Climate Change May Be Past the Point of No Return

Tony, hear hear. I always laugh at the "Save the Planet" bumper stickers. Those sods don't have a clue. This rock isn't going anywhere. What's living on the surface is another matter.

kdmorse, ok. I just wasn't sure what you were referring to. I tend to think along similar lines. I think the biggest threat isn't the absolutes but the rate of change. That's what's disturbing to me.

The "good" news is that we simply can't keep up our pace much longer. There just aren't enough fossil fuels left. Of course, what sort of havoc we can cause in the meantime is anybody's guess. It's certainly not helping things, we can be sure of that.

 

From EnviroTruth.org; Myth Buster;

Myth #1: 'Humanity is the Primary Cause of Global Climate Change.'

http://www.envirotruth.org/myth_1.cfm

and a little audio about that naughty C02 enviro-wrecker:

http://hoopermuseum.earthsci.carleton.ca//...a/patterson.wav

FYI B)

 

I thought the real debate is about what can be done.

I'm not a scientist, but my daughter did study under the Prof at UCI that won a Nobel prize for showing how some kinds of gasses can convert ozone. Not that he proved it was happening, mind you, but he showed that flourocarbons CAN cause a problem. But none of the concern today is about a "hole in the ozone layer" ... it is about a rise in various gasses in the atmosphere that "conspire" to make earth a warmer place.

CO2 is usually the one gas they focus on, and human contributions to it are about 4% of the total. So if we cut out all human production of CO2, except perhaps for that exhaling thing, we would still be forging ahead with higher CO2 levels and global warming.

There's an article by an educator from WV that does a pretty persuasive job of providing some references if you want to view the data from a a perspective of someone not claiming "doom and gloom". I've tried to verify more of his stuff, but since I'm not an expert, I have to view it like I do everything else I read. Its at:

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils...house_data.html

I don't really have a dog in the fight, per se. I used to think that perhaps there wasn't any warming going on, but the science is pretty persuasive that there is ... higher CO2 concentrations today than the evidence shows there was way back when (they test CO2 concentrations in ice, and by taking very deep samples, they can determine what the CO2 concentration was a long time ago).

I do object to political manipulation of science, by either the right or the left. And in this debate, that is happening quite a bit.

 

Well, if consuming carbon based fuel is the culprit, as I think it is, we have a lot to go through still. We tend to focus on the "easy" oil reserves that the "Peak Oil" theory looks at, and the fear by some is that we've reached the half way point, with consumption outstripping the discovery of new reserves. But we'll be able to extract the shale oil and sand oil soon. And we'll be able to turn to coal gasification too, as the value of energy climbs to a point where that makes economic sense. Shale and sand oil reserves are not counted in that "Peak Oil" calculation because we can't get to them now ... but we will be able to.

So, say we could have 2 - 300 more years of consuming some kind of carbon based fuel, and adding our 3 - 5 % of the CO2 to the air. Or hydrogen technology takes off and we find the waste products of the chemical reaction is water vapor and CO2.

I think we have to determine just what our contribution really means.

 

No, we can get at them. Right now they're just a little pricey (they're also horrific from an environmental point of view), but we can definitely get at them. However, it takes a lot more energy to produce a barrel of oil from oil shale or tar sand than it does to pump oil out of the ground. We do appear to have a lot of that stuff but we're going to have to use a lot of energy (probably from coal) to produce it. Also, it looks like it's going to take a long time just to reach 3 million barrels per day in production. That's not a lot of oil. Well, it is but it won't satisify much of our demand if things stay on the same trajectory or the demand stays flat. The US currently consumes 20 mb/day of oil and our domestic crude oil production is in decline. Global demand is expected to hit 85 mb/day this year.

The ozone issue has been greatly helped by the massive reduction in FCFC produciton/use be the global community. That's our one success story to this point.

 

I've always been a little confused by the Global Warming issue - it's obvious that we are helping the cycle along, but it's not like it's not something that hasn't happened over and over and over again over the course of the earth. This isn't the first time 'greenhouse gases' have built up in our atmosphere, it's happened before. This time it's not due to LIPs or periods of extreme volcanism, it's due (at least in part) to our increased destruction of the easiest natural carbon sinks, agricultural growth, and combustion. If sedimentary rocks could be found and studied in tropical areas during, say, the Cretaceous, I bet you'd find evidence of larger storms matching the higher temperatures. Or maybe not, the conditions could have been off otherwise - I just think it's hardly surprising that an increased water temperature results in stronger storms. At some point in the future, we'll overcome some peak and we'll aim back towards a 'Snowball Earth'

I just don't get why we'reacting like we've past some point of no return. Global warming is certainly resulting in huge annoyances / 'minor' tragedies for us, but it's not going to raise the temperature by enough to prevent life from carrying on. We should worry about the environment, but stop trying to spread panic. I think it's far more of an issue, for the short-medium term for this planet, that people still want to kill each other, and that differences in religion and governmental philospohy and even being pissed because they got stuck behind someone slow on the road are reason enough to do it.

 

"This isn't the first time 'greenhouse gases' have built up in our atmosphere, it's happened before."

Yes, but...I'll hazard a guess and say there weren't 5 billion and counting humans on board the last time C02 was an issue.

Yes, saving the planet is the correct phrase...where else are we going to live? The Space Station seems a bit smallish.

I'm sure we can all agree that humans have had and continue to impact this planet rather negatively. Meaning we are soiling our bed and don't seem to care.

Less pollution equals cleaner air/water equals life on planet Earth.

The major natural events that create C02 (volcanoes, etc.) we haven't any control over, but I feel we do have contol over other sources of pollutants (cars, power plants, industry, etc.).

Again, too many are so ignornat of the cliff we are "driving" towards (crappy air/water, running low on petroleum products), that speeding up seems to be the norm.

 

I can't recall which city it was or what happened precisely but something happened that caused most of fossil fuel burning human activity to stop. It may have been the major power outage that occurred a couple of summers ago. Anyway, almost immediately, the atmosphere got a lot cleaner. Maybe it's not an irreversible situation but a chronic one. Just as a smoker never gives their lungs a chance to rid themselves of the poisons from tobacco smoke, our environment seldom gets a chance to recover from all of the pollution that the human race farts in to it on a constant basis. Here's an idea. Why don't we have day where we don't drive, don't run air conditioners or furnaces, no fossil fuel burning lawn equipment, etc. The U.S. can do that for just one day can't it? Then, if the difference is measurable, we'd have a good indication as to whether or not the global warming theory has any merit. Granted, you'll still have as*holes who won't go along but getting enough people and enough industries on board may be enough. Of course, it would take a president who actually cares enough to mandate it and to lead it but it's possible. The idea of just keep on consuming until we run out and slip in to a kind of ice age chaos seems ridiculous in comparison.

 

I'm staggered at the number of climate change deniers on here. The level of public debate in the US must be pretty poor if there are really this many people there convinced it's "no big deal" or "it's okay because it's happened before".

Yes, there have been cycles in the past, but they were much longer term, and there weren't advanced civilisations of billions of humans trying to live through them. What's happening now is staggeringly fast by comparison. Ecosystems will not have time to adapt, and it's not clear that economies and societies will.

The situation is complex, and it's hard to predict exactly what will happen, but that doesn't mean it's not a problem. You can't predict where all the pieces will go when you smash a vase with a hammer, but that doesn't mean we can't tell it's going to be in a somewhat worse state afterwards (from our human-centric point of view).

The earth has lots of self-regulating systems that help maintain a pretty comfortable equilibrium (if it didn't we wouldn't have survived long enough to evolve and have this Internet discussion). But it's not at all clear that it can survive a sudden shock like the unprecedented amounts of CO2 being dumped in the atmosphere.

Not only is there the greenhouse effect, it now appears it's dissolving into the oceans, making them more acidic and reducing the viability of micro-organisms towards the bottom of the foodchain.

Plus we're discovering other factors like global dimming - the amount of particulate pollution we've spat out in the past appears to have been acting as a shield, hiding the CO2 greenhouse effect. So cleaning up those emissions, as we've recently trying to do, will very probably accelerate global warming further.

It's not going to be pretty.

 

Based on World Meteorological Organization (WMO) measured data, climate is based on 30-year periods (1971-2000, 1981-2010, 1991-2020). Popular media and opinion cannot objectively state anything about climate change - we need the "big picture". There is no question that climate change is occurring. Rather the question is to what extent and at what rate is climate changing. Climate encompasses many factors: precipitation, actual and potential evapotranspiration, soil moisture, moisture deficits and surpluses - resulting in a comparable, the Index of Moisture (like balancing a check book). Climate is not based on opinion, but systematic observation over a long period of time.

Rigorously criticized, peer-reviewed published studies clearly establish climate change with humans as a significant contributor. Regardless of cause, climate change is noticeable to the average person on the ground. Alpine ski areas in western North America are confirming a rise in elevation in the freezing level in the atmosphere. This means that we may receive more precipitation, but more in the form of rain, less in the form of snow. Runoff comes earlier in the year resulting in a longer period of aridity and less moisture stored as snow. Alpine ski areas cannot just pick up and move higher.

Fisheries are shifting as to species and seasons. Arctic seas and tundra soils are noticeably warming. There are many examples of climate change. We all suffer from the "tragedy of the commons" where everyone derives benefits, but no single individual has direct responsibility. Because we tend to think and operate short-term, climate change appears to be artificial to those with a short attention spans.

Our political system operates short-term (elections every two and four years). Legislation and accountability is short-term. Budget deficit? Just transfer the problem to someone else and do not plan or act long-term.

By driving a Prius, we somewhat model what we teach (preach). We need to move ahead, together.

 

Let's break this down and examine each scenario:
Global warming either is or is not occuring.
Global warming is either dangerous to human survival or it is not.
Global warming is/can either be influenced significantly by human behavior or it can not.

If global warming is not occuring then no problem.

If global warming is occuring but is not dangerous to human survival then no problem.

If global warming is occuring and is/can not be influenced significantly by human behavior, then we have a problem but have no choice but to adapt.

If global warming is occuring and is/can be influenced significantly by human behavior, then we have still have a problem because we won't accept that there is a problem until (more) coastal cities start flooding, (more) severe storms cause devastation, and glaciers start rolling down on us.

 

This is such a prescient statement, and puts in bright light the recent bruhaha over the bushite inspired NASA muffling of Hansen.

To paraphrase, Hansen has free reign to publish his data, but policy AKA conclusions, should be left to the bushites. Since 99.9% of people cannot understand the raw data, it is very convenient to leave the conclusion drawing to the white-house.

 

That about sums it up. The earth's ecosystem will keep rolling along with or without us.

Even with our best effort, we could easily make things worse or make things better. Predicting and correctly controling any aspect of the global climate is nearly an intractable problem.

I'm afraid we will do what we usually do...try to control things based on hysteria over issues we don't completely understand....and mess it up.

 

Like I said...its horse crap. Whatever is going on will take thousands of years. It may be a cycle that has already occured. Man may be making it worse. But it is not death in our lifetime or that of our kids. If it is a problem we need to make corrections. We are scratching the surface as to the what, why and how to solve it. We are still clueless as to why it is happening or if it is really happening. The things we do to correct it....like less emissions, lower halon releases, etc. may in the long run have nothing to do with it......but may offer other benefits like reducing cancer....reducing risporitory disorders etc. etc. etc. The bottom line is that man will fix the problem and we are not going to all die in the morning.

 

I've never seen such extreme pessimism and optimism in the same post...

 

Here's an article related to the subject out today (albeit a horribly-written headline):

Conflicting Claims on Global Warming and Why It's All Moot

 

Well if you are going to quote temperature events that occurred during "The Little Ice Age" (look it up), ie. the regular freezing of the thames river, you should note that the temperatures during the "Medieval Warm Period" (look that up too) which peaked 600 or so years earlier, were quite a bit warmer than the were during the Little Ice Age.

In fact, during the Little Ice Age, glaciers in Europe grew and over ran a few towns, villages, and farms.

As for the category 4 and 5 hurricanes we had this year... You should note that all of those hurricanes were weak category 1 hurricanes by the time they reached Florida. They were not turned into category 4 and 5 hurricanes by warm Atlantic waters. If they had all hit the florida coast, they would have been little more than tropical storms.

So, how did they become category 4 and 5 hurricanes? Well, you might remember that they all traveled between Cuba and Florida and entered the Gulf of Mexico. In the Gulf of Mexico, there is something called the "Gulf Loop Current". This is a deep current of very warm water (90+ degrees). It's always been there, and it's always been very warm. And, whenever a hurricane passes over it, it always ramps up quickly into a very strong hurricane.

The reason for this is that the Gulf Loop Current is very deep. A hurricane churns up the surface waters of the ocean which usually mixes the warm surface water with cool deeper water. This cools the surface water and limits the growth of the hurricane. However, in the Gulf Loop Current, this doesn't happen, because the warm water extends deep below the surface. Therefore a hurricane passing over the Gulf Loop Current is provided with almost unlimited fuel, causing it to grow in strength by a couple of categories overnight. Added to the problem is that large warm water eddies form around the Gulf Loop Current in October, extending the area of the warm water.

So, all those hurricanes that hit the Gulf Coast entered the Gulf as very weak category 1's, passed over the Gulf Loop Current, and grew into monsters overnight. If they had passed over Florida a hundred miles or so further north, then they would have been only weak category 1's at land fall and would have passed into the Gulf as tropical storms or depressions and would have missed the Gulf Loop Current altogether.

 

So, you suggest doing nothing on the assumption that global warming is a hoax?
What if it isn't? What if the native people on the Alaskan coast are just imagining the disappearance of polar bears and the sinking of their villages as the permafrost melts? How about the folks in the South Pacific whose islands are going under? What about the 2 million plus board feet of timber in British Columbia that's been decimated by a beetle that normally dies off in winter but hasn't? Coincidences?

Maybe all the scientists who've been studying the rise and fall of average global temperatures over the last few centuries are simply mistaken in their near universal conclusion that the planet is heating up at a much faster rate than it ever did historically. Could be you and Exxon/Mobil are right and we are all just fools.

Wouldn't it be more prudent to assume that global warming is real and then act on that assumption, than to assume it's not and.....well? you fill in the rest. It took 40 years to convince people there was a link between cigarettes and lung cancer. What scares me, though, is the ferocity of denial in this country by Exxon Mobil and their toady, George Bush, and much of middle America, while the process of global warming moves inexorably on.

 

I thought it might be worthwhile, rather than to comment on what others report that scientists say, to see what scientists themselves are saying. The link is to the talk and slides that Dr. James Hansen did at the American Geophysical Union meetings in December 2005. This recent talk ignited a flurry of press about climate change, political obfuscation, and censoring of scientists. It summarizes past research on climate change in terms of the atmosphere, and not specifically on consequences to humans, ecosystems, etc. He concludes with his thoughts on a blueprint for how society can begin now to reduce the chances of enduring what the research is indicating is likely to happen/is happening. One question for humanity is whether or not to follow the precautionary principle in its approach to the issue.


http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/keeling_talk_and_slides.pdf