Slashdot Mirror
Global Warming Irreversible, NOAA Scientist Finds
Tibor the Hun writes "NPR reports that Susan Solomon, one of the world's top climate scientists, finds in her new study that global warming is now irreversible. The study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, concludes that even if we could immediately cease our impact on pollution and greenhouse gasses emissions, global climate change would continue for more than a thousand years. The reason is the saturation of oceans with carbon dioxide. Her study looked at the consequences of long-term effect in terms of sea-level rise and drought."
In the 70s they were also predicting a coming ice age.
May 19, 2008 Are 32,000 Scientists Enough to Question Global Warming 'Consensus?' Marc Sheppard The National Press Club in Washington will today release the names of as many as 32,000 American Scientists who reject not only Kyoto-style greenhouse gas limits, but the very premise of manmade global warming itself. On Saturday, Lawrence Solomon wrote a great piece in the National Post (h/t Benny Peiser) which begged the question: "How many scientists does it take to establish that a consensus does not exist on global warming?" How many, indeed? Solomon, author of The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so, reminds us that 32,000 scientists have now signed the "Oregon petition," which states that "We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth." Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/05/are_32000_scientists_enough_to.html
I think that there's a litmus test for all these scientific modeling, purely based on economics.
One of the tenets of all these scientific researchers is that we must do something and we must do it soonest. It should follow that the possible solutions should be prioritized for bang for the buck, little or no dependence on technological breakthroughs, and ability to set up/ mantain the whole structure at peak performance down the line.
Yet, whenever somebody start talking about nuclear energy , all this community sniffs worse than at a "dumb and dumber" premiere. They love a nice, parched flatland covered in solar panels more than a forest, at ten times the costs.
What I find even funnier is that when you start talking about economics, they make me think that only Aliens pay taxes, because the usual line is: " you did not count about the decommissioning costs of the plant and storage of long term radioactive material", whose cost is included in ALL studies about nuclear power, and then they show the superiority of solar INCLUDING all the various subsidies/ tax advantages / special financing that the various government includes. Go figure, because unless women are from Venus and tax money from Mars, Citizens pay through taxes those same subsidies.
So, until and unless I see one of those panels do a good comparative studies about the possible solutions, as unbiased and scientific as possible, i'll label them as "old style lobbying" and move on.
"If a boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. But if he demands integrity, give him loyalty." (John Boyd, 1927-1997)
the thing is, the USA for the last 8 years has been governed by people who effectively (in the analogy given) owned major shares in companies that profited from the production of horseshit.
You suggest government should stay out of the way. Fine, I agree to some extent, but they shouldn't try to maintain a destructive status quo in that case.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
"The answer is simple - 2007 turned out to be the coolest year for 30 years. It is also the case that there has been no global warming since 1998. In fact, since 1998, there has been steady cooling."
This is silly, we ARE entering a cooling period. The scientists are freaking out because its only cooled a very tiny bit. Thats because global warming is negating the effects. When we enter a warming period what do you think will happen? Man you are going to be really embarrassed in 30years when you read the news that another city is getting reclaimed by the ocean.