No More Water, But Fire Next Time.

[chefranden]

When I think of global warming that old spiritual, "God Gave Noah that Rainbow Sign", comes to mind. Perverse cynic that I am, I actually hope that Global Warming deniers will keep us from doing anything about it.

 

 

Global warming: the final verdict

 

 

A study by the world's leading experts says global warming will happen faster and be more devastating than previously thought

 

Robin McKie, science editor

Sunday January 21, 2007

The Observer

 

Global warming is destined to have a far more destructive and earlier impact than previously estimated, the most authoritative report yet produced on climate change will warn next week.

 

A draft copy of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, obtained by The Observer, shows the frequency of devastating storms - like the ones that battered Britain last week - will increase dramatically. Sea levels will rise over the century by around half a metre; snow will disappear from all but the highest mountains; deserts will spread; oceans become acidic, leading to the destruction of coral reefs and atolls; and deadly heatwaves will become more prevalent.

 

Article continues

The impact will be catastrophic, forcing hundreds of millions of people to flee their devastated homelands, particularly in tropical, low-lying areas, while creating waves of immigrants whose movements will strain the economies of even the most affluent countries.

 

'The really chilling thing about the IPCC report is that it is the work of several thousand climate experts who have widely differing views about how greenhouse gases will have their effect. Some think they will have a major impact, others a lesser role. Each paragraph of this report was therefore argued over and scrutinised intensely. Only points that were considered indisputable survived this process. This is a very conservative document - that's what makes it so scary,' said one senior UK climate expert.

 

Climate concerns are likely to dominate international politics next month. President Bush is to make the issue a part of his state of the union address on Wednesday while the IPCC report's final version is set for release on 2 February in a set of global news conferences.

 

Although the final wording of the report is still being worked on, the draft indicates that scientists now have their clearest idea so far about future climate changes, as well as about recent events. It points out that:

 

· 12 of the past 13 years were the warmest since records began;

 

· ocean temperatures have risen at least three kilometres beneath the surface;

 

· glaciers, snow cover and permafrost have decreased in both hemispheres;

 

· sea levels are rising at the rate of almost 2mm a year;

 

· cold days, nights and frost have become rarer while hot days, hot nights and heatwaves have become more frequent.

 

And the cause is clear, say the authors: 'It is very likely that [man-made] greenhouse gas increases caused most of the average temperature increases since the mid-20th century,' says the report.

 

To date, these changes have caused global temperatures to rise by 0.6C. The most likely outcome of continuing rises in greenhouses gases will be to make the planet a further 3C hotter by 2100, although the report acknowledges that rises of 4.5C to 5C could be experienced. Ice-cap melting, rises in sea levels, flooding, cyclones and storms will be an inevitable consequence.

 

Past assessments by the IPCC have suggested such scenarios are 'likely' to occur this century. Its latest report, based on sophisticated computer models and more detailed observations of snow cover loss, sea level rises and the spread of deserts, is far more robust and confident. Now the panel writes of changes as 'extremely likely' and 'almost certain'.

 

And in a specific rebuff to sceptics who still argue natural variation in the Sun's output is the real cause of climate change, the panel says mankind's industrial emissions have had five times more effect on the climate than any fluctuations in solar radiation. We are the masters of our own destruction, in short.

 

There is some comfort, however. The panel believes the Gulf Stream will go on bathing Britain with its warm waters for the next 100 years. Some researchers have said it could be disrupted by cold waters pouring off Greenland's melting ice sheets, plunging western Europe into a mini Ice Age, as depicted in the disaster film The Day After Tomorrow.

 

The report reflects climate scientists' growing fears that Earth is nearing the stage when carbon dioxide rises will bring irreversible change to the planet. 'We are seeing vast sections of Antarctic ice disappearing at an alarming rate,' said climate expert Chris Rapley, in a phone call to The Observer from the Antarctic Peninsula last week. 'That means we can expect to see sea levels rise at about a metre a century from now on - and that will have devastating consequences.'

 

However, there is still hope, said Peter Cox of Exeter University. 'We are like alcoholics who have got as far as admitting there is a problem. It is a start. Now we have got to start drying out - which means reducing our carbon output.'

[Piprus]

Although I am focused on the discussion pro and con regarding the global warming issue, I still see a lot of open-endedness in the postulations and questions with no firm answers yet.

First, there is a question as I see it whether global warming is connected to human activity, i.e. burning of large amounts of fossil fuels, or is there is greater connection to volcanic activity? The eruption of a single volcano spews out ash and noxious gases of a quantity that would make our lust for wood burning stoves and motor vehicles seem insignificant.

Secondly, is the global warming that is being observed right now a short-term, or long-term phenomenon? After all, global climatic changes are measured not over decades, but over centuries.

Thirdly, can we do anything that would have a long term effect without destroying large portions of our population? There are more humans on earth now than have ever been. Can we tell people, "You have to stop burning fuel to keep warm in the winter?" Or, "You have to stop using fuels for manufacturing the goods you need?" So is it really feasible to reduce our "carbon output"?

 

It will be interesting to see where we are with this a hundred years from now. Nobody reading this post will be here to reference it, but it would be... interesting.

[neverclear5]

Although I am focused on the discussion pro and con regarding the global warming issue, I still see a lot of open-endedness in the postulations and questions with no firm answers yet.

 

 

Did you read the report mate?? We arn't in a "maybe it is, maybe it ain't" kind of discussion. It's on the scale (evidense wise, not moral wise) of debating the holocaust. It's not even a debate anymore. Its the scientists of the world providing evidense and the deniers going "la la la" with their fingers in their ears or reving their engine whenever someone tries to talk.

 

Also, the idea that we can't heat ourselves in winter is ludicrous, here is what I said in the skeptics guide to debunking... topic

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?show...14512&st=40

 

"Not neccesary mate, theres plenty of energy to make electricity. The reason we're warming up is that the energy from the sun can't escape as well any more. I'm english and its annoying that people don't seem to realise that we are particularly lucky being an island. We have wind, river, solar and sea to exploit. A large enough off-shore wind farm can supply the UK without swithing off a thing. A colleague of mine is working with wave power generators. Small scale solar/wind systems that can be fitted to your roof can supply about 20% of your power over the year. There are plenty of solutions out there, but they arn't always cheap to set up as its emerging technology. Internal combustion engines where expensive and awkward when they were first introduced. The problem is, someone comes up with a new plan which will work okay but be a bit expensive, because it's a first try, and it gets shot down straight away. Anything that makes something move can be used to generate power, all you need is to move a coil of wire in a magnet, or vise versa, which is exactly what they do in a modern power station. Any turning wheel can be made to produce AC current, as comes out of your home sockets, and many other types of motion can be used in other ways to do the same thing. "

[Amanda]

Great topic Chefranden! It raises concern and I'm curious if anyone here knows:

 

What is the main human contributor to global warming? Cars? Industry? Deforestation? What?

 

Has our improved miles per gallon and catalytic converters in cars helped any?

 

Are some countries greater contributors than others per population? Per area?

 

I guess what I'm asking is what is doing the most damage and who is doing it the most?

 

What would happen if we were able to progressively discontinue the use of gas, using none in ten years?

 

Thanks to all you well informed people for helping me out on this one.

[Valgeir]

Alright, I'm sold. Now here's the kicker.

 

What do we do about it?

[neverclear5]

Alright, I'm sold. Now here's the kicker.

 

What do we do about it?

 

 

well here's a good start

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6298467.stm

 

I love the bbc news science page!

[Valgeir]

Very cool web page. It sounds like they might really be on to something. Now if only it can be implemented...

[Blue elephant]

Ah... Chef!

 

Saw the title of the thread and could immediately hear Pete Seeger singing those words in my mind!