New Global Warming Thread

[Pangloss]

This thread is for ongoing global warming discussion.

 

There's another thread over in the Ecology and the Environment sub-board:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=321613#post321613

 

This thread is entitled "Global Shadowing" and the OP is asking how this area of study relates to global warming.

[jackson33]

i have seen your other thread and to be honest i have no idea what your talking about. maybe some form of prevention, re-use of materials or other things witch i think of as efficiency.

 

as to GW, i will be happy to debate the "what GW?" side or if your prefer our current warm trend with in a cycle the planet has and will continue to go through. personally i have enjoyed it after living through the recent global cooling threats, i heard in school.

[1veedo]

This is about global dimming? ("shadowing"?) Not actually related to the existence of global warming?

[bascule]

This is about global dimming? ("shadowing"?) Not actually related to the existence of global warming?

 

The thread was attempting to argue that global dimming may mitigate global warming, which is not the case (given the current situation)

 

Filling the air with reflective aerosols has been suggested as an approach to global warming mitigation.

[ParanoiA]

Ok, well here's a debate I don't have much input on, but rather questions about. If this is the wrong place, please feel free to move it, as I apologize in advance.

 

Two things occured to me listening to the radio today...

 

One: Is it really true that Global Warming, at least as an apocolyptic event is not proven? I guess I already know the answer to this or else there wouldn't be so much opposition. But from what I heard, we have an observed phenomenon and a hypothesis - but no proven test. We have not satisfied the scientific method. If that's true, then how is "faith" in Global Warming any different than "faith" in God?

 

Two: It is my understanding that the oceans will rise, so we'll lose dry land mass and the climate will shift, changing environments all over the earth. If that's correct, then what are the consequences of that? Are there good things to expect from GW? Are we just being old men set in our ways that refuse to welcome change? I realize flooding and mass migration and the thousands, if not millions of deaths are not good things...I just mean after the initiation. Would some climates actually become better or more desirable?

[CPL.Luke]

if the temperature rise turns out to be as dramatic as it looks to be then there will be dramatic climate changes all over the world, ie deserts could become fertile fields, and fertile fields can become deserts. There really isn't anyway of predictin at the moment whether we'll have more or less arable land than we do now, so were left with the fact that we have enough arable land now, so why risk a massive climate shift that would require the relocations of millions if not billions of people?

 

The big problem with global climate change is that humans have settled into where they are now because the climate was the way it is now. If for instance global climate change were to leave europe a frozen wasteland and dry out the united states's rain belt, but were to rejuvinate the sahara desert such that it was a beutiful place to settle, build cities and grow grain. than its possible that the total effect on earth's climate wouldn't be that significant in terms of humanities ability to survive. But now you have the problem that all the Europeans want to leave europe and head to africa along with the americans. How will the African nations react to this? if they are facing hundreds of millions of the people who for centuries manipulated and controlled their governments would they allow it? if they didn't would there be a war between western powers and the rest of the world to secure arable land for their populations?

 

 

So while you are correct in thinking that humanity will survive global warming, the question of whether or not our civilization will be able to continue as it has for the past 500 years is not so certain, and the dislocation of various people's from their current homes could run into the hundreds of millions if not billions.

[bascule]

One: Is it really true that Global Warming, at least as an apocolyptic event is not proven?

 

I don't think even the most pessimistic of climate scientists thinks climate change will bring about the apocalypse, but it will have a negative effect on the lives of billions of people worldwide.

 

I guess I already know the answer to this or else there wouldn't be so much opposition. But from what I heard, we have an observed phenomenon and a hypothesis - but no proven test. We have not satisfied the scientific method. If that's true, then how is "faith" in Global Warming any different than "faith" in God?

 

Something doesn't have to be experimental to be predictive. The scientific method is about making successful predictions, namely those which can be described mathematically. That's not to say that there isn't an experimental basis for much of climate science, but clearly when you're trying to describe the operation of the global climate system short of creating your own earth to experiment on there's no way to test your hypotheses experimentally.

 

But creating their own earth to experiment on is exactly what climate scientists have done, but rather than make it out of matter, they've built it inside of a computer. Dozens of such computer reconstructions of the global climate system (called general circulation models, or GCMs) have been independently created around the world and refined over the years. Now, they're giving very similar answers.

 

It is my understanding that the oceans will rise, so we'll lose dry land mass and the climate will shift, changing environments all over the earth. If that's correct, then what are the consequences of that?

 

Impacts and vulnerabilities are still being researched. They aren't understood nearly as well as the climate system itself.

 

The main vulnerability climate scientists are concerned with is water. Fresh water will become increasingly scarce, and the population will continue to grow. The big worry is that there won't be enough water to go around, at least in many areas of the world.

 

Are there good things to expect from GW?

 

Depends where you live. You can look at it the same way King of the Hill's Dale looked at it: we can grow oranges in Alaska. But you can also look at it like Hank: if you live in Texas, you probably think it's hot enough already.

[bascule]

There really isn't anyway of predictin at the moment whether we'll have more or less arable land than we do now

 

The issue isn't so much that of arable land as having enough fresh water to grow the food you need, enough fresh water to drink, and enough fresh water to make the products that the societal infrastructure depends on. And at least for now, a reduction in the size of our fresh water supply is predicted, while demand for fresh water is predicted to increase.

[1veedo]

Global warming will actually increase the planet's ability to produce more food. Several years ago economists were predicting by 2020 or 2030 we'd start having food shortages but the date has been pushed back to 2050 because of global warming.

[Pangloss]

(Mod note: I've changed the title of this thread. Seemed easier than moving posts.)

 

Here's a link to a news story on the new report that was released today:

 

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003552433_climate02m.html

 

As a Global Warming Skeptic, I found the report sobering. To be honest, much of the information that is most convincing about the situation has been discussed here already. But the intellectual honesty and integrity (and broad-based support) in this case is pretty overwhelming.

 

"This says we are 90 percent sure the bulk of global warming is caused by [man-made] greenhouse gases," said Thomas Ackerman, director of the University of Washington's Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Oceans. "We'll leave a little wiggle room because we're scientists and that's the way we think, but 90 percent is about as good as it gets."

 

(So would he be a "global warming denier" because he doesn't accept it 100%?)

 

Anyway, more to the point:

 

Eleven of the hottest years on record have occurred in the past 12 years, and the convergence of melting glaciers, vanishing permafrost and rising sea levels cannot be explained by natural climate variation, according to a draft of the report that concludes: "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal."

 

And of course even if they're wrong, making major changes in how human society consumes energy is likely a very good idea at this point.

 

Based on more than five years of additional data and study, the new report warns that even if emissions level off, warming and sea-level rise will continue for centuries. The world is already experiencing droughts, drenching rains, tidal surges, heat waves and more intense hurricanes that "more likely than not" are the result of global warming, the draft says.

 

Ironically, this year no hurricanes hit the Eastern Seaboard for the first time since 1934! Kinda reminds me of the time Al Gore gave a speech on global warming on the coldest day in 50 years. But of course the main reason for that was the return of El Nino, which itself may be a facet of global warming. (I think the book is still out on hurricanes and global warming -- the evidence about water temps is intriguing, but there's still a lot we don't understand about those amazing storms.)

 

But I think we're in a time now where those jokes can be viewed as ironic because they were right, rather than ironic because they were wrong.

[bascule]

So would he be a "global warming denier" because he doesn't accept it 100%?

 

Science is, by definition, falsifiable and therefore inherently contains uncertainty

[GutZ]

I just don't see how we are going to efficiently beat it in the long run. I'd rather walk than drive those, pansy-ass small electro cars (you know 2 AA batteries).

 

There are so many industries that just can't advance their systems (recycle/filter - emissions) because they are either too expensive ( so they move to countries with no regulations) or don't exist. You now have a bunch of countries that are industrializing with record speed. Death rates dropping, more jobs, more work, cars, etc.

[1veedo]

There's about a 90% chance the Earth orbits the Sun.

[bascule]

I just don't see how we are going to efficiently beat it in the long run. I'd rather walk than drive those, pansy-ass small electro cars (you know 2 AA batteries).

 

As an avid cyclist, might I suggest: a bicycle.

 

There are so many industries that just can't advance their systems (recycle/filter - emissions) because they are either too expensive ( so they move to countries with no regulations) or don't exist. You now have a bunch of countries that are industrializing with record speed. Death rates dropping, more jobs, more work, cars, etc.

 

One of the biggest emitters of CO₂ worldwide is coalfire power plants. If the CO₂ emitted by them (most of which are constructed away from large urban areas) can be mitigated using, say, bioreactors, then it would have a major effect, both in terms of reducing fossil fuels used by cars and lowering atmospheric CO₂ emissions.

[GutZ]

As an avid cyclist, might I suggest: a bicycle.

 

lol. I use to be one too, till I was forced to use it as a job as a wee little one, it doesn't have the same feel anymore. I'd rather walk, which I do, or take the bus, which might I add, will be moving over to diesel/electric power in my city.

 

 

 

One of the biggest emitters of CO₂ worldwide is coalfire power plants. If the CO₂ emitted by them (most of which are constructed away from large urban areas) can be mitigated using, say, bioreactors, then it would have a major effect, both in terms of reducing fossil fuels used by cars and lowering atmospheric CO₂ emissions.

 

 

 

True, wow just looked up the figures, didn't know it was that high.

 

but that cost to make bioreactor(s) is on the companies (regardless of how little). I've said for a while now that our technologically advanced society is getting far to comfortable and choose by convience. Well atleast I know this from the industry I'm involved in. Companies will do the bare minimum to ensure profit. The average person doesn't really care as long as thier needs are met. I'm guilty of it too, I shop at wal-mart (not often but still..) even though I know exactly how they operate.

 

I guess I am just unsure how willing people will be to make the change, regardless of whether "GW" is true or not, I think thats the underlying issue.

[Red_Ninja]

For me personally, the real danger and harm in global warming is not necessarily the effect is has on human populations. Over a short timescale geologically, yes, a large number of people will die, not because they do not know the changes are coming, but because they'll always feel like they have another day/week/month/year to do something, or move away from troubled spots.

 

I believe the real danger lies in:

 

- The mass extinction of species that will undoubtedly occur due to climatic regions shifting/or dying out (i.e. the further north you go, the less distance 'north' there is to move), arctic polar bear populations being one obvious example

 

- The nonlinearity and unpredictability of the climatic changes that can occur

 

For instance, we know that Earth is currently absorbing less light than it did in the early 90s. However, the planet is still warming up. This is because more of the cloud cover is high in altitude terms, and those clouds hold in heat more effectively. There are all kinds of unexpected changes like this awaiting us, I have no doubt.

 

For instance, there are many scenarios in which a short term warming can lead to a sudden and dramatic cooling. Global warming may lead to a snap ice age. Obviously the worst case scenario is large scale destruction of global forests, leading to a runaway greenhouse effect that may effect the planet's hospitality for life as we know it on a large scale.

 

Even if the human race were to become extinct, I would find that situation more palatable than wide-scale desruction of the planet's life bearing capacity that could last for millions or tens of millions of years. That would truly be a damning indictment on our short tenure in charge of the globe.

 

Just my two cents.