NRC Findings...

Reliably obtained data does not lie. The problemhowever, in my uneducated opinion, is that changing human behavior to the extent necessary and in the time frame necessary is not realistic given the different governments of the world so the real question is... How do we best adapt, rather than prevent the inevitable climate changes?

Whether or not the spike is actually due to human or not is actually, in my again uneducated opinion, not relevent to our survival. The Earth has heated and cooled since its beginning. Rather than point the finger how about we all focus on realistic solutions ( I am not saying that you are not... but making a generality).

How do we adapt to a warming planet? What steps are financially and socially reasonable to take on a planet wide scale to reduce our contribution to global warming? We still have active volcanos that will also inevitably contribute to the situation as well so we simply need to focus on the solution while buying oursleves some extra time for implementation. However this is just my opinion.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tnthub @ Jun 22 2006, 12:40 PM) [snapback]275287[/snapback]</div>

Your post is an example of a reasoned response to what climate research is telling us. We need to think about how we are going to contend with global warming.

Last week, I went to a talk by David Goldston, Staff Director for the House Committee on Science (he works for Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, who requested the NRC report.) Goldston said that the House is the last place where people are still debating whether global warming is real or not (apparently, he has never been to PriusChat!). The science is there and the evidence is overwhelming. Yes, there are many particulars and details that are still subject to debate (as an example, whether or not increased hurricane activity can be attributed to global warming.) But if are going to be bogged down in a neverending debate, trying to convince the remaining holdouts that global warming is not a hoax, we will never even get to the point of talking about solutions.

I believe that we should do everything feasible to lower emissions- that's one of the reasons I drive a Prius. But even if we could somehow reduce emissions to zero overnight, it would take about 100 years for the warming trend to be reversed. So we also need to think about how we are going to live on a warmer planet. For instance, how will it effect agriculture; do we need to radically re-think food production? Another example, which was discussed extensively in an article in the NY times this week, is how will coastal development be affected- can we continue to replenish eroded beaches every year- should we instead begin a "withdrawal" from our shorelines?

Once we can get past the "global warming is a hoax perpetrated by the liberals" nonsense, we can turn our attention to questions such as these, and hopefully ensure a reasonable quality of live for ourselves and subsequent generations.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Jun 22 2006, 01:45 PM) [snapback]275333[/snapback]</div>

The lead author, Michael Mann (not the guy who created "Miami Vice"), is a very respected climatologist. When his paper came out with what has come to be known as the "hockey stick graph", it did generate some controversy in the scientific community (virtually every paper of significance does), but mainly he was attacked by people such as Rep. Joe Barton and Sen. James Inhofe, who don't know much about science but know a lot about campaign contributions. Most of the so-called scientific literature which contradicted Mann's findings was by some guy named McIntyre, who is a policy guy who worked in, I believe, the mineral exploration industry and doesn't have a graduate degree. However, he managed to get a bunch of papers attaking Mann's work in some obscure journals.

 

It'll be interesting to see what that graph looks like 50 years from now. It looks like most of the warming trend occured during the industrial revolution (1870 - 1945). Then a dip and then back on the rise. We'll see if it is basically stable with average up and downs or if China and other up and coming industrial countries push it up some more.

 

Msnbc is not the only site to have this story as this is all over the web. For instance, http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/06/22...g.ap/index.html

CNN's article goes so far as to say that the earth may be the hottest it has been in 2,000 years.

As I have stated in other threads, the scientific consensus on global warming is on the order of the scientific consensus that cigarette smoking causes cancer. Personally, I think this research emphasizes the point.

 

I read this in USA Today..

OK, this is major news. The NRC reported the findings, requested by a House Republican. Where is the right???? Pretty silent. All those on this forum who argued against global warming are now silent. This thread has been up for a few days and nothing.

I agree with larkinmj but am more optimistic. I hope we can change things now and effect a change in 10-20 years. But if not, we have to figure out pretty quickly how to live on a warmer Earth. I for one can't wait to retire from the Air Force in 2.5 years and move to Vermont!!! It's hot here in Missouri

 

I noticed that one of the criticisms of human-induced gw was that scientists cannot identify a mechanism by how it works, and basically suggested that they thought of gw as a greenhouse warming type of mechanism that could not really be identified.

"Greenhouse gases (GHG) are gaseous components of the atmosphere that contribute to the greenhouse effect. The name is a misnomer based on greenhouses which utilize a different effect to facilitate plant growth. They absorb infrared (IR) light."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

There you have it... the very basic human-induced global warming effect/mechanism.

 

Why you can't ignore the changing climate.

Parade magazine had an article this Sunday too. If you read the comments, you'll see more head in the sand denial and attacks by right wingers as "Global Warming" being a liberal plot. These are the people who will continue to buy their SUVs, crank the heat up and the air conditioner down and basically negate any advances those who are making positive changes may enact. They'll cancel out each other and nothing will change. Except China and India will add their C02 to the atmosphere.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Whitestar @ Jun 22 2006, 03:17 PM) [snapback]275412[/snapback]</div>

I imagine it will be jogging slowly up. Or maybe faster up. It will *really* look like a hockey stick then. But it will be going up. And people will continue to bury their heads in the sand, deep in denial because they don't want to be inconvenienced by any changes that will impede their comfort. Or maybe they'll blame the liberals for Global Warming. But I don't expect enough people will change enough to make a difference until it it much, much too late to do anything about it. I'm afraid "Told you so" won't be much consolation.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eyeguy13 @ Jun 26 2006, 12:57 PM) [snapback]276897[/snapback]</div>

Whereas I'm more pessimistic. I don't think human beings will make much in the way of positive change over the next 10-20 years. This has been building up for over a century, and with the addition of India and China, it is going to accelerate. And it's not going to go away overnight. We can only hope we'll completely run out of fossil fuels before the point of no return has been reached because it's pretty obvious people aren't going to make voluntary changes in enough numbers to matter, and we can forget our Government doing anything in the way of regulation to force anything. After all, the Republican Administration wants to reverse the Clean Water Act. I really don't see them doing anything with CAFE standards, let alone adding anything that would help to negate Global Warming.

Maybe, the earth might heal itself over the subsequent centuries. Whether humans are still around will be the matter for debate.

 

When you consider the range of remedies to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases- more efficient cars (smaller cars/hybrids/EVs/alternative fuels etc.), improvement of railroads and mass transit, reversal of suburban sprawl, development of wind, solar and other renewable energies- these are exactly the things that will also reduce air pollution, improve our quality of life, and reduce our dependence on imported oil (thus improving our national security.) There is absolutely NO reason why this should not be a national priority- unless, of course, you're a major stockholder in ExxonMobil.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tnthub @ Jun 22 2006, 11:40 AM) [snapback]275287[/snapback]</div>

bad, bad, bad..... yes, we humans can adapt to probably most anything. we're like roaches on this planet. we are intelligent and can live in air conditioned buildings, move our houses from flooded coastal plains, find different lands to harm er farm and so on. there are areas that will suffer from lack of food and clean water and i empathize with them. some of these areas probably will not have the financing to fix their problems.

the argument extends beyond we humans. we are not the only living organism on this planet. and, even if our survival doesn't rely on the survival of those living organisms, i don't relish the thought of living in a homogeneous world. this brings to mind a special that i was watching on an area in hawaii. peregrine falcons timed their breeding when their prey birds just finished rearing their young (more food on the menu this way). these prey birds timed their breeding when specific moth larvae developed into flying adults (their main food item) and these moth species laid their eggs in timing with their host plants flourishing. we reside in a very delicate ecosystem that doesn't just concern humans. temperature patterns will effect this cycle and many other natural cycles of which we are a part.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SSimon @ Jun 26 2006, 12:00 PM) [snapback]276934[/snapback]</div>

Or we could all just suicide, en masse...

that will help the larvae of the black flies and all will be well with Gaea

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(wstander @ Jun 26 2006, 02:30 PM) [snapback]276946[/snapback]</div>

ok, so you're a little selfish. 'twould be nice if people that cannot find their way to thinking outside your own realm go and inhabit a place where the ramifications to be suffered do not inflict their results on people who actually give a crap. you're making the argument for terra forming more palatable. i'll escrow proceeds to fund your arrival.

 

Am I reading this wrong or did that article say 1 degree F average temp rise over 100 years? How then is this significant and does this agree with the sudden rise in temp indicated in the graph?

Wildkow

 

I think that the significance of that figure is change. Some places will be cooler, but the net effect is that other places are just that much warmer (relative to the cooler places). I will give you an example... indications are that the ice of the Arctic is shrinking and will worsen with increasing co2 and soot (I have previously linked a study about soot and ice thawing faster because of more solar energy hitting the ice and not reflecting off). Now correct me if I am wrong... but I read something like this (taking knowledge given from other articles:

There is a sufficient amount of water in the ice such that it will have a significant measurable effect on the salinity level of the water... IE it will desalinize the water and alter the Gulf Stream's pattern.

The Gulf Stream essentially warms Europe. From what I remember in an ecology course, the Gulf Stream loops around the Atlantic... it does something like surface in warmer regions of the earth, sink, and then rise again off the coasts of Europe to release the energy to the air.

All of this depends on salinity. When the Gulf Stream is warm, I think the water expands near the tropics and the salt concentration (per unit of volume) drops... and with the reduced salt density/concentration, the Stream loses buoyance and sinks.

While that is happening, it is moving up North towards Europe. As the water cools relative to its previous temperature, the salt density increases and thus it becomes more bouyant and rises. This effect becomes more evident and pronounced as the giant water current moves North into colder and colder waters. When it releases the energy and warms Western Europe, the water condenses again becomes less buoyant.

With a significant enough loss of water from the Arctic, it is said that the salinity mechanism would be affected and the Gulf would no longer warm Europe.... dropping temperatures by 10 degrees (I think in F, but could be Celsius).

That's just one possible effect of this change.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Jun 27 2006, 10:11 AM) [snapback]277360[/snapback]</div>

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I hadn't even thought about this and the ramifications may be huge. Lots of possible extinctions for the critters that require certain amounts of salinity for survival. What's the possible damage to our coral reef systems? Wouldn't destruction of these alter our atmosphere?

I was just thinking about another possible ramification that will affect humans. I try to think more along these lines since it seems that humans really don't care much how it affects the rest of our ecosystems. What about the likely extinction of plants? I believe that a large proportion of our medicines are derived by with plant compounds. Take simple aspirin. This, I believe, is derived from a compound in willow trees/shrubs. Is it not? The extinctions may be problematic not only for conventional medicines but herbal remedies as well. St. Johns Wort, Wild Ginger, Echinacea are just some of the native flora that contribute to this category. The rain forests have much to offer and remain largely untouched for research of these possible contributors and numerous conventional medicines may be gleaned from these efforts.

 

Excellent Observations. Environmental/ecological mechanisms are going to be disturbed... too fast for evolution/adaptation to occur for perhaps many species... and those that are not as affected by the changes (or even helped in certain situations), will flourish... like the mosquito. I suppose there may be some positives - better weather for some people... but the net effect of the change is not 'good.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_stream
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_stream#T..._global_warming

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Jun 27 2006, 08:27 AM) [snapback]277295[/snapback]</div>

In the movie they said the normal past ice age to ice age cycles covered a range of only 6 degrees. We are now 1/6 beyond that in the wrong direction. Also note most of that was probably in the last 50 years which is why they say it will be 2 more degrees in the next 100.

Then you have the fact as mentioned that some places get warmer others colder. The extremes matter when you get bigger changes in the wrong place like the arctic.

 

Attacking the people who raised questions about the "Hockey Stick" is really not helpful. There is serious scientific debate about it and even the NAS report comments on the need for more consistent data handling, fact checking, etc. In fact, one of the main issues with the Hockey Stick was Mann's refusal to release his data for independent analysis. This is a hallmark of science - being able to replicate results - but how can one do this when a researcher will not disclose methods and underlying data? See these comments on the hockey stick if you care to see some valid criticisms:

From MIT Tech review: "A prime piece of evidence linking human activity to climate change turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics."
http://www.technologyreview.com/read_artic...3830&ch=biztech

From the principle critic of Mann's work, Steve McIntyre:
http://www.climateaudit.org/


As for the "Parade" article, it is a pity that they did so little fact-checking prior to publication. There are seriously misleading statements throughout, as noted by a poster on that site:

-that climate change is driving increases in hurricane activity/intensity is debated: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/promethe...ea_leaves.html)

-implying that Sierra snowpack is less than ever, when in fact the last 2 years have been well above average: (http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2006-01-05-sierra-snowpack_x.htm and http://www.kernriver.com/rivernotes.htm)

- that Mt. Kilamanjaro glacial decline is a result of climate change is wrong - it is likely dry air/diminished precip: (http://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/tanzania/pubs/kaser_etal_2004ijc.pdf)

- that the majority of scientific articles published from 1993-2003 support the idea of human-influenced global warming is wrong: Science refused to publish a letter challenging this assertion, though did little to deny the fact that the article was wrong: http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm I guess truth doesn't sell papers as well as hype.

One final thought, as reflected in this BBC article, is to dial back the hype on this issue so that it can be debated in a reasoned light:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4923504.stm