UK Releases Global Warming Report 673
ben_ writes "The UK Government's Foresight Project, tasked with visualizing the future, has published a hard-hitting report on the flooding consequences of global warming. The story's also on the BBC."
Global Warming? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Global Warming? (Score:3, Funny)
seriously, would anybody miss new jersey at all?
Re:Global Warming? (Score:3, Interesting)
Wow, I'm pro-nuclear power, but not like that
Gasoline has an energy density of 44MJ/kg.
Whats the energy density of rice? It always amazing me how little food we animals need to eat to continue functioning and moving around. Can we get some mitocondria-based fuel cell research going?
Re:Global Warming? (Score:5, Informative)
Ford was worse. At one point, they wanted to put a nuclear reactor into a car [velocityjrnl.com]!
Whats the energy density of rice?
Pathetic. About 15 MJ/kg [hypertextbook.com]. And it's pretty hard to come up with kilograms of rice or corn when compared to other fuels.
It always amazing me how little food we animals need to eat to continue functioning and moving around.
Well, your body is generating about 200 watts of constant power. That means that you need about
1 Watt = 0.00134102209 horsepower
For a 150HP engine, you're talking about an energy drain of about 112 KW. That's 403 MJ of energy per hour. Realistically, cars only expend a lot of energy when accelerating. Thus an economy car tends to use more like 20 HP for cruising. That works out to a constant power requirement of about 15 KW. 15KW is 5.4 MJ per hour.
Re:Global Warming? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, wait. All those things came about by government regulation, despite the huge fuss that private industry kicked up about it, and despite all the right-wing gloommongers predicting instant economic meltdown if we outlawed pea-soupers. And in fact they'd be impossible to get any other way, by the basic, Economics 101 argument of the Tragedy of the Commons. Isn't it remarkable how little economics people know who say that there is an "economic" solution to every problem?
Re:Global Warming? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Global Warming? (Score:3, Insightful)
Precisely the right term for this attitude -- silly. Most people do not think through the facts about how much energy ANY modern lifestyle requires. Much of the "wealth" of the developed world is due to the productivity of labor which in turn is built on the ability to apply LARGE amounts of energy to the tasks at hand. Japan is about as efficient as any developed economy in terms of energy use per capit
Re:Global Warming? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or we could simply realize that as the problem gets worse economic pressures will naturally solve the problem.
HUH? This is exactly the kind of problem where economic pressure completely fails to drive solutions to the problem.
As long as we can't partition off the world into little cubicles where folks are forced to live with the results of their own actions, problems like this will always be soemone else's fault. Economic pressure will continue to push people in the direction of letting the atomosphere deal with the filth that they produce (at $0/per ton, it's hard to beat!)
Social or Political pressure may force a change, but economic pressure will always favor individuals making maximum use of shared resources regardlees of the cumulative effect.
Re:Global Warming? (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? Didn't Carter provide funding for alternative energy? He was the one who put in the alternative energy tax credit.
Do you have a link to a non right wing source that backs up your statement that bush is the ONLY president to provide funding for alternative energy.
"Or we could simply realize that as the problem gets worse economic pressures will naturally solve the problem."
Or maybe it won't. You have no guarantee of that.
The problem is that the price of natural resources fluctuates according to extraction and not total volume. For example if we increase logging in all national forests the price of wood will go down because the supply will increase. The supply is not increasing because there are more trees in the world it's increasing because they are being cut faster.
In our current scenario we will see the rate of extraction continue at current levels until there is no more and then the market will crash. In other words rationing will not be made in a sane and gradual manner it will come abruptly when we run out.
Finally the atmosphere may go out of whack way before we run out of any fuel. I don't think that it will happen gradually either.
Re:Global Warming? (Score:3, Insightful)
It is much easier to extract oil from a field that is full than from one that has been drilled previously. This is part of the reason why so much oil comes from the middle east. The older oil fields in the US, etc. are more expensive to operate and thus not profitable Extraction levels will slow as the fields are depleted (and thus become more expensive to operate
Re:Global Warming? (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember when looking at any global warming predicition, these are the same models used to predict your local extended forecast. Considering they can't reliably predict 10 days out, how much credit can you really give a prediction years out?
While the Earth's temperature may be rising, it has done that in the past before man even existed. Are we the cause this time? Noone can truly say for sure, and even *IF* we are, is
Re:Global Warming? (Score:3, Insightful)
I am simply asking for a citation from a non right wing source.
Re:Global Warming? (Score:3, Informative)
The Energy Research and Development Administration was created in 1974 [anl.gov], and spent tax payer dollars (AKA funding) on solar, wind, geothermal and nuclear energy research.
Re:Global Warming? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, economic wishful thinking... unfortunately this is not the way it works. By the time market pressure will be strong enough to push a major change in the motoring industry, a lot of damage will already have been done. It is always more expensive and difficult to de-polluate than to change our consumption habits. You need real political initiative if you want to boost alternative energy.
On the other side, I don't know what's wrong with Americans, but it seems like they always think that Kyoto is an international evil plot to crush their economy. The fact is, even if some of you can doubt the evidences of global warning presented by many indepedent and credible scientists, you still have to admit that reducing air pollution will necessarily benefit Earth's population (reducing asthma and other breathing disease, improving air quality, etc.). The problem is that USA actually has the highest emission rate per capita. Considering that, I think that you are accountable to the rest of the world for polluting the air (there's still no borders for air...). When you talk about pollution, you need to think globally.
The rhetoric used by Bush is also ridiculous (saying that the Kyoto protocol will heavily damage USA's economy). Germany has ecological laws that actually created new jobs and they have already almost reached their Kyoto's objectives. When you develop a new sector, you create new jobs. It's true that you will lose jobs in the "old" sector, but manpower will be reallocated to the new ressources. Every good economist should know that.
It is also true that oil reserve won't be everlasting. Hence, they need to be preserved for more important use than "burning" them. The US government has the moral (toward its population and the rest of the world) and economical (to diversify its economy and reduce its dependence toward oil-producing country) motivation to ratify the Kyoto engagement.
Re:Global Warming? (Score:3, Interesting)
No. Have a look and see for yourself. [undp.org]
Kuwait, Bahrain, the UAE, and Qatar are all ahead of the US, and Trinidad & Tobago (they need to select a unified name), Luxembourg, Australia, and Canada aren't that far behind. Furthermore, CO2 emissions per capita for the US from 1980 to 1999 actually decreased by 3%, which is more than can be said for Austria (increased by 10%), Italy (11%), Japan (15%), Spain (28%), Australia (32%),
Re:Global Warming? (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe $5/gallon gas or $5000/year luxury tax on cars would have some effect on this. The people who use cars the most should be paying more for the privilege instead of paying for roads out of the general tax revenue.
Re:Global Warming? (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that people think that punishing people for riding cars will make them ride mass transit more. Or that making transit better will make people magically decide to ride it.
It needs to be a coordinated effort to make mass transit more usefull, start designing cities around pedestrian traffic (but with accessible perimiter or "back street" parking for people that do live in outlying areas.
Make it easy for me to drive into the area, ditch the car, and then walk/ride to where I need to
Re:Global Warming? (Score:3, Insightful)
You twisted my words. I did not say "alternative energy sources", I said "alternative fuel sources". Heating your home is a lot different than powering your car.
I agree that hydrogen is a dumb way to go.
Perhaps Bush is pushing for it because it will keep energy under the thumb o
Re:What if ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course you have to keep in mind that (and I'm pretty sure about this, not certain though, it's hard to wrap your head around) ice from the north pole displaces just as much water when it's ice as when it's water - because it's floating, melting that shouldn't change the level. However melting or mining ice from the south pole will cause the sea level to rise, because it's on land at the moment.
Hope that made some kind of sense, and if I'm wrong about any of it please correct me!
Re:What if ... (Score:4, Interesting)
If it seems that easy to undermine such a concept being presented by a number of scientists, then you may want to reconsider whether you're taking everything into account.
Re:What if ... (Score:3, Interesting)
BINGO! You are correct. But acknowledging this fact would mess up a perfectly dandy argument in favor of the Kyoto protocol. That's why it tends to get conveniently overlooked...
Actually, as posted elsewhere, this is incorrect. Frozen H2O forms a structure that actually is less dense than liquid H2O, which is why ice floats.
Don't forget that much of th
Re:What if ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't forget that much of this ice is above the waterline, which once melted would transfer below the waterline, raising sea level.
This is true, but the part of the ice that is above the waterline is entirely made up of the extra "structure that
Re:Question about polar ice (Score:3, Informative)
You're forgetting that a lot of the ice is above the water. So when it melts the resultant water flows into the sea.
George Carlins take (Score:4, Funny)
Re:George Carlins take (Score:4, Funny)
He was talking about the possibility that folks in Wisconsin were standing outside spraying generic freon spraycans up into the air: "Fuck the grandkids, I'm cold now!"
TSG
Re:George Carlins take (Score:3, Insightful)
"There is nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine . . . been
here 4 1/2 billion years. We've been here, what, a 100,000 years, maybe
200,000. And we've only been engaged in heavy industry a little over 200
years. 200 years versus 4 1/2 billion. And we have the conceit to think
that somehow we're a threat? The planet isn't going away. We are." -- George Carlin
Re:George Carlins take (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll go out on a limb an
I don't buy it (Score:3, Informative)
This site provides links to resources skeptical of those sort of doomsday scenarios.
Re:I don't buy it (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I don't buy it (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I don't buy it (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I don't buy it (Score:5, Insightful)
What non-scientists sometimes don't understand is that global warning is correlated to human activity above and beyond any natural cycles of the earth. There is some small chance that that correlation is a fluke, a statistical aberration, but statistics is a another very concrete science which is well used by good scientists. And these statistics give very strict confidence limits on the statements made by scientists; generally these confidence limits hover around 5%, 1% or 0.1%. So yes, there is at worst a 5% chance that the correlation between human activity and global climate change is due to natural cycles, but that leaves a 95% chance that it is US who are changing things.
Take a stats course, then take a geology course. Inform yourself and then consider the evidence for yourself. Don't simply take for granted that an oil funded think tank with a political agenda is going to present unbiased evidence.
Good luck earth.
Re:I don't buy it (Score:3, Insightful)
As well if they do actually use math you should know I could say I did a statistical test and got my data to have a 1% confidence that this phenomenon is caused by humans but that still doesn't mean that my model was correct.
The problem which you easily skimmed over is that Ecologist, Geophysicist, and etc. do not have an accurate model. They are using very limited data sets and claming that it is a prediction
Re:I don't buy it (Score:3, Insightful)
1. There's been a measured increase in Solar activity and radiation, which is *where* we get our heat from, obviously. Once the Sun gets over it's current temper tantrum, temperatures will get more moderate.
2. If Dinosaurs ruled a tropical paradise 65 million years ago, wouldn't the current trend of Global Warming just be the Earth returning to a Tropical state?
3. Isn'
Re:I don't buy it (Score:4, Insightful)
Cool! So if we don't agree with scientific findings or worse yet, if those findings might cost us money, then those findings are not valid?
I guess the people who are trying to wish away evolution are going to wish away global warming as well.
Re:I don't buy it (Score:5, Funny)
I really hope that as a species we're capable of fucking up the world better than farting cows....
Re:I don't buy it (Score:3, Insightful)
and just why do you think all those cows are there?
you will never see a holstein "in the wild" because modern cows are the creation of human agriculture. they exists because we demand that they do.
and we are responsible for their belches. and their manure. and the soile they erode.
Re:I don't buy it (Score:5, Informative)
Scientists today:
* know pretty accurately the size of our atmosphere
* know pretty accurately what's in it
* have run controlled experiments showing how much heat is trapped by CO2 and other gasses
* know roughly how much CO2 is being added daily.
Here's what looks like a pretty balanced overview, gleaned through google of course:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global
I can respond to one of your points: it's not necessarily that the earth has never seen the greenhouse effect before, but the rate of its onset may very well be a new phenomenon. There have been massive volcanic eruptions in recent history, such as Krakatoa, but I believe we are producing more CO2 than anything like this.
If the Earth warms up quicker than most species have ever experienced, there is no reason to believe that there wouldn't be massive species upheaval.
Re:I don't buy it (Score:3, Informative)
So...were you just trying to refute something in my post? I don't see your post disagreeing with anything I'd previously written.
Re:I don't buy it (Score:3, Insightful)
Except, you know, it might not get over it, at least not completely... AFAIK, current solar models suggest that sun slowly grows hotter and hotter through it's normal life. So I wouldn't gamble on current situation being a tantrum that will pass. It could even be just the opposite, there was a "co
Re:I don't buy it (Score:5, Informative)
Already factored into the climate models. The Earth should by now be dipping back towards a glacial episode. Warming since the mid 20th Century appears to be man made.
Additionally, the rate of climate change is almost entirely unprecedented. Whilst global temperatures are not high on the geological timescale they are rising at an extraordinary rate which appears to lack a natural cause.
2. If Dinosaurs ruled a tropical paradise 65 million years ago, wouldn't the current trend of Global Warming just be the Earth returning to a Tropical state?
In short - no. During the Mesozoic both poles were covered by ocean, water could move freely through the oceans, heat was effectively distributed round the globe. Overall temperatures were higher. Since then, Antarctica has slipped over the South Pole and the North Pole is now almost entirely enclosed by land. Oceanic circulation is much more dynamic with cold water forming at the poles and descending to the floor of the oceans - which are only just about freezing point. The warming of these cold waters in the tropics is what holds the temperature way below Mesozoic levels.
3. Isn't is just a little bit arrogant on the part of humanity to assume that we really affect the environment that much?
Not really, we seem to have done a wonderful job devastating the ecologies of places such as Iceland (once had forests), the seasonally dry areas around the deserts which were once productive grasslands and are now deserts, the salinisation of the Middle East and Pakistan thanks to faulty irrigation, we've buggered the Aral Sea beyond recognition, we're busy knackering the Mekong River with badly-thought through hydropower projects, the Colorado only occasionally reaches the sea, god only knows what we've done by carrying rats and cats around the World to places where they were previously unknown. And so on. So actually, no, it would be amazing if we WEREN'T screwing up the atmosphere.
What about bovine methane?
Methane was estimated to produce about 20% of global warming in the 1990s. Its sources are many - melting permafrost, natural gas leaks, swamps are some of the natural ones. However we contribute to it by things such as rice paddies and those huge herds of cattle which just aren't natural.
What about a single volcanic eruption spewing more CFC's then we've ever thought about using?
Errr volcanoes don't spew CFCs. They release carbon dioxide which is a global warming agent, but they also pour out ash, sulphuric acid and hydrogen chloride which serve to depress temperatures.
Best wishes,
Mike.
Re:I don't buy it (Score:3, Informative)
Modern agriculture supports far larger populations of animals than were ever possible in Nature because we feed livestock on grain rather than them having to forage.
Best wishes,
Mike.
Re:I don't buy it (Score:4, Informative)
"For every 10 pounds of nutrients consumed, 8 to 9 pounds are excreted in the feces and urine."
Straight from the USDA [usda.gov].
Does this strike you as wasteful? Did you know the US could feed 800,000,000 people [cornell.edu] on the grain that's fed to livestock? Let the cows eat grass and save the grain for the starving! Or sell it and take $80 billion off the trade deficit!
Fucking decadent carnivores, messing up the place...
Re:I don't buy it (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I don't buy it (Score:3, Insightful)
If Microsoft issued those articles . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Follow the money, and ask yourself:
Who is more likely to be venal, deceptive, and prone to manipulate data:
Flacks for fossil fuel industries and pro-business think tanks, or atmospheric scientists and climatologists?
Re:If Microsoft issued those articles . . . (Score:3, Insightful)
AAAARGH! (Score:5, Insightful)
Aargh. Scientists are funded by government. In the US, both houses of congress and the executive branch are run by people, hmm, how to put this mildly, disinclined to regulating energy.
If climate researchers were purely concerned with funding, then American science would be contrary to the science of other countries with goernments more inclined to strong regulation. Fortunately for science, this isn't the case, and for the most part, US science is in the same ballpark as other countries'.
This particular dog has been hunting way too long by now. It's just incredibly irritating to see how it keeps getting sent out all the time.
If I knew where my bread was buttered I'd just shut up, frankly. That's bad enough.
What's worse is having to have such altruism as I can muster painted as opportunism. Bah! I may be wrong, but I'm not doing all this squawking for the money!
Of all the global-warming-is-bunk propaganda ploys out there, (and they're all getting wheeled out today, it seems) this is the one that most effectively and reliably makes me just furious. I can't believe people are still buying it. You can't imagine how obnoxious it is.
As usual, for the real scoop see the IPCC Scientific Working Group Report [grida.no] please and thank you.
Re:I don't buy it (Score:3, Interesting)
The predictions are far from doomsday, they're well within the realms of what is likely, whether global warming is real or not.
Re:I don't buy it (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunatly, there really isn't any "conclusive data". We need to build a second Earth so we can use it for experiments
The main thing that would happen (according to most models) is that weather patters will change. Areas that are currently fertile and produce much of the world's food supply could suddenly (within decades) stop producing.
Even the US Department of Defence feels that this is the biggest threat that the U.S. faces in the mid-to-long term.
I'm not saying every car should be scrapped (though you'll have a hard time justifying that SUV to me), but that we really need to consider our actions now.
It just seems to me the conserv(e)ative thing to do would be not make dratic changes in the environment, and also to understand that the supply of fossil fuels is finite, and work to preserve our standard of living for future generations.
Um..... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Um..... (Score:5, Funny)
To be honest... (Score:4, Interesting)
I just get the feeling that our science into yet up to the task of interpreting our climate.
Re:To be honest... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:To be honest... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:To be honest... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's part of Earth's cycle. We sped it up, sure, we could have prevented it, possibly...
Yes, this will be modded as a troll or overrated but the cycle will go on with or w/o us. We are an insignificant part of the history of our planet and although we are intelligent enough to continue to be here I don't think that the earth cares one way or the other.
Once that's the opinion of everyone we will be a
Re:To be honest... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, why retaliate if somebody flies an airplane into a building? Every single one of the victims would've died of something anyway. The terrorists just sped it up.
I don't think that the earth cares one way or the other.
Even if the earth did, there are probably plenty of planets just like earth. The universe won't care.
On the other hand, we live here. I don't believe we have "a responsibility to take care of the earth" or whatever, and the extinction of the human race isn't a big deal in the cosmic sense, but exactly why shouldn't we try to survive?
flooding (Score:5, Interesting)
Since so much of ice sits underwater, and water expands when frozen, wouldn't it make sense that melting icebergs would actually shrink the oceans, or at least keep them the same size? I know there's a lot of ice on top of land masses melting as well, but what about all the ice in the water?
Am I an idiot for thinking this way?
Re:flooding (Score:5, Insightful)
The greatest threat from global warming isn't rising sea levels, it's global climate change that will destroy most of the current 'breadbaskets' of the world. Not only that, but the increase in the amount of energy in the weather system of the planet will create more powerful storms, causing worse floods, and making them more erratic, meaning the land will dry out, and then it will rain heavily, washing away topsoil.
I think if you didn't call it global warming, but called it global climate change, more people would have
Re:flooding (Score:4, Informative)
OTOH, it's not just about sea levels; it's also about temperature and salinity. Melting the Arctic ice cap might not raise sea levels, but it would dump a whole bunch of cold fresh water into (relatively) warmer, salt water. This could have drastic effects on marine life and on major currents, including the Gulf Stream.
Re:flooding (Score:3, Insightful)
For all intents and purposes, yes. There is a slight variance because of the difference in density between freshwater ice and saltwater liquid. The mass of a freshwater iceberg is equal to the weight of saltwater displaced, but the volume of freshwater is slightly more [216.239.41.104].
Re:flooding (Score:3, Insightful)
The oceans bulge around the equator because of the earth's spin, so more liquid water == more equatorial bulge, and therefore rising sea levels (in some part of the world).
Re:flooding (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the change in the amount of salt in the seas is a bigger issue in the near future as it has the potential to alter the currents in the oceans, as
Re:flooding (Score:3, Interesting)
Since so much of ice sits underwater, and water expands when frozen, wouldn't it make sense that melting icebergs would actually shrink the oceans, or at least keep them the same size? I know there's a lot of ice on top of land masses melting as well, but what about all the ice in the water?
Thermal expansion. The volume difference between water at 1C and water at 3C may be small, but when y
Capitalism & Population Growth (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Capitalism & Population Growth (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What makes you think that is a basic human righ (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? Who? In every developed country, there's more than enough food for everyone. Anything that can't be grown locally (due to a variety of problems) can be easily imported. The only ones I see without food are underdeveloped countries where they can't or won't develop a strong enough economy to meet the needs of the people.
Yes, but... (Score:3, Funny)
*ducks*
(2 comments and already slashdotted... sheesh...)
Best to Worst is large! (Score:5, Insightful)
In the "worst case", the entirity of the British Isles are inundated.
In the "best case", everything but the coastline becomes a desert.
While this looks like very good science, it's not going to be very useful as a basis for public policy. Science is all about showing all possible outcomes, in hopes of divining the truth. Public policy tends towards simple, overly general statements like "Global Warming will flood London" or "There is no threat from Global Warming". To the frustration of many, I'm sure, this report seems to support both positions.
On a technical note, when I hit the Executive Summary page before the Slashdot story went live, around 11am CDT, it said "This document has been accessed 361 times." A refresh a few minutes later bumped it up to 369, so it's a real-time counter. It'll be interesting to see how the Slashdot effect changes that number, and whether the counter survives the Local Warming of their web server.
Re:Best to Worst is large! (Score:4, Informative)
Almost by definition, anything that recommends a solution is bad science. Science isn't very good at outcomes, but that's what politicians need.
In the case of global warming, it's difficult because the costs are imposed now, and the outcome is always in doubt. If we do X, there's no guarantee that X will happen. So are you willing to spend hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars and affect every industry for possibly no gain? Nope.
Science doesn't determine goals, direction, and priorities - politicians (and the public) do. And that's how it should be. Scientists don't pay a price if they're wrong.
question (Score:3, Interesting)
A really elaborate advertisement? (Score:5, Insightful)
China and India are adding up (Score:3, Informative)
To all Global Climate Change Doubters (Score:5, Insightful)
Clearly, the cost/benefit/risk assesment points to taking measures now, because the possible cost of not taking measures (end of civilzation) is far too great.
Re:To all Global Climate Change Doubters (Score:3, Insightful)
No. There are many more than just two possibilities. Let's just take a look at some of the variables:
Variable One: Climate. The climate could be changing, the climate may not. However, which direction is the change occuring in, if at all? Is the climate getting warmer, cooler, staying the same? are the changes cyclical or a steady increase or decrease?
Variable Two: Cause. If the climate is changing, what is causing the change? Is it human or man-made? What are the sources of the changes, if any
Backwards Logic (Score:3)
Instead of starting with a hypothetical (Global Warming) and trying to determine what we should or shouldn't do about it, we should start with some actual effect (alteration of the atmosphere) and deal with that.
Most scientists agree that Global Warming is real but all serious scientists agree (and can measure and prove) that humans are altering the composition of the atmosphere by dumping billions of pounds of industrial waste into it in the form of carbon dioxide.
Does everyone agree about what effect
Global warming not our fault? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, global warming is real. Do we have anything to do with it? Probably not. Claims that our production of carbon dioxide will destroy life as we know it demonstrate ignorance of how the entire carbon cycle works. Plankton and plants absolutely THRIVE on carbon dioxide, and produce oxygen as waste. This is elementary school biology, folks.
The Earth will not bake us to oblivion, and we will not cause some horrific ice age. Things we DO need to be concerned about are ozone depletion and deforestation, because these directly affect the chemical cycle of this planet. The fact is, we simply don't know enough about the long-term trends of terrestrial climate to make credible doomsday scenarios. As it is, we are recovering from the "Little Ice Age," which means we're going to warm up. The planet has its own way of keeping the climate stable and self-sustaining. Thinking humans can make or break it is arrogant and egotistical, to say the least.
I am not a climatologist, but I wish people would avoid jumping onto bandwagons whose positions they have not examined with any depth.
Re:Global warming not our fault? (Score:4, Insightful)
[sigh]
It seems like this comes up every time there's any scientific controversy on Slashdot: someone pulls out some elementary scientific fact and says, essentially, "Well, all those PhD's must be idiots to even talk about this, because $SOMETHING_I_LEARNED_IN_6TH_GRADE proves they can't possibly be right." Do you really, truly think that climatological modeling doesn't take the carbon cycle into account?
Re:Global warming not our fault? (Score:5, Insightful)
And assuming that humans can't is what, exactly? Global warming is not a scare story made up by environmentalists, you know. It's the leading scientific theory of how the climate currently behaves. Surely the least arrogant and egotistical way of looking at things is to build a model based or our best understanding of how the climate works, and see the effect of adding CO2? (answer: global warming) Maybe the models are wrong - but I'd put my faith in them over 'elementary school biology' (or do you have the calculations to back up your claim).
Climatologists are aware that plants absorb CO2. They're also aware that most ecosystems are carbon-neutral (because when the plant/plankton dies, it decays). Unless you have plans to increas the planet's green cover, this will have little effect. Of course, increased desertification - a probable result of warming - would have the opposite effect. They're also aware that warming threatens to release masses of greenhouse gasses trapped under permafrost in Siberia, which would accelerate the effect. They're also aware that the earth went through a little ice-age recently. It's not disputed that the earth is going through a naturally warming phase. But the rate of warming is much faster than predicted because of that alone - and fits in well with predictions based on CO2 emissions.
The fact is that recent climate models, based on our best understanding of the science, do a pretty good job of explaining the earth's climate over the past century, and they indicate that CO2 plays a major role in recent warming, and that without a reduction in CO2 levels, warming will increase. I, for one, am happy to follow the scientific evidence.
Climates change? neat! (Score:3, Funny)
Perhaps they should think before they build (Score:5, Interesting)
This isn't a global warming problem though it is another effect of the root problem. The root problem in the Western world is our short sightedness. If buildings were built to last a few hundred years instead of a few decades, they would probably think more seriously about building in a 500 or 1000 year flood plain.
In any case, 20 billion pounds a year is meaningless in relation to the infrastructure cost of avoiding global warming without changing lifestyles (good luck if you think you can change lifestyles in any direction other than towards increased decadence). So, this study, even if taken seriously, still does not demonstrate the cost effectiveness of avoiding global warming. Until a solution to global warming is identified that is provably cheaper in the short term than our short term economic losses demonstrably caused by global warming, it won't fly. Jumping up and down and screaming about fears for the possible future won't change that fact, especially since there are at least a dozen ways we're likely to wipe ourselves out before that future.
Re:Perhaps they should think before they build (Score:4, Insightful)
You really think so? It's been widely suggested that among the top three modern contenders - global nuclear war, asteroid strike, and ecological disaster - none would quite do the trick. A nasty enough asteroid strike might reduce the population down to a few thousand or even a few hundred humans wealthy or powerful enough to live in shelters for a century or two... but probably not extinct us as a species.
Today, other than essentially irrelevent theories like "We're actually living in a computer simulation and it gets shut down" or "alien species decide to exterminate us" (irrelevant because little or nothing can be done even if they are possible), about the only reasonable chance we seem to have of causing our own extinction is nano-terrorism - the "grey goo" scenario. And, really, that may not turn out to be any more reasonable than yesterday's fear that "a nuclear weapon will set the atmosphere on fire."
I think when people say environmental issues are about our survival as a species, they overstate the case. But survival isn't all that matters; there's quality of life, too. Global warming probably has no chance to wipe us out as a species, but it certainly could - and probably will - lead to widespread famine and disease.
Re:Perhaps they should think before they build (Score:3, Interesting)
Christ on a pony, that was a long post
I used to think along some of the same lines as you re: oil, until I read a May, 2003 article in Discover magazine.. unfortunately Discover has pulled it from their server, but it's about "Thermal Depolymerization", which is the process of creatin
Can someone tell me which is true? (Score:3, Interesting)
The following viewpoints have been presented over the past 30 years:
- Global Cooling [globalclimate.org]. We will freeze to death shortly.
- Global Warming [epa.gov]. We will warm up the earth and either melt or be drowned.
- Climate Change [www.ipcc.ch]. The earth will have rapidly chaging temperatures resulting in the destruction of humankind.
- "Run out of oxygen [smogcity.com]" theory. We'll ruin the atmosphere to the point we can't breathe it.
- Nothing [nasa.gov]. All of the above are bunk.
Which is true? All these viewpoints have been presented at one time or another, and, up to now, none of them (including the last one) have been true.
Is this just another Waaahhhhhmbulance to ignore, or does this article have revolutionary proof that is worth my effort to read?
I'm willing to understand that science changes over time. But to have various scientists publicizing all possible viewpoints as the truth over the past 30 years is too much for me to handle.
Re:Can someone tell me which is true? (Score:4, Insightful)
Global Warming. We will warm up the earth and either melt or be drowned. US government, consistent with the IPCC.
Climate Change. The earth will have rapidly chaging temperatures resulting in the destruction of humankind. The IPCC consensus document, very badly misrepresented.
"Run out of oxygen" theory. We'll ruin the atmosphere to the point we can't breathe it. Totally irrelevant, surface ozone site, very badly misrepresented.
Nothing. All of the above are bunk. A technical paper about middle atmosphere temperatures. Important enough within the field, but not broad enough to merit that summary.
"Various scientists publicizing all possible viewpoints" is a consequence of the importance of the issue. People who don't much care for the scientific mainstream's conclusions will dig up some iconoclasts. Research is about stuff that is uncertain, after all. The stuff that makes it into undergrad textbooks is pretty much settled, but that isn't what scientists think about.
What gets publicized isn;t the same as what people in the discipline think about. The IPCC position is the best representation of the scientific mainstream in this matter. That doesn't guarantee it's right, of course. Science is not infallible. On the other hand, it's a better bet than the various fringe positions you will see here and there. I could find you a better sampling of those than you found, but I'd rather not.
I'm waiting for it (Score:4, Interesting)
Anyway, call me a psycho, but I'm eagerly waiting for it. A good big old climate change would just be the necessary step to understand that, definitely, mankind is not eternal.
God of climate, of the raging seas, of the crushing sky, you 0wn us. Even if I am to die, give us the chance to realize that now is the time to act !
Regards,
jdif
What massive battle between scientists? (Score:3, Informative)
Only about 3 out of every 1000 scientists is an "environmental skeptic."
Do you also wonder about the massive battle between scientists about whether cigarettes cause cancer?
Let us say (Score:4, Insightful)
What then? The companies can produce twice as much, at no real extra cost, precicely because they are more efficient.
The corporate doomsday scenario (companies going bust, trying to curb emissions) is only valid if you assume greater efficiency is impossible and that companies are doomed to produce unusable, useless pollutants in vast quantities.
There is no reason to believe this scenario. Indeed, it is a lot LESS likely than global warming! All you need to boost efficiency is a better method of production. Get more out, for a given amount in. There's a limit to how efficient you can get, but we're nowhere near that level, yet.
Added to all this - research costs money. Spending money improves the circulation and therefore the economy. Hoarding all the cash in the pockets of a hundred or so individuals does nothing for industry or the economy as a whole.
The release of this report (Score:4, Interesting)
There is only one way to halt human impact on the planet, and that would be to remove the human element. Otherwise we have the horrible motives and thoughts on both sides of the spectrum.
One camp says "Global warming is a farce" the other says "Humans are destroying M.Earth." Enviro-friendly doesn't mean 0 impact, it means less impact than if we didn't exist. Completely ignoring the fact that yes, we may be intelligent creatures, but we affect the environment on a proportion to our population on the planet.
It makes you wonder if a beaver really cares about his affect on the local environment around him... and if he does, does he try and fix it later?
Not that we're on the same level as a beaver, but we have clear cut forests and then done nothing to help the growth along... and now 50-70 years later those forests are regrowing but in a much tighter configuration than before. The risk of fire is far increased as well as the sanctions the EPA has put in place to prevent controlled burns to get rid of the undergrowth in a method nature has been using for millenia. So the undergrowth builds up until it is nearly impossible to have a burn that will stay controlled for very long.
We as a mass of intelligent creatures are playing a dangerous game, attempting to keep an unchanging environment that by OUR very nature is nigh impossible. If we are to prevent ourselves from damaging the environment irreperably then we need to enter domes, otherwise our very presence and natural existance affects the environment in the same way a beaver dam affects the creatures downriver.
So, the only solution that eco-nuts have that makes any sense is lets all live in domes, and the only solution the ignorant are pushing towards is a destruction of our atmosphere and environment that will lead us to live in domes.
I dunno about ya'll but I'll be buying my Oxygen compressor soon, since the moderate voice is always drowned out to the extremists.
Oh, for fuck's sake... (Score:4, Informative)
Here [bgh.org.uk] is a link about flooding in the Tonbridge region. The river Medway (which starts off as the Eden in my home-town) has been flooding for a long long time, as I learnt in Geography lessons
Can anyone who's read the report (slashdotted now) shed any light on why this is being attributed to GW?
Re:Oh, for fuck's sake... (Score:3, Informative)
Fact is that climate is complex, in some regions temperature will rise more than others. In some regions temperatures may even fall.
It is the differences in air and water temperature an
Its bad because it affects us. (Score:3, Interesting)
Original, many of those in high places believed "hey.. cool.. with global warming we will have more than the current 6 weeks of sun a year in London. How great for our economy."
By now it seems that what is more likely to happen is a shutting down of the gulf stream" [acs.org] giving London the weather currently experienced in SIBERIA.
Like everything else (including the current US and Australian -- yes... I am Australian -- administrations' denials that that global warming is real), it only becomes an issue when it affects You personally.
Note. I believe that global warming is a real effect. I don't believe that some of the more "Everybody is going to die" scenarios are real, but I am more than willing to say "hey look, we just don't know... so lets just back off a little on our current pumping of crap into the environment so if the doomsdayists turn out to be right, we don't have so much damage to undo, and in the meantime we get cleaner air to breathe".
Long-term, schlong-term, I want clean air NOW! (Score:5, Insightful)
But I don't care about that. I'm in favor of efforts to reduce noxious emissions for an entirely different reason - my health. Sure, the EPA has some restrictions on what kind of crap you can spew into the air, but the air in and around most US cities is nasty! [cnn.com] It's easy not to notice if you spend all of your time in the city, but whenever I go for a long bike ride, where I need to get a lot of oxygen into my lungs, I can really tell that the air near big cities is harder to breathe. And believe me, it's no fun to be finishing a hard bike ride, taking in deep lungs-full of air, and finding yourself stuck behind a bus spewing out black soot.
I've seen plenty of posts already arguing that we shouldn't bear the burden of reducing emisisons for a dubious long-term gain. But I don't think anyone would disagree that doing so would clean up the air around us in the short-term, and that alone, to me, is worth the cost.
It really is a shame... (Score:4, Interesting)
Personally, I don't believe that mankind is intelligent enough to save itself. My prediction:
Mankind will continue to argue about whether or not global warming is a problem. Many of those who will argue that it's unproven or just not true will have business agendas of their own and will believe that if it is a problem that there is still time for them to make their fortune before being forced to change their ways.
The eco system will the stressed until finally a slow but unstoppable cascade effect will occur. Once the point of no return has been passed one species after another will become extinct and death and destruction will climb up though the food chain.
By the time people stop arguing about the dangers of abusing our eco system it will be far too late. A massive world effort will ensue where all the wealth gained from raping our planet will be spent on a desperate search for a way to save ourselves but we will only find a grave.
Not an environmental problem (Score:4, Interesting)
If human civilization (which is mostly based on costal settlements) were to collapse as a result of rising oceans, what would the ecological impact be? Very little, I suspect. Most species would still have their niches. The niches would just move up hill and toward the poles.
The only species that would be heavily impacted would be those costal species that could not relocate faster than the water rises. I can't think of any, except humanity: we are not ourselves without our cities, and our cities cannot be moved.
Thus, global warming/flooding is not an environmental problem, it is an enviromental solution.
Global flooding is an economic problem though...
I am not a tree hugging hippy (Score:3, Insightful)
1) the amount of people with severe allergies and as-ma is increasing exponentially.
2) SUV's use 10 times more resources and create 3 times more waste that normal cars (both manufacturing use and disposal).
3) more Americans buy SUV's as a status symbol than any other country.
4) people who buy SUV's don't need SUV's
5) technology exists and is in mass production that can
a) make cars that get 60+ MPG,b) are safer and use less natural resources in their production.
as long as people drive SUV's around we are fucked. because the SUV points to a general opinion that i don't care what happens in the future i want to look good now.
what we need to do is outlaw any car that way-es over 1 ton and gets less then 60 MPG and our economic and political world will be a much better place.
impact humanity has on global weather (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,525
Makes you wonder what the long term affect is of everything we do...
Re:Global warming? Oh really... (Score:3, Informative)
No one is saying that the "Earth is hotter than it ever was" but you and the rest of the Anti-Warming FUD Trolls. What we are saying is that the Earth is warming, and a lot of our civilization is in danger of sever flooding. You mention it was warmer in the past, very true, and also one of the reasons why many Roman and Greek ports are now inland, the oceans in that area have receeded to some degree. Now imagine as warming kicks in (and the recent warming trend ha
Re:my own vision of the future (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:doesn't ice take up more room than water? (Score:3, Informative)
Yes. But that extra ice is the part that sticks out above the water. The weight of the ice (including the part sticking out) is exactly the same as that of the displaced water. So when the ice melts, the resulting water will have precisely the same volume as the hole in the water displaced by the ice.