Climate Change must be tackled NOW

Bobsmyth wrote:

One of the chief combatants for balancing co2 is trees which take in co2 and release oxygen.

Trees supply some oxygen, but the main part of oxygen exchange is performed by the chlorophyll-containing phytoplankton, microscopic monocellular plants that are suspended in the water of oceans, their biomass exceeds many times the biomass of the terrestrial plants.

0 Replies

With GWBush at the helm, we don't have a prayer. We're gonna have to wait until another pres takes the WH. c.i.

0 Replies

steissd, plankton is extremely sensitive to temperature. Studies have shown that global warming creates important downward shifts in plankton's plentitude. This is extremely dangerous, as plankton forms the basis of the maritime food chain.

So CO2-absorption rates by plankton are fundamentally threatened by our own climbing CO2-emission rates. 'Positive feedback': the more CO2... the more CO2.

That's why we don't have any time to waste: the degradation of the ecological balance speeds up at an exponential rate. Soon it will reach a point-of-no-return.

The neo-corporatist madness in the current executive and lawgiving US administration is increasingly resembling an apocalyptic embodiment. The problem is - and this scares me - that the Bushes don't plan to stop any time in the near future.

0 Replies

wolf, When you say, "Soon it will reach a point-of-no-return" how long or short do you think that means in terms of years? c.i.

0 Replies

c.i., I'm afraid we are IN the point of no return. That's why we must cease this foolishness a.s.a.p.

As far as irrepairable damage is concerned: a recent study by the European Union showed that, at the current rate of +2,6% CO2 buildup per year, Earth's ecosystem should sustain heavy damage around 2030.

Let's not forget that our daily food entirely depends on climatic stability. The aggravation of climate change that the oil lobbies steer us into threatens the very survival of our species.

0 Replies

wolf wrote:

steissd, plankton is extremely sensitive to temperature. Studies have shown that global warming creates important downward shifts in plankton's plentitude. This is extremely dangerous, as plankton forms the basis of the maritime food chain.

Could you please post a link to such a study? I seem to remember reading in one of the ipcc studies that plankton grows better if temperature increases, and that it therefore contributes negative feedback to the climate's feedback loop. People hesitate to jump to conclusions though, because nobody really knows how large the negative feedback from the biosphere exactly is. But I don't remember which specific report that was.

More generally, the problem with the study you posted is that it doesn't consider the question whether halting global warming is on net worth doing, given the costs. The leading scientist to research that question is Yale's Bill Nordhaus. The answer he came up with is probably not -- though he cautions that low probability, high impact scenarios are hard to account for and may change scientific assessment in the future.

-- Thomas

0 Replies

wolf, Aren't you crying "wolf" too soon? Sorry, couldn't resist. At any rate, your "asap" has no meaning to this president. Political leadership will be required to change how we continue to polute our environment. When you speak to the issue of food production, don't forget that "water" is also precious. On my recent visit to Peru, our tour guide told us that the snow caps on the Andes mountains in Peru have shown drastic reductions during the past ten years which she blames on global warming. The warning signs are everywhere, but without political leadership, the world ecology will continue to deteriate. c.i.

0 Replies

c.i., I hear ya.

Thomas: global warming doesn't affect plankton directly through water temperature (my bad), but by changing the pattern of the big oceanic streams. The effects are local, but potentially widespread. A reconfiguration of maritime streams can shatter plankton fields, thereby effectively but slowly destroying them in the long run.

0 Replies

wolf wrote:

Global warming is without a shred of doubt caused by human industry and transport. Never has Earth's temperature risen on such short term. This planet's life support system is very fragile, and your hubristic kin is destroying it by acting on the belief that humans are above nature and can do whatever their arrogant minds tell them to do.

It's precisely people like you and the Bush dynasty that are sealing our fate. Learn to be part of this planet, not in control of it.

Can you offer ANY evidence to support these statements, or are we simply to assume that if your write it, it must be true?

0 Replies

Scrat, I'm also a skeptic of "the sky is falling" scenario on global warming, because we just do not have enough long-term records of earth's climate change. When we consider that this globe is over 350 million years old, there's bound to be climate changes. A good starting point would be to study the geology of the makeup of this small planet of ours to decifer the changes in the land mass, and what, if any, climate has affected it. Life on this planet is constantly evolving, and some species disappeared millions of years ago. Some paleontologists are suggesting that all life forms began in the sea, and we are all ancestors of fish. Maybe, humans will some day disappear too. c.i.

0 Replies

A few citations for everyone's consideration:

Quote:

Global Warming vs. ScienceAt least 80 climate scientists have now signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration, stating that "we cannot subscribe to the so-called 'scientific consensus' that envisages climate catastrophes and advocates hasty actions."

Quote:

State Climatologists Skeptical of Administrations Global Warming
Having just returned from the annual meeting of the American Association of State Climatologists (for which I will be President for the next year), I can tell you that there is a great deal of global warming skepticism among my colleagues. For every outspoken scientist like Pat Michaels there are dozens of less verbose but equally committed men and women who do not buy into the Administration's point of view. Far from being a "done deal," the global warming scenarios are looking shakier and shakier.

Quote:

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th Century have produced no deleterious effects upon global weather, climate, or temperature. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth rates. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like CO2 are in error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge.

Quote:

Ex-Clinton aides admit Kyoto treaty flawed

0 Replies

bobsmyth wrote:

One of the agencies working toward that end is the world wildlife fund which buys tracts of land in the Matto Grosso. One of the most positive signs for a turn around is the reforestation of the northeast here in America.

I like this reminder, and would like to add that the Nature Conservancy, which operates in every state in the US, Canada, Mexico, Central and South America and Asia Pacific also buys large tracts of land to return them to their natural state. It is possible to circumvent the current gold-holders strangling of the environment by supporting these organizations in whatever way we're able. Here is a link to their site for those who are interested: http://nature.org/

0 Replies

LibertyD, WELCOME to A2K. Hope to see you around more frequently - including your avatar. Wink

c.i.

0 Replies

heehee...well thank you very much, c.i.! Smile

0 Replies

wolf wrote:

Thomas: global warming doesn't affect plankton directly through water temperature (my bad), but by changing the pattern of the big oceanic streams. The effects are local, but potentially widespread. A reconfiguration of maritime streams can shatter plankton fields, thereby effectively but slowly destroying them in the long run.

I believe you are confusing several issues here. Regarding plankton, it is important to remember that currents inside the oceans can only redistribute temperature within the oceans. They cannot make the oceans as a whole warmer or colder. Given that plankton grows better when water is warmer, the fact still remains that global warming will give us more plankton. Your theory would predict that more plankton means less CO2, even though it it not necessarily true.

The reason streams like the "Conveyor belt" or the "gulf stream" change the picture is because they transport thermal energy from America to Europe. Thereby they are making the climate in Europe warmer than it would otherwise be, and the climate in America colder than it would otherwise be. Model simulations indicate that global warming might weaken these streams, which would increase global warming in America and reduce it in Europe. It is well possible that Europe will become colder as a result of global warming -- a perspective that scares many Europeans.

For some reason people seem to believe there's only one global climate in which we can thrive and the biosphere can remain intact, and it just happens to be the climate we're living in at present. I can't understand why people would be so conservative.

-- Thomas

0 Replies

Quote:

I can't understand why people would be so conservative.

Especially liberals! Cool

0 Replies

wolf wrote:

40% of CO2 emissions comes from private transport, mainly from the USA. That means your oil-consuming cars are digging our graves a bit deeper every single day. It's true!

This is the sort of nonsensical claim that discredits the global warming camp. 40% of CO2 emmisions come from private transport in the US??? Bah!

The single largest rate increase in CO2 emissions in the last century came in 1997/1998 when the rate managed to double in those two years alone. Was that attributable to private transport too? Amazingly the scientific community has pinned the cause on wildfires in peat bogs in Indonesia.

The total annual release of CO2 worldwide is right at 5,980,000,000 metric tones. US transportation in total (private, public and commercial) accounts for an annual average of 450,000,000 tons of that. That works out to 7.5% - significantly less than the 40% for private transportation alone that was quoted.

0 Replies

fishin' - Stop confusing them with facts! Confused

0 Replies

fishin, I wonder how often this planet has huge, uncontrolled forest fires? Seems like 'nature' can do it's own 'damage' - if we can call it that! c.i.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

fishin, I wonder how often this plant has huge, uncontrolled forest fires? Seems like 'nauture' can do it's own 'damage' - if we can call it that! c.i.

Large uncontrolled fires are not unusual and volcanic eruptions spew tons of chemicals into our atmosphere. Those types of things make the whole global warming debate a tough cookie to crack. That is why a lot of people, myself included, would like to see ALL of these types of variables included in the warming models.

0 Replies

Climate Change must be tackled NOW

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know