. Here's the relevant quote:
That's pretty compelling. Is he wrong? Isn't being skeptical of claims also part of the job of science? Does the consensus of climate scientists trump normal scientific skepticism? If so, is that ok with you?
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
It's actually worse than the other way around.
The 'normal' glacial-interglacial cycle appears to be driven largely by changes in summer insolation tipping off ice melting in the northern hemisphere, which leads to a rapid decrease in albedo and hence feedback. Changes in CO2 concentration appear to be caused by these changes and act to 'fix' the deglaciated state.
So what you are looking at is confirmation that increasing temperatures lead to additional feedbacks.