Global warming

[TheBigDog]

Here's something hot off the press:

 

 

More here..

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | CO2 row threatens climate report

 

Unfortunately they don't mention which scientific studies, conducted by who. It must be pretty convincing though if it has China on edge. Personally, I think we should dig our heels in the ground where we are at and study it more before making policies that can potentially make or break us. One hundred ppm is a pretty big discrepancy imo!

It is a matter of perspective. On one hand it is a 22.22% increase from 450 to 550. On the other hand the difference represents 0.01% of the atmosphere.

 

Bill

[Zythryn]

Actually, it is a matter of effect. What effect will an additional .01% co2 concentration have.

The current increased concentration seems to have had a significant effect on the acidity of our oceans. The melting of the glaciers and subtle (so far) changes in weather patterns is still debatable as to the cause. I believe the increase in the greenhouse affect is the culprit, but that is not 100% certain, yet.

 

So, <best game show host voice> Would you like to try for ANOTHER 100ppm?</best game show host voice>

[freeztar]

It is a matter of perspective. On one hand it is a 22.22% increase from 450 to 550. On the other hand the difference represents 0.01% of the atmosphere.

 

Bill

 

Indeed, statistics are bent upon will.

The important question is, what do these numbers tell us?

Is 0.01% significant?

 

*edit* You beat me to it Zyth! :naughty:

[Govind]

Hello,

 

Are there still people around who doubt that global warming is happening?

 

Just Wondering...

[Zythryn]

There are always going to be a few. There are still people around that believe man never set foot on the moon:) There are still people around that believe the world is only 6000 years old.

However, there are more people that seem focused on denying that mankind had anything to do with it than finding a solution, or a way to predict what is going to happen to better adapt to the coming changes. Those are the ones I really worry about.

[TheBigDog]

There are always going to be a few. There are still people around that believe man never set foot on the moon:) There are still people around that believe the world is only 6000 years old.

However, there are more people that seem focused on denying that mankind had anything to do with it than finding a solution, or a way to predict what is going to happen to better adapt to the coming changes. Those are the ones I really worry about.

I don't have a solution, but I do have an idea; I am going to invest heavily in Coppertone.

 

If the world is going to have more dramatic weather, and be generally warmer, then there is opportunity to see the coming trends and changes and exploit them for profit to the benefit of those willing to pay for new found comforts. Warm weather is nice. Storms are beautiful. Man will survive and thrive. Some species will struggle, others will rise to fill the voids. Change is constant, why we must prevent change is beyond me. Yes, we should take steps to keep the world clean and healthy, but there is only so much that we can be responsible for.

 

Cheers!

 

:doh: :naughty: :eek: :hihi:

 

Bill

[Boerseun]

Change is constant, why we must prevent change is beyond me.

The issue is not change per se, I think everybody is in agreement that the world oscillates between hot and cold periods. Rather, the danger lies in the rate of change. If it happens too quickly, as it seems to be the case thanks to human atmospheric intervention, it might be catastrophic to a lot of species who can't keep up.

 

Humans won't die. Not as a species. But many millions might croak due to changing weather patterns, like unexpected droughts where there used to be dependable rainfall, causing famine, etc. Or, due to increased rainfall elsewhere, bad erosion of topsoil might render the previously fertile farmlands useless. Nett result: Drastic and unpredictable changes in our food supply all the way from the farmer in the rice paddy to the shop shelves where shoppers will trade blows over the last two bags of rice.

 

Nobody's denying the reality of change. But if it happens at a slow enough rate, say, the rate at which it would have happened if not for industry, then humans might successfully change farming practices and farming areas to keep up.

 

Don't get me wrong - I'm not a Nazi or any such nasty thing, personally, I'm in favour of a massive die-off of a few billion people. It can ultimately only be to the planet's benefit. But in theory, only. The reality of a massive, world-wide famine due to such short-sightedness as countering the global warming issue by just purchasing more coppertone, will be a horrible sight of which I don't want any part of. So, to do my bit, I'll err on the side of caution and do my best to shrink and limit my carbon footprint.

[Queso]

Don't worry, the Alien Observers will save us if the Earth ever gets too much altered by our impact. OR If there aren't any "Alien Observers" (what a silly idea..), we'll be able to figure something out in any dire situations brought on by us. And anyway, who said that WE are contributing in "the Greenhouse Effect" more than Mrs. Mother Nature herself? Mind you, she's probably got a title deed from the council in order to...

Ah, never mind.

 

i'm starting to undoubt the possibility

[Cedars]

I am not sure the original question in this thread was answered so...

Besides having an effect on runoff and what not. How much effect does the massive amounts of road surface have on global warming?

 

How much of the surface of the earth is covered by such dark substances as were covered say 40 years ago?

 

This study was primarily on runoff pollutants by what I am reading but included some info on parking lot radiated heat.

 

From the article:

"The paved surfaces also add to the urban heat island effect, which can raise temperatures by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius by absorbing more of the sun's rays than the surrounding ground, said Indiana state climatologist Dev Niyogi, a colleague of Pijanowski at Purdue who did not work directly on this study.

 

The parking lot count focused on lots at businesses, Purdue University and other public properties. Lots on private property and multi-level parking garages were not counted, so Pijanowski says his parking space calculation is a significant underestimate."

 

Study: Parking lots are big polluters - LiveScience - MSNBC.com

 

Map of US road density:

LiveScience.com

[Michaelangelica]

"The paved surfaces also add to the urban heat island effect, which can raise temperatures by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius by absorbing more of the sun's rays than the surrounding ground, s

Thanks. This has been one of my ideas for a while.

 

There used to be a terrible addictive computer game called "Sim Earth"; where you design your own planet. (Also Sim City-not as much fun)

After getting to know the game a fair bit I spent a lovely six hours designing my perfect planet. I did one thing wrong and it crashed and burned. I haven't played it since.

 

One thing it did teach me those was the importance of the albedo effect- reflected heat from icy regions and the polar caps.

 

I wondered if making all roads and parking lots white, instead of black tar, would make a difference?

 

Surely we will be running out of petroleum to make tar one day?

Then I guess you would have to use white concrete (but, I tonne concrete =1 tonne greenhouse gases), for roads & car parks.

Although I have seen some plastic grids, that grass was supposed to grow in-between, for parking lots.

 

Here mall parking lots are usually bereft of trees. If they do plant anything it is usually some poor, dumb palms or dwarf struggling trees.

They are happy to uses shade cloth on the roof car park; but shade from a tree- forget it. Maybe trees are bad drivers!?

(The local mall is about 1/2 a mile long and is festooned inside with 20' (4m) high plastic palms:doh:) You Yanks invented these dreadful places- you have a lot to answer for.

 

Perhaps painting the roads and car parks white might be a possibility.

It certainly has to be cheaper than the hair-brained scheme of putting shade umbrellas in space.

 

There must be a geek mathematician somewhere who could crunch the numbers on this?

[freeztar]

I wrote to Senator Chambliss regarding climate change and urged him to support climate change initiatives. This is his response back:

 

Dear Mr. [freeztar] :

 

Thank you for contacting me to share your concerns for global climate change. I appreciate hearing from you.

 

The earth's climate is always changing and is not a static system. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have increased in recent times; however, climate science is extremely complex. The magnitude, rate, severity and potential affects of climate change are open questions.

 

Despite what is heard in the media, scientists disagree on the scale and pace of climate change, the severity of the estimated warming, and the projected impacts. Scientific opinion also varies widely on the reliability of the models used for projecting warming, and there is uncertainty surrounding the claims that extreme episodic weather events are caused by climate change. Many believe that the documented evidence of the natural variability in the climate more accurately explains local weather conditions, and that it is speculative to affirm that weather extremes are attributable to global warming.

 

Scientists and policy makers should be free to debate these complex issues without being labeled obstructionists or alarmists. No one should be afraid of an open and fair debate; stifling debate will only preclude us from considering possible solutions. The public and the policy makers should think critically about the state of the science and recognize the limitations of that science. Congress should continue to ask questions to fully understand the ramifications of proposed policy solutions.

 

Due to the fact that global climate change is a world-wide concern, all nations should contribute to the debate. It is appropriate for developed countries to continue to support the costs of research and development and take the first steps. Be that as it may, any gains made by developed countries will soon be overshadowed by problems in the developing countries if they do not participate in the process. Everyone must be involved in a solution.

 

At this time, common sense dictates that we need to be realistic about the cost and practicality of proposed emission reduction solutions, especially since the risks of climate change and its solutions are still open to debate.

 

Hmmm...

 

I wish I still had my reply. He never wrote back again after my reply to this message. I wonder why...

[goku]

is global warming natural?

is man natural?

[CraigD]

is global warming natural?

is man natural?

Gotta hand it to you, goku, you’ve managed a semantic twist there. :rolleyes: Though I think the old Love & Rocket’s lyric puts it more … lyrically:

You cannot go against nature

Because when you do

Go against nature

It's part of nature too

 

PS: Welcome back to hypography! It’s been a couple of years.

[questor]

Climate History

 

For those who would like some scientific information on climate change.

[InfiniteNow]

Climate History

 

For those who would like some scientific information on climate change.

 

Hmmm... if you want quote unquote scientific information on climate change, I'd actually suggest the following:

 

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Working Group I Report "The Physical Science Basis"

 

 

If you spend some time looking into the references and read those, that is pretty useful as well. :wink:

[questor]

If global warming is taking place, and man is the cause of it, what is the next step? Are there those who believe that more efficient vehicles and better light bulbs are the answer? What happens when India, China, and Russia come online? What happens as the current world population of 6.6 billion approaches 10 billion?

[moyself]

I'm going to jump right out and just say that global warming is no big deal at all. Yes, I said that. Just please don't start bashing me because of my different opinion. Global warming is a cycle. X number of years of warming, then X number of years of cooling. Eventually, we will be worrying about global cooling and be praising Al Gore for wasting money on a natural cycle of the world.

 

Unfortunately I cant post links yet, but here is an article on global warming.

 

taken from smh dot com dot au

 

One of the world's foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous" and the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works".

 

Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, told a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth.

 

His comments came on the same day that the Nobel committee honoured Mr Gore for his work in support of the link between humans and global warming.

 

"We're brainwashing our children," said Dr Gray, 78, a long-time professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie [An Inconvenient Truth] and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."

 

At his first appearance since the award was announced in Oslo, Mr Gore said: "We have to quickly find a way to change the world's consciousness about exactly what we're facing."

 

Mr Gore shared the Nobel prize with the United Nations climate panel for their work in helping to galvanise international action against global warming.

 

But Dr Gray, whose annual forecasts of the number of tropical storms and hurricanes are widely publicised, said a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures - related to the amount of salt in ocean water - was responsible for the global warming that he acknowledges has taken place.

 

However, he said, that same cycle meant a period of cooling would begin soon and last for several years.

 

"We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was," Dr Gray said.

 

During his speech to a crowd of about 300 that included meteorology students and a host of professional meteorologists, Dr Gray also said those who had linked global warming to the increased number of hurricanes in recent years were in error.

 

He cited statistics showing there were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to 1949, in a period of cooler global temperatures, compared to 83 from 1957 to 2006 when the earth warmed.

 

"The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures," Dr Gray said.

 

He said his beliefs had made him an outsider in popular science.

 

"It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants."