74
   

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

 
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2006 11:18 am
As I said, ANY SUGGESTIONS OUT THERE?
I thought there were some smart people on this forum. Isn't there one good suggestion, if we're all about to die?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2006 11:20 am
I totally agree George! There must be a balance. For example, shutting down all industry like some greenie idiots want to do is ludicrous. On the other hand, not regulating industry is also ludicrous.

In order to find a balance, we must have some way of judging the impact of our emissions and pollutants to the environment; what factors should be used as a guide?

Is it possible to tell the effects of anything we do, from a climatology standpoint?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2006 11:23 am
I'm here to tell you that Kyoto accomplishes diddly, zero, nothing. Only a token effort. If the problem is as serious as the ice caps beginning to melt, I'm sick of pro-business token efforts that reduce CO2 by 5% in 5, 10, 20 years, whatever. Its nothing. I'm telling you it has to be alot more drastic than that. According to the U.N., it is man caused, and we need to do something fast. Something big, and fast.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2006 11:29 am
Plenty

Emissions trading...already a multi billion dollar market
Pushing the envelope of new technology, nuclear, solar etc
Education
Carbon capture. (BP doing very interesting hydrogen power station pilot plant in Scotland)
Buy a bicycle
Legislate (new cars = 50 mpg min?)


In fact there is a whole new economy wait to be born out of forcing change on the old one.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2006 11:34 am
Emissions trading is a good way for companies to dodge their own obligations. Nuclear - no proven way to dispose of waste. Solar farms reduce reflection and may alter the climate. Education is not fast enough to accomplish anything if doom is within 10 or 20 years. I tried a bicycle and I almost got ran over. Legislate fuel economy, thats it. But what are we going to do with all the batteries? How do you keep all the dangerous chemicals from seeping into the groundwater? Any other suggestions?
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2006 11:39 am
okie wrote:
Emissions trading is a good way for companies to dodge their own obligations. Nuclear - no proven way to dispose of waste. Solar farms reduce reflection and may alter the climate. Education is not fast enough to accomplish anything if doom is within 10 or 20 years. I tried a bicycle and I almost got ran over. Legislate fuel economy, thats it. But what are we going to do with all the batteries? How do you keep all the dangerous chemicals from seeping into the groundwater? Any other suggestions?
yeah quit moaning.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2006 11:43 am
Ditto.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2006 11:59 am
okie wrote:
I'm here to tell you that Kyoto accomplishes diddly, zero, nothing. Only a token effort. If the problem is as serious as the ice caps beginning to melt, I'm sick of pro-business token efforts that reduce CO2 by 5% in 5, 10, 20 years, whatever. Its nothing. I'm telling you it has to be alot more drastic than that. According to the U.N., it is man caused, and we need to do something fast. Something big, and fast.


It isn't hard to figure out what would be required. The problem is that the "solution" will entail reducing the world's population by about 60% while somehow preserving the advanced industrial and agricultural production techniques that, despite all the criticism, are more energy efficient than those they replaced. Figure out how to do that and then revise your probability analysis and consideration of the economic tradeoffs.

The various "tipping point" scenarios are not supported by the science as it relates to greenhouse gas-induced warming.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2006 12:17 pm
okie wrote:
But what are we going to do with all the batteries? How do you keep all the dangerous chemicals from seeping into the groundwater? Any other suggestions?


Some people are earning a lot of money with their solutions about this, actually, it's quite a big industry.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2006 12:25 pm
Quote:
New source of global warming gas found: plants
Wed Jan 11, 2006 6:07 PM GMT

LONDON (Reuters) - German scientists have discovered a new source of methane, a greenhouse gas that is second only to carbon dioxide in its impact on climate change.

The culprits are plants.

They produce about 10 to 30 percent of the annual methane found in the atmosphere, according to researchers at the Max-Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics in Heidelberg, Germany.

The scientists measured the amount of methane released by plants in controlled experiments. They found it increases with rising temperatures and exposure to sunlight.

"Significant methane emissions from both intact plants and detached leaves were observed ... in the laboratory and in the field," Dr Frank Keppler and his team said in a report in the journal Nature.

Methane, which is produced by city rubbish dumps, coal mining, flatulent animals, rice cultivation and peat bogs, is one of the most potent greenhouse gases in terms of its ability to trap heat.

Concentrations of the gas in the atmosphere have almost tripled in the last 150 years. About 600 million tonnes worldwide are produced annually.

The scientists said their finding is important for understanding the link between global warming and a rise in greenhouse gases.

It could also have implications for the Kyoto Protocol, which calls for developed countries to cut their emissions of greenhouse gases by 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-12.

Keppler and his colleagues discovered that living plants emit 10 to 100 times more methane than dead plants.

Scientists had previously thought that plants could only emit methane in the absence of oxygen.

David Lowe, of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research in New Zealand, said the findings are startling and controversial.

"Keppler and colleagues' finding helps to account for observations from space of incredibly large plumes of methane above tropical forests," he said in a commentary on the research.

But the study also poses questions, such as how such a potentially large source of methane could have been overlooked and how plants produced it.

"There will be a lively scramble among researchers for the answers to these and other questions," Lowe added.
Source
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2006 12:25 pm
okie wrote:
Emissions trading is a good way for companies to dodge their own obligations. Nuclear - no proven way to dispose of waste. Solar farms reduce reflection and may alter the climate. Education is not fast enough to accomplish anything if doom is within 10 or 20 years. I tried a bicycle and I almost got ran over. Legislate fuel economy, thats it. But what are we going to do with all the batteries? How do you keep all the dangerous chemicals from seeping into the groundwater? Any other suggestions?


You are wrong about nuclear waste disposal. It is relatively easy and cheap to solve this problem.

If you believe that legislating technology is a good way to foster wise economic growth and development, then I suggest you read some more history.

Your insights into the (usually unanticipated) side effects of the "solutions" that others propose be legislated for us are very wise.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2006 12:41 pm
georgeob1, I am only trying to use their reasoning to see what their solution to this impending catastrophy could be? If I have to be a blithering idiot to illustrate the idiocy, I thought it might be worth a try.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2006 12:46 pm
okie wrote:
georgeob1, I am only trying to use their reasoning to see what their solution to this impending catastrophy could be? If I have to be a blithering idiot to illustrate the idiocy, I thought it might be worth a try.
oh I see, sarcasm. I thought it came naturally.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jan, 2006 04:21 pm
Walter, if the data in your last post is generally true for most living plants (and I have my doubts about that), and it is also true that methane concentrations are up by a factor of three, then this aspect of the greenhouse gas problem eclipses the CO2 issue by an order of magnitude, in that, on a mass basis, methane is about 24 times as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2. It also means that the Kyoto protocol was seriously misdirected. Decaying plants are well known sources of methane (and a source of useful energy recovery in an anerobic process) but living plants, if they are found to also be a significant source, will entirely upset contemporary notions about what should be done to limit the greenhouse effect. Yet another indication that we should not mindlessly lurch into the legislation of ill-conceived "solutuins" for a problem that in fact is lagging far behind the doomsday predictions of those making a lot of money in the "green" panic business.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jan, 2006 01:39 am
Quote:
Environment in crisis: 'We are past the point of no return'

Thirty years ago, the scientist James Lovelock worked out that the Earth possessed a planetary-scale control system which kept the environment fit for life. He called it Gaia, and the theory has become widely accepted. Now, he believes mankind's abuse of the environment is making that mechanism work against us. His astonishing conclusion - that climate change is already insoluble, and life on Earth will never be the same again.


By Michael McCarthy Environment Editor
Published: 16 January 2006
The world has already passed the point of no return for climate change, and civilisation as we know it is now unlikely to survive, according to James Lovelock, the scientist and green guru who conceived the idea of Gaia - the Earth which keeps itself fit for life.

In a profoundly pessimistic new assessment, published in today's Independent, Professor Lovelock suggests that efforts to counter global warming cannot succeed, and that, in effect, it is already too late.

The world and human society face disaster to a worse extent, and on a faster timescale, than almost anybody realises, he believes. He writes: " Before this century is over, billions of us will die, and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable."

In making such a statement, far gloomier than any yet made by a scientist of comparable international standing, Professor Lovelock accepts he is going out on a limb. But as the man who conceived the first wholly new way of looking at life on Earth since Charles Darwin, he feels his own analysis of what is happening leaves him no choice. He believes that it is the self-regulating mechanism of Gaia itself - increasingly accepted by other scientists worldwide, although they prefer to term it the Earth System - which, perversely, will ensure that the warming cannot be mastered.

This is because the system contains myriad feedback mechanisms which in the past have acted in concert to keep the Earth much cooler than it otherwise would be. Now, however, they will come together to amplify the warming being caused by human activities such as transport and industry through huge emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2 ).

It means that the harmful consequences of human beings damaging the living planet's ancient regulatory system will be non-linear - in other words, likely to accelerate uncontrollably.

He terms this phenomenon "The Revenge of Gaia" and examines it in detail in a new book with that title, to be published next month.

The uniqueness of the Lovelock viewpoint is that it is holistic, rather than reductionist. Although he is a committed supporter of current research into climate change, especially at Britain's Hadley Centre, he is not looking at individual facets of how the climate behaves, as other scientists inevitably are. Rather, he is looking at how the whole control system of the Earth behaves when put under stress.

Professor Lovelock, who conceived the idea of Gaia in the 1970s while examining the possibility of life on Mars for Nasa in the US, has been warning of the dangers of climate change since major concerns about it first began nearly 20 years ago.

He was one of a select group of scientists who gave an initial briefing on global warming to Margaret Thatcher's Cabinet at 10 Downing Street in April 1989.

His concerns have increased steadily since then, as evidence of a warming climate has mounted. For example, he shared the alarm of many scientists at the news last September that the ice covering the Arctic Ocean is now melting so fast that in 2005 it reached a historic low point.

Two years ago he sparked a major controversy with an article in The Independent calling on environmentalists to drop their long-standing opposition to nuclear power, which does not produce the greenhouses gases of conventional power stations.

Global warming was proceeding so fast that only a major expansion of nuclear power could bring it under control, he said. Most of the Green movement roundly rejected his call, and does so still.

Now his concerns have reached a peak - and have a new emphasis. Rather than calling for further ways of countering climate change, he is calling on governments in Britain and elsewhere to begin large-scale preparations for surviving what he now sees as inevitable - in his own phrase today, "a hell of a climate", likely to be in Europe up to 8C hotter than it is today.

In his book's concluding chapter, he writes: "What should a sensible European government be doing now? I think we have little option but to prepare for the worst, and assume that we have passed the threshold."

And in today's Independent he writes: "We will do our best to survive, but sadly I cannot see the United States or the emerging economies of China and India cutting back in time, and they are the main source of [CO2] emissions. The worst will happen ..."

He goes on: "We have to keep in mind the awesome pace of change and realise how little time is left to act, and then each community and nation must find the best use of the resources they have to sustain civilisation for as long as they can." He believes that the world's governments should plan to secure energy and food supplies in the global hothouse, and defences against the expected rise in sea levels. The scientist's vision of what human society may ultimately be reduced to through climate change is " a broken rabble led by brutal warlords."

Professor Lovelock draws attention to one aspect of the warming threat in particular, which is that the expected temperature rise is currently being held back artificially by a global aerosol - a layer of dust in the atmosphere right around the planet's northern hemisphere - which is the product of the world's industry.

This shields us from some of the sun's radiation in a phenomenon which is known as "global dimming" and is thought to be holding the global temperature down by several degrees. But with a severe industrial downturn, the aerosol could fall out of the atmosphere in a very short time, and the global temperature could take a sudden enormous leap upwards.

One of the most striking ideas in his book is that of "a guidebook for global warming survivors" aimed at the humans who would still be struggling to exist after a total societal collapse.

Written, not in electronic form, but "on durable paper with long-lasting print", it would contain the basic accumulated scientific knowledge of humanity, much of it utterly taken for granted by us now, but originally won only after a hard struggle - such as our place in the solar system, or the fact that bacteria and viruses cause infectious diseases.

Rough guide to a planet in jeopardy

Global warming, caused principally by the large-scale emissions of industrial gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), is almost certainly the greatest threat that mankind has ever faced, because it puts a question mark over the very habitability of the Earth.

Over the coming decades soaring temperatures will mean agriculture may become unviable over huge areas of the world where people are already poor and hungry; water supplies for millions or even billions may fail. Rising sea levels will destroy substantial coastal areas in low-lying countries such as Bangladesh, at the very moment when their populations are mushrooming. Numberless environmental refugees will overwhelm the capacity of any agency, or indeed any country, to cope, while modern urban infrastructure will face devastation from powerful extreme weather events, such as Hurricane Katrina which hit New Orleans last summer.

The international community accepts the reality of global warming, supported by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In its last report, in 2001, the IPCC said global average temperatures were likely to rise by up to 5.8C by 2100. In high latitudes, such as Britain, the rise is likely to be much higher, perhaps 8C. The warming seems to be proceeding faster than anticipated and in the IPCC's next report, 2007, the timescale may be shortened. Yet there still remains an assumption that climate change is controllable, if CO2 emissions can be curbed. Lovelock is warning: think again.

'The Revenge of Gaia' by James Lovelock is published by Penguin on 2 February, price £16.99
Source
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jan, 2006 03:16 am
Saw a good programme on BBC TV yesterday evening about penguins and other wildlife in Antarctica. Fascinating

One fact quoted: the total mass of krill under the antarctic ice is greater that the mass of any other animal species on the planet.

That's a lot of krillies.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jan, 2006 05:43 am
McTag wrote:
Saw a good programme on BBC TV yesterday evening about penguins and other wildlife in Antarctica. Fascinating

One fact quoted: the total mass of krill under the antarctic ice is greater that the mass of any other animal species on the planet.

That's a lot of krillies.
Trying to work up some enthusiasm here:)
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jan, 2006 05:52 am
Didn't Blatham say that nobody advocated for Gaia worship in this thread? Wink
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jan, 2006 06:20 am
Hasn't James Lovelock come out in praise of nuclear power? And btw Thomas, oil forcast to go above $100 if we put sanctions on Iran. Some times I wish I was just eating krill below the arctic.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jan, 2006 06:52 am
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
Hasn't James Lovelock come out in praise of nuclear power? And btw Thomas, oil forcast to go above $100 if we put sanctions on Iran. Some times I wish I was just eating krill below the arctic.

Speaking of the oil price: Do you remember in which thread we bet on the oil price? I stand by my bet that it will fall in inflation-adjusted terms, but I'd like to post a link to it in my "reality check" thread so I can keep track of it.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 11/07/2025 at 01:04:41