Global Warming

Open discussion about any topic, as long as you abide by the rules of course!
Post Reply
HM-PuFFNSTuFF
Posts: 14375
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 8:00 am

Post by HM-PuFFNSTuFF »

capriker wrote:Not as much as I used to. It's been tough with moving into the house an all. Not finding the time like I had before.

You still play soccer?
Still playing soccer 2-3 times a week. I have a game in an hour or so.

I didn't know you had moved. Are you still in the same general area?
HM-PuFFNSTuFF
Posts: 14375
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 8:00 am

Post by HM-PuFFNSTuFF »

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle ... temID=8482

more evidence

1 million square km of permafrost melting for the first time in 11000 years
tnf
Posts: 13010
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2001 8:00 am

Post by tnf »

Puff - don't you realize you are falling victim to the same biased scientific mumbo jumbo that has perpetuated the myth of evolution upon the public for so long? Hopefully once we get ID theory into the classroom, we will also succeed in getting folks to realize that there is absolutely no reason to worry about the environment.
HM-PuFFNSTuFF
Posts: 14375
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 8:00 am

Post by HM-PuFFNSTuFF »

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Conten ... 8793972154

Weaker ocean currents pose risk
Warm water not making it north
Dec. 1, 2005. 05:27 AM
PETER CALAMAI
SCIENCE REPORTER

MONTREAL—Scientists have detected a weakening of key water currents in the Atlantic Ocean, raising fears of major ecological upheavals, including colder winters in northeastern Canada and Europe.

These currents, which continually move warm and cold water around the Atlantic, have slowed by 30 per cent since 1992, a drop unequalled since the last Ice Age, British researchers reported yesterday in the journal Nature.

If the trend continues, experts forecast that changes to the so-called Atlantic conveyor belt could trigger major environmental disruptions, including not only colder winters in parts of Canada and Europe but severe declines in the North Atlantic fisheries, droughts in India and sea levels rising as much as a metre along the eastern seaboard of North America.

Computer projections show such catastrophic environmental effects would hit the Northern Hemisphere within two decades of any collapse of the Atlantic conveyor.

"The consequences would be global, not just regional," said Bill Hare, an expert in the field, who is attending the two-week United Nations climate change conference in Montreal.

His views were echoed by Gordon McBean, a former head of the Meteorological Service of Canada, who directs the federal funding agency for climate science.

"Although important for Europe's climate, this is also very important for global climate," McBean wrote in an email.

The Atlantic conveyor carries deep cold water from the Arctic down south to the equator and returns to the north warm water, which is close to the surface.

If the Atlantic Ocean is moving less heat northwards, then the atmosphere must take up the slack to keep the tropics-to-poles system balanced. McBean said the most likely way for this to happen would be an increase in violent storms in the area from the mid-United States to mid-Canada.

Climate change poses a threat to the Atlantic conveyor. Rising air temperatures melt polar ice, making water flowing out of the Arctic less salty, which is also less dense. This water then can't sink enough to flow back south.

Disruption of the Atlantic conveyor had been widely predicted.

A report from the U.S. defence department earlier this year noted the consequences of a slowdown in the Atlantic conveyor, saying that the climate of Britain and northern Europe would be more like Siberia's and the average rainfall would decline by 30 per cent.

But yesterday's report conducted by a research team from Britain's National Oceanography Centre found the first hard evidence for the change after comparing temperature and salinity readings from last year to four previous snapshots dating back to 1957 — all recorded by monitoring devices along a line from Morocco to Miami.

Measurements in 1981 and 1992 had shown little change from the readings of 1957.

But a major shift was revealed in readings from 1998 and last year, with less of the warming current getting up to Greenland and also less of the cold, deep returning current coming back.

Lead researcher Harry Bryden told a news conference yesterday in London that long-term monitoring was essential to learn whether the figures signalled a one-time readjustment or the start of a trend.

"It is like a radiator heating the atmosphere and is too important to leave to periodic observations," Bryden said.

Bryden's concern was echoed by Canadian climate and ocean experts.

"This says that the ocean circulation isn't rock-solid stable, but we still don't know how unstable it is," said Allyn Clark, a circulation expert at the Bedford Institute of Oceanography in Dartmouth.

Clark said a key question is whether the weakening of the conveyor was a trend that would continue.

Concerted research into the issue began only in the past two decades, he said.

"It takes a long time to do the observational studies and then do the modelling studies to answer these questions," Clark said.

British and American scientists are tackling the Atlantic conveyor questions by deploying semi-permanent monitoring devices along a line 25 degrees north of the equator, where the earlier temperature and salinity measurements were also taken.

The British research found evidence that much greater amounts of water are simply going around in a circle in this subtropical region and not completing the full circuit up to the Arctic and back.

As well, the monitoring program includes new seabed recording devices at three crucial locations off the coast of North America to directly measure the cold water flowing south from the Arctic, known as the deep western boundary currents.

News of the disruptions to the Atlantic conveyor spread quickly among participants at the U.N. climate change conference.

"This should provide added impetus to the negotiations," said Hare, who works at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, an international research institute.

Conference president Stéphane Dion, the federal environment minister, said he was not aware of the research findings.

we are fucked
User avatar
seremtan
Posts: 36013
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2003 8:00 am

Post by seremtan »

tnf wrote:Puff - don't you realize you are falling victim to the same biased scientific mumbo jumbo that has perpetuated the myth of evolution upon the public for so long? Hopefully once we get ID theory into the classroom, we will also succeed in getting folks to realize that there is absolutely no reason to worry about the environment.
and besides, the environment is just a terrorist plot to make us all hate america and hate jesus and become commie-loving liberals
User avatar
GONNAFISTYA
Posts: 13369
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:20 pm

Post by GONNAFISTYA »

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:
we are fucked
Let's hope the 50 year sampling is only a snapshot (since they didn't go before that) of a bigger picture that isn't so doomsdayish.

Let's hope.
tnf
Posts: 13010
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2001 8:00 am

Post by tnf »

Today I had to argue with a student about the fact that global warming can actually make winters WORSE.
HM-PuFFNSTuFF
Posts: 14375
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 8:00 am

Post by HM-PuFFNSTuFF »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4761804.stm


Consensus grows on climate change
By Roger Harrabin
Environment Correspondent, BBC News


The global scientific body on climate change is expected to report soon that emissions from humankind are the only explanation for major changes on Earth.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) formerly said greenhouse gases were "probably" to blame.

Its next draft report will be sent to governments next month.

The BBC has learnt the report will state that greenhouse gas emissions are the only explanation for changing patterns of weather across the world.

It will say rising concentrations of gases such as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere must be the cause of simultaneous freak patterns in sea ice, glaciers, droughts, floods, ecosystems, ocean acidification and wildlife migrations.

A source said: "The measurements from the natural world on all parts of the globe have been anomalous over the past decade.

"If a few were out of kilter we wouldn't be too worried because the Earth changes naturally. But the fact that they are virtually all out of kilter makes us very concerned."

He said the report would forecast that a doubling of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere would bring a temperature rise of 2C-4.5C or maybe higher.

This would be a narrower range than contained in the last report, which suggested that the rise could be as little as 1.4C or as large as 5.8C.

The scientists will say there is still great uncertainty about the pace and scope of future change.

The doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial stable levels (270 parts per million) is expected to happen around the middle of the century.

Flooding in northern England. Image: Northumbrian Police/PA
Extreme weather events indicate man-made change, the IPCC says
What really worries the scientists is that we are already seeing major disruptions despite having increased CO2 by just 30%.

A recent scientific report commissioned by the UK government warned that the world may already be fixed on a path that would begin melting the Greenland ice cap.

That in turn would start raising sea levels throughout the world.

There will be sceptics, predominantly in the US, who will accuse the IPCC of trying to scare policy-makers into action with their report.

But the broad international expert consensus embodied in the IPCC will make it harder for the US administration to say that climate change is a problem for the future which can be solved by technological advances.

In a meeting with climate campaigners, the UK Prime Minister Tony Blair said the world needed to engage the Americans, Chinese and Indians in agreement over a figure for CO2 stabilisation.

But this is unlikely to happen while President Bush is in office; his representative told the December climate conference in Montreal that the US would not agree any targets for reducing CO2.

President Bush's chief adviser James Connaughton said recently that it was pointless discussing a safe CO2 level as we could not be sure how resistant the world would be to greenhouse gases.

Maybe we could double CO2 with impunity, or maybe we could increase it threefold or fourfold; the issue was not worth discussing, he said.

Mr Blair echoed President Bush's call for new technologies to combat climate change.

But both men were told by international business leaders last year that more expensive new technologies would not supplant cheap dirty technologies unless governments set binding targets and timetables for reducing greenhouse gases, which the US has rejected.

There is little sign of President Bush changing direction on climate
The prime minister confirmed that his long-delayed climate strategy review would be published this month, and would strive to meet his unilateral target of cutting Britain's CO2 emissions by 20% by 2010.

BBC News has been told that the central policy in the review, the CO2 cut for big business, is still being contested, with the prime minister's industry adviser Geoffrey Norris urging a more lax target than the one demanded by the environment department Defra.

Central figures in the review process are now admitting that the 20% target will be virtually impossible to hit, and are looking for a "respectable" near miss.

The definition of "respectable" is still under ferocious debate.
SplishSplash
Posts: 4467
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2000 8:00 am

Post by SplishSplash »

Gosh, people, dont waste so much energy arguing about this stuff on a Quake forum.
shadd_
Posts: 2512
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 4:02 pm

Post by shadd_ »

whats the consensus on deforestation and how big a role would a global reforestation effort play to slow global warming?
Nightshade
Posts: 17020
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2000 8:00 am

Post by Nightshade »

Deforestation is most definitely a big problem, but the oceans are a far large carbon sink. Worry about them first.
HM-PuFFNSTuFF
Posts: 14375
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 8:00 am

Post by HM-PuFFNSTuFF »

http://news.independent.co.uk/environme ... 351135.ece

Climate change 'irreversible' as Arctic sea ice fails to re-form
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Published: 14 March 2006

Sea ice in the Arctic has failed to re-form for the second consecutive winter, raising fears that global warming may have tipped the polar regions in to irreversible climate change far sooner than predicted.

Satellite measurements of the area of the Arctic covered by sea ice show that for every month this winter, the ice failed to return even to its long-term average rate of decline. It is the second consecutive winter that the sea ice has not managed to re-form enough to compensate for the unprecedented melting seen during the past few summers.

Scientists are now convinced that Arctic sea ice is showing signs of both a winter and a summer decline that could indicate a major acceleration in its long-term rate of disappearance. The greatest fear is that an environmental "positive feedback" has kicked in, where global warming melts ice which in itself causes the seas to warm still further as more sunlight is absorbed by a dark ocean rather than being reflected by white ice.

Mark Serreze, a sea ice specialist at the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, said: "In September 2005, the Arctic sea ice cover was at its lowest extent since satellite monitoring began in 1979, and probably the lowest in the past 100 years. While we can't be certain, it looks like 2006 will be more of the same," Dr Serreze said.

"Unless conditions turn colder, we may be headed for another year of big sea ice losses, rivalling or perhaps even exceeding what we saw in September 2005. We are of course monitoring the situation closely ... Coupled with recent findings from Nasa that the Greenland ice sheet may be near a tipping point, it's pretty clear that the Arctic is starting to respond to global warming," he added.

Although sea levels are not affected by melting sea ice - which floats on the ocean - the Arctic ice cover is thought to be a key moderator of the northern hemisphere's climate. It helps to stabilise the massive land glaciers and ice sheets of Greenland which have the capacity to raise sea levels dramatically.

Dr Serreze said that some parts of the northern hemisphere experienced very low temperatures this winter, but the Arctic was much warmer than normal. "Even in January, when there were actually record low temperatures in Alaska and parts of Russia, it was still very warm over the Arctic Ocean," he said.

"The sea ice cover waxes and wanes with the seasons. It partly melts in spring and summer, then grows back in autumn and winter. It has not recovered well this past winter - ice extent for every month since September 2005 has been far below average. And it's been so warm in the Arctic that the ice that has grown this winter is probably rather thin," he explained.

Professor Peter Wadhams, of Cambridge University, who was the first Briton to monitor Arctic sea ice from nuclear submarines, said: "One of the big changes this winter is that a large area of the Barents Sea has remained ice-free for the first time. This is part of Europe's 'back yard'. Climate models did predict a retreat of sea ice in the Barents Sea but not for a few decades yet, so it is a sign that the changes that were predicted are indeed happening, but much faster than predicted."

Sea ice in the Arctic has failed to re-form for the second consecutive winter, raising fears that global warming may have tipped the polar regions in to irreversible climate change far sooner than predicted.

Satellite measurements of the area of the Arctic covered by sea ice show that for every month this winter, the ice failed to return even to its long-term average rate of decline. It is the second consecutive winter that the sea ice has not managed to re-form enough to compensate for the unprecedented melting seen during the past few summers.

Scientists are now convinced that Arctic sea ice is showing signs of both a winter and a summer decline that could indicate a major acceleration in its long-term rate of disappearance. The greatest fear is that an environmental "positive feedback" has kicked in, where global warming melts ice which in itself causes the seas to warm still further as more sunlight is absorbed by a dark ocean rather than being reflected by white ice.

Mark Serreze, a sea ice specialist at the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, said: "In September 2005, the Arctic sea ice cover was at its lowest extent since satellite monitoring began in 1979, and probably the lowest in the past 100 years. While we can't be certain, it looks like 2006 will be more of the same," Dr Serreze said.

"Unless conditions turn colder, we may be headed for another year of big sea ice losses, rivalling or perhaps even exceeding what we saw in September 2005. We are of course monitoring the situation closely ... Coupled with recent findings from Nasa that the Greenland ice sheet may be near a tipping point, it's pretty clear that the Arctic is starting to respond to global warming," he added.

Although sea levels are not affected by melting sea ice - which floats on the ocean - the Arctic ice cover is thought to be a key moderator of the northern hemisphere's climate. It helps to stabilise the massive land glaciers and ice sheets of Greenland which have the capacity to raise sea levels dramatically.

Dr Serreze said that some parts of the northern hemisphere experienced very low temperatures this winter, but the Arctic was much warmer than normal. "Even in January, when there were actually record low temperatures in Alaska and parts of Russia, it was still very warm over the Arctic Ocean," he said.

"The sea ice cover waxes and wanes with the seasons. It partly melts in spring and summer, then grows back in autumn and winter. It has not recovered well this past winter - ice extent for every month since September 2005 has been far below average. And it's been so warm in the Arctic that the ice that has grown this winter is probably rather thin," he explained.

Professor Peter Wadhams, of Cambridge University, who was the first Briton to monitor Arctic sea ice from nuclear submarines, said: "One of the big changes this winter is that a large area of the Barents Sea has remained ice-free for the first time. This is part of Europe's 'back yard'. Climate models did predict a retreat of sea ice in the Barents Sea but not for a few decades yet, so it is a sign that the changes that were predicted are indeed happening, but much faster than predicted."
tnf
Posts: 13010
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2001 8:00 am

Post by tnf »

Maybe its just the changing tilt of the earth's axis.

We just need to adjust the tilt and make it colder again.
User avatar
seremtan
Posts: 36013
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2003 8:00 am

Post by seremtan »

why did you paste that in twice?
menkent
Posts: 2629
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2000 7:00 am

Post by menkent »

as for not being able to predict exactly what will happen a few years down the road... welcome to the nonlinear world. the climate isn't a bowling ball rolling down a hill, it's a fluid system and a mathematical nightmare. thus, it will have the same difficulties as long-range weather predictions. there is literally no way to know if global temps will be 1 or 10 deg higher in a century... but if there were a hurricane a couple hundred miles off the coast and heading in my direction i promise i wouldn't be hiding behind a foil hat and telling people it's a natural wind pattern that won't cause us any problems. learn some physics and buy some SPF-45, fuckos. >:E
tnf
Posts: 13010
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2001 8:00 am

Post by tnf »

one thing that I don't see mentioned much are the natural fluctuations in the earth's orbit (shape going from elliptical to almost circular) and change in the tilt of the axis. Those things would impact overall climate over many thousands of years. Not saying that is the reason for issues today, but its just another variable.
User avatar
plained
Posts: 16366
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2002 7:00 am

Post by plained »

so hows the weather?
Ryoki
Posts: 13460
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2001 7:00 am

Post by Ryoki »

Sunny but cold.
[size=85][color=#0080BF]io chiamo pinguini![/color][/size]
User avatar
plained
Posts: 16366
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2002 7:00 am

Post by plained »

hey its like that here :icon20:

maybe contapational conspirecy :paranoid:
Ryoki
Posts: 13460
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2001 7:00 am

Post by Ryoki »

Or temporal space-time quantum fluxes! :icon28:
HM-PuFFNSTuFF
Posts: 14375
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 8:00 am

Post by HM-PuFFNSTuFF »

Bleak warning on warming
Solving problem will require 1 per cent of global GDP: Report
Oct. 30, 2006. 11:38 AM
THOMAS WAGNER
ASSOCIATED PRESS

LONDON - Unchecked global warming will devastate the world economy on the scale of the world wars and the Great Depression, a major British report said Monday.

Introducing the report, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said unabated climate change would cost the world between five and 20 per cent of global gross domestic product each year.

He called for “bold and decisive action” to cut carbon emissions and stem the worst of the temperature rise.

Report author Sir Nicholas Stern, a senior government economist, said that acting now to cut greenhouse gas emissions would cost about one per cent of global GDP each year.

“The evidence shows that ignoring climate change will eventually damage economic growth,” said Stern’s 700-page report, the first major effort to quantify the economic cost of climate change.

“Our actions over the coming decades could create risks of major disruption to economic and social activity, later in this century and in the next, on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20th century,” the report said.

Blair said the scientific community agreed that the world was warming, and that greenhouse gas emissions were largely to blame.

“It is not in doubt that, if the science is right, the consequences for our planet are literally disastrous,” he said. ``Unless we act now ... these consequences ... will be irreversible.”

Stern said the world must shift to a “low-carbon global economy” through measures including taxation, regulation of greenhouse gas emissions and carbon trading.

The report is expected to increase pressure on a number of governments, led by the United States, to step up efforts to fight global warming. The Bush administration never approved the Kyoto climate-change accord while Prime Minister Stephen Harper has rejected the Kyoto emissions-cutting targets as unachievable but he has not formally pulled Canada out of the treaty endorsed by the previous Liberal government.

Instead, the Tories have introduced a new Clear Air Act that sets no short-term targets for cutting greenhouse emissions but aims to cut such pollution by 45 to 65 per cent by 2050. Critics have dismissed the Conservative plan as a “dirty air act” and a “hot air act.”

Some critics claim the prime minister is using Canada’s position within the treaty to undermine it, acting on behalf of Washington, which has little influence in Kyoto negotiations because the United States is not part of the protocol.

Under the 1997 Kyoto accord, 35 industrialized countries committed to reducing emissions by an average five per cent below 1990 levels by 2012.

But Britain is one of only a handful of industrialized countries whose greenhouse gas emissions have fallen in the last 1 1/2 decades, the United Nations said Monday.

The UN said Germany’s emissions dropped 17 per cent between 1990 and 2004, Britain’s by 14 per cent and France’s by almost one per cent.

Overall, there was a 2.4 per cent rise in emissions by 41 industrialized countries from 2000 to 2004. That was blamed mostly on former Soviet-bloc countries, whose emissions declined in their economic downturn of the 1990s, then increase by 4.1 per cent during the most recent four-year period.

The British government is considering new “green taxes” on cheap airline flights, fuel and high-emission vehicles.

British Treasury chief Gordon Brown, who commissioned the Stern report, said former U.S. vice-president Al Gore, who has emerged as a powerful environmental spokesman, would advise the government on climate change.

Brown said Britain would lead the international effort against climate change, establishing “an economy that is both pro-growth and pro-green.”

He called for Europe to cut its carbon emissions by 30 per cent by 2020 and 60 per cent by 2050.

The British government is considering new “green taxes” on cheap airline flights, fuel and high-emission vehicles.
User avatar
plained
Posts: 16366
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2002 7:00 am

Post by plained »

ok
it is about time!
Guest

Post by Guest »

[xeno]Julios wrote:http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050425fa_fact3

I haven't read part II or III yet, but this one definitely opened my eyes.
This article is no longer available online.
HM-PuFFNSTuFF
Posts: 14375
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 8:00 am

Post by HM-PuFFNSTuFF »

Disappearing world: Global warming claims tropical island
For the first time, an inhabited island has disappeared beneath rising seas. Environment Editor Geoffrey Lean reports
Published: 24 December 2006

Rising seas, caused by global warming, have for the first time washed an inhabited island off the face of the Earth. The obliteration of Lohachara island, in India's part of the Sundarbans where the Ganges and the Brahmaputra rivers empty into the Bay of Bengal, marks the moment when one of the most apocalyptic predictions of environmentalists and climate scientists has started coming true.

As the seas continue to swell, they will swallow whole island nations, from the Maldives to the Marshall Islands, inundate vast areas of countries from Bangladesh to Egypt, and submerge parts of scores of coastal cities.

Eight years ago, as exclusively reported in The Independent on Sunday, the first uninhabited islands - in the Pacific atoll nation of Kiribati - vanished beneath the waves. The people of low-lying islands in Vanuatu, also in the Pacific, have been evacuated as a precaution, but the land still juts above the sea. The disappearance of Lohachara, once home to 10,000 people, is unprecedented.

It has been officially recorded in a six-year study of the Sunderbans by researchers at Calcutta's Jadavpur University. So remote is the island that the researchers first learned of its submergence, and that of an uninhabited neighbouring island, Suparibhanga, when they saw they had vanished from satellite pictures.

Two-thirds of nearby populated island Ghoramara has also been permanently inundated. Dr Sugata Hazra, director of the university's School of Oceanographic Studies, says "it is only a matter of some years" before it is swallowed up too. Dr Hazra says there are now a dozen "vanishing islands" in India's part of the delta. The area's 400 tigers are also in danger.

Until now the Carteret Islands off Papua New Guinea were expected to be the first populated ones to disappear, in about eight years' time, but Lohachara has beaten them to the dubious distinction.

Human cost of global warming: Rising seas will soon make 70,000 people homeless

Refugees from the vanished Lohachara island and the disappearing Ghoramara island have fled to Sagar, but this island has already lost 7,500 acres of land to the sea. In all, a dozen islands, home to 70,000 people, are in danger of being submerged by the rising seas.
User avatar
Captain
Posts: 20410
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2006 2:50 am

Post by Captain »

So it begins...
Post Reply