Slashdot Log In
More Bad News About Global Warming
Posted by
Hemos
on Mon Jan 30, 2006 07:14 AM
from the the-worst-is-yet-to-come? dept.
from the the-worst-is-yet-to-come? dept.
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"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Can't Hear You (Score:5, Funny)
Can't hear you! Not happening! No consensus!
Love,
George
[George W. Bush appears by kind co-operation of Exxon, Inc]
Re:Can't Hear You (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Can't Hear You (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:Can't Hear You (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Can't Hear You (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
What on Earth are you talking about? (Score:4, Insightful)
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!"
Parent
Re:Can't Hear You (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:PARENT IS NOT FLAMEBAIT (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Can't Hear You (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Can't Hear You (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Statistics (Score:5, Insightful)
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?)
Parent
Yes Yes (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds inevitable then (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Well there you go (Score:5, Insightful)
For a while I thought there would be the danger that we would have to do something....phew!
Parent
Re:Well there you go (Score:5, Insightful)
large percentage of both the general population and governments
who either don't get it or don't care and they won't change their
ways in time for it to make a difference. IMO. Perhaps I'm just
being pessimistic. I certainly hope I'm wrong.
Parent
Re:Well there you go (Score:5, Insightful)
What he said was that global warming is unstoppable, as far as the UK is concerned: we don't contribute enough to the problem to make a difference by reducing our own carbon emissionis. Therefore what the UK Government should be doing is taking steps to alleviate the inevitable effects of climate change. e.g. Improving flood defences, moving populations out of low-lying areas such as London, moving away from reliance on imports.
There is still some dispute over whether human activity is contributing significantly to global warming but surely there cannot be much doubt that it is taking place. And whatever the reasons the effects will be the same and we should be prepared to deal with them.
Parent
Re:Sounds inevitable then (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:Sounds inevitable then (Score:5, Funny)
About as much as you we grammar about do...
Parent
Re:Sounds inevitable then (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Sounds inevitable then (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:Sounds inevitable then (Score:5, Insightful)
CO2Science.Org is science? They use anecdotal evidence in an attempt to counter real science being performed by fairly independent labs.
Paraphrase from a front-page article on their website...
This town in Missouri is polluted as hell, and their temperature dropped 2 degrees in the past decade! Global warming? Clearly it doesn't exist!"
Of course, what do you expect from an "environmental" organization who is funded by Exxon and whose founder previously worked for the worlds largest coal company?
http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/files/corpora
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/a
http://www.peabodyenergy.com/ [peabodyenergy.com]
Parent
Re:Sounds inevitable then (Score:4, Informative)
Completely incorrect.
http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html [und.edu]
"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."
Parent
Who's still denying it these days? (Score:5, Interesting)
We, north of that country, just barely (and fortunately) elected a government who feels the same way.
We're having a winter heat wave here in Southern Ontario while our summers have been bloody unbearable with bad air days...weeks, high humidity and high temperatures while massive flooding and totally untypical weather hits different parts of the world.
Exactly, what are these folks not seeing when it comes to denying global warming?
Re:The key issue is... (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Parent
Re:The key issue is... (Score:5, Interesting)
So what? We can't figure out what's causing it so we are gonna ignore it? Stop throwing this "we don't even know what causes it" smokescreen around and spend some time thinking about what we do agree on. It is happening and no matter what else, that is NOT a good thing!
Perhaps a report claiming even more dire issues or a faster occurence of them?
Don't even start with that "we don't agree on the effects" bullshit either. We all agree that it ain't good for us. The specifics of our troubles are not important. This is a boondoggle that does nothing but obscure the real point. We are in trouble and we need to start fixing it.
China is coming up like the old Eastern Soviet states did, ramping up without regard for the environment or people around them.
China has just recently begun correcting many of their environmental policies. They spent the better part of 3 decades ramping up industry without concern for the environment, but the government is trying to fix the problem. The people are even rioting over the pollution issue now. They are trying, which is more than I can say for us in the U.S.
Kyoto did not do this and that invalidates it.
I agree, but it's retarded to walk away from the table as Bush did over the problems with Kyoto. It suggests that he doesn't want to see the problem addressed. If you have a problem with a treaty, you don't say "Fuck it, that sucks so I'm outta here". You say "That sucks. Let's try this instead." You negotiate a better treaty. The fact that he walked away without so much as trying that speaks volumes about his underlying intent and motives.
Blaming the issue of non-compliance on oil and republicans is just playing stupid politics.
No one is playing politics here but you. I voted for Bush in 2000. I have no agenda against him or his party. But he has screwed up and he is playing fast-and-loose with our environment in a dangerous way. It's just "playing politics" to ignore that and throw up obfusticating arguments to the contrary.
FYI, I did not vote for him in 2004. I don't like being lied to and I don't hold any allegiance to any political party.
Parent
Fossil-fuel outfits and their PR firms, that's who (Score:5, Informative)
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 [realclimate.org].
Sorry, but that's an outright lie. See Myth #1 [realclimate.org] (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 [blogspot.com].Parent
The sky, the sky! (Score:4, Funny)
Some government-sponsored sensationalism, anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Some government-sponsored sensationalism, anyon (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:Some government-sponsored sensationalism, anyon (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Say that to Russians... (Score:4, Informative)
It looks here that not a global warming, but a global permafrost is coming!
we experienced -15 F here! and some experienced -20!
Gulf Stream stops, north Europe @ mini ice age (Score:5, Informative)
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".
Parent
"Tripling of poor harvests" (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Reply (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not sure if I feel sorry for these people or myself. These people will be dead in 30-40 years so not see the worse of it, I on the other hand have another 50-60 if I keep myself in a good condition. If the current models are correct I should exprience quite extreme weather by the time I get old enough for a brisk cold to be quite risky for my heatlh..
Profit comes before damage if you're not going to live to see the damage it's self.
So DO something about it (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
We keep looking to governments to impose a change on us, but what are we doing about it for ourselves?
It's all been predicted already (Score:5, Interesting)
Therefore forget the instant freeze of "The day after tomorrow" and prepare for the instant flood.
Companies have only one goal:get rich quick.
Nobody would build a hybrid with a 120V socket capable to drive power tools and a microwave. That's because it would kill some of the same company's other business: Portable generators, regular cars, trucks and SUVs. (Not to mention the housing business since you could live in your car in style!)
You won't see a solar rechargeable Cell phone/MP3/Flashlight/am~fm radio/garage door openner/Car key for at least 40 years. Why? because it would kill the disposable battery business. (BTW: did you know that a AA has more juice than a C or D cell! look at the specs on the rechargeables.)
It's all about creating waste to for us to consume more to drive profits.
Were all gonna drown for these assholes' profits.
Re:I've heard worse (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:I've heard worse (Score:4, Insightful)
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."
Parent
Re:I've heard worse (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:I've heard worse (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I've heard worse (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Wake up Americans (Score:5, Funny)
[joke]
The hell it isn't. We paid for it.
[joke]
Parent
Re:Wake up Americans (Score:5, Funny)
Close it quick!
Parent
Re:Wake up Americans (Score:5, Informative)
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 [un.org]. 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.
Parent
Re:Wake up Americans (Score:4, Insightful)
thankyou and goodnight.
Parent
Re:Wake up Americans (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Wake up Americans (Score:5, Insightful)
"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 [bbc.co.uk]
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.
Parent
Re:Nice agenda Slashdot! (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Global Cooling is more of a concern to me... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:The length of accurate records (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Parent