AP Wire: Warming 'likely' man-made, unstoppable

[PhilipShore]

02/01/2007

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/16600790.htm

PARIS - The world's leading climate scientists said global warming has begun, is "very likely" caused by man, and will be unstoppable for centuries, according to a report obtained Friday by The Associated Press.

The scientists - using their strongest language yet on the issue - said now that world has begun to warm, hotter temperatures and rises in sea level "would continue for centuries" no matter how much humans control their pollution. The report also linked the warming to the recent increase in stronger hurricanes.

The Bush administration acknowledges that global warming is man-made and a problem that must be dealt with, Bush science adviser John Marburger has said. However, Bush continues to reject mandatory limits on so-called "greenhouse" gases.

But this is more than just a U.S. issue.

[Nevernose]

1. "Likely," like evolution, the Big Bang, a heliocentric model?

I mean, we can't really PROVE those things, can we? And mathematics doesn't count. You have to be able to observe -- from the creation of the world, ~7k years ago to today, that God (and my preacher) is wrong.

Big sigh.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. 'very likely' = more than 90% likekihood

The IPCC actually defines 'likely', 'very likely' etc. in numerical terms. This is up from 'likely' (>66%) in 2001.

[Maven]

47. Wonder why the AP didn't include those facts. nt

[twylatharp]

2. The administration has tried to supress research on global

climate change and other issues that might inconvenience his rich friends. I just heard that he has hired some political hack to be in the EPA on some level, I can't remember what it was for; something about overriding current laws, I'll have to look it up, because Gawd knows we aren't going to find out from the media.

[billyoc]

3. Man, I hate to hear "unstoppable",

because to some that will mean "unsolvable".

[GoddessOfGuinness]

7. I'm afraid they already have interpreted it that way...

The world's largest eco-rapists view global warming as inevitable...something we must adapt to. :(

[alfredo]

68. One said that the world could reach a tipping point of

runaway global warming. He then pointed to Venus as an example of runaway global warming. I think he used "greenhouse effect" instead of global warming. Venus has a lot of CO2 in its atmosphere. http://www.harmsy.freeuk.com/venus.html http://www1.jsc.nasa.gov/er/seh/venus.html


This was some years ago, maybe in the early 90's.

[The2ndWheel]

17. We don't solve problems

We create new problems, or enhance the existing problems. That's all we do. That's all any of our solutions have done. Plus they increase the scale and complexity of a problem, making future solutions to problems even bigger and more complex, and never solving anything.

When we figure out that there is no solution, no perfect state to existence, maybe then we'll stop chasing what isn't there. That might help our sanity.

[redqueen]

42. Same here... it makes me so mad.

:grr:

[xxqqqzme]

4. we are so screwn!

[Harper_is_Bush]

5. Change your light bulbs now. Don't lose hope.

[msongs]

6. if we make input to the problem, we can make outsuck to get the gases out of the atmosphere as well

tho I don't have a clue how :-)

suck the C02 into giant vacuums and store it...?

Msongs
www.youtube.com/videos/msongs

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. That has actually been proposed

Klaus Lackner of Columbia University has proposed an extension of this idea, by dotting the landscape with windmill-like machines fitted with scrubbers that can remove CO2 from the atmosphere. The advantage of such a scheme is that it could be placed anywhere in the world - a desert rich in solar power, for example, or windy islands in the open ocean - and the technology need not be too efficient provided there are enough scrubbers to offset man-made emissions.

"The trick is to absorb enough carbon dioxide and to get rid of it quickly enough by burying it in long-term deposits," says John Shepherd of the Southampton Oceanography Centre. "This is the only scheme that could potentially reduce global levels of carbon dioxide to pre-industrial levels."

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article2201598.ece

And that is something we may want to consider, in the long term: where do we want all the carbon we dug up as coal/oil/gas to end up?
Circulating in the atmosphere and biosphere? (what would be the long term equilibrium amount in the atmosphere - a lot more than today?)
Pumped back into the geological formations that formerly held the natural gas we burned? (can we fit it all in? How much energy would be needed for that?)
Deposited as solid compounds (eg calcium carbonate) somewhere? (how much energy would be neded for that chemical reaction? Do we have the available chemicals to combine with it without causing some other problem?)

[Morgana LaFey]

51. longterm deposits

uh, that's what the permafrost regions did for us.

[muriel_volestrangler]

55. No, they're thinking of impermeable domes

like those that have held methane for millions of years, which we're now burning. How much CO2 they can hold, and how much energy is needed to pump it down to them, are important questions.

[Morgana LaFey]

57. My comment was meant to

point out that we are in the process of destroying NATURE's method for containing the overabundance of gas.

[FiveGoodMen]

54. We have men, we have rockets, we have Saran Wrap ... FIX IT!

-- Lewis Black

[kestrel91316]

33. There IS a method of carbon sequestration that involves production

of charcoal or something similar, which then goes into crop fields as a stable long-term source of nutrients for the soil or a growth medium for beneficial soil organisms..........forgot where I heard this.

It made my microbiologist radar go off when I heard about it.

[Porcupine]

62. Terra Preta, Terra Preta, Terra Preta......

Remember this and pass it on. Charcoal improves soil on timescales of thousands of years as vs. the input of compost with improves soil for 2-3 years.

http://www.css.cornell.edu/faculty/lehmann/terra_preta/TerraPretahome.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_preta

Please bookmark these links and spread the word. We can improve soil, extract fuel AND sequester carbon using the yard and landscaping waste we now landfill. Most importantly the soil improvement is close to permanent.

When you turn chips and leaves from a wood chipper into compost a significant portion of that carbon turns into CO2 and methane as microorganisms eat the biomass. Once you put that compost into your garden much more converts to CO2 as it degrades. This process is very quick in hot climate areas.

In the Amazon natives discovered that charred biomass improves the soil on a long term basis. The char that is dug into the ground one year stays for the duration of the soil layer. It doesn't cook off and acts as sequestered carbon. Significantly crop growth is much greater on Terra Preta soils.

More food from a given patch of ground and sequestered carbon at the same time. Also any subsistance farmer anywhere in the world can use this method to improve their soils at a time when the costs of fertilizer is rising and soil fertility is dropping.

We need to do this. NOW.

[kestrel91316]

69. That's it! I knew I wasn't imagining this.

[roamer65]

8. It may not be able to be stopped, but we can at least mitigate it.

I can tell you two things that will suck CO2 out of the atmosphere, planting trees everywhere we can and biomass plants like switchgrass and hemp. Also reduction of fossil fuel consumption via 35+ mpg cars. There are a list of things we can do. Can we save the Greenland Ice Sheet? I am beginning to doubt it.

[JCMach1]

9. This is the spin the Right Wing wants on this issue now

GD discussion is here http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=106957&mesg_id=106957

[progressivebydesign]

10. Paging Al Gore.

I think an environmental president is our only hope here...

If Al Gore thought about this, he'd run again. I have a scenario, when examined, makes it so compelling that he run. Here is the scenario:

Say there is a LARGE corporation out there, the most powerful corporation out there. And this corp is the BIGGEST polluter in the world. Currently, the people that run the corp. have no regard for environmental regulations, the consequences of their actions, and do nothing while their corp. continues to pollute the world and speed up global warming.


Say you're Al Gore. You've been doing freelance PR, and worked at the corporation in the past before the present management really screwed things up, and know that the majority of shareholders now support you. You know that you can make a difference in the corp. AND the world, if you agree to start the interview process again, and see if you can get hired back there.

Say Al has two choices of work to turn this corporation around. He can stick with Public Relations, or he can head up the whole damn Corporation. He can either influence people subtly or he can run the whole show and call the shots.

My point is this. Al Gore can continue to head up the PR department, or he can jump back in and go for the top... and affect REAL change on behalf of the global warming crisis. I think he's done more to finally get this subject into the mainstream, where it belongs, than anyone else. But now it's time to put down the charts and kick some ass. And he is the only Democrat I trust to do that, because it's his personal cause.

Did I make any sense?

[catgirl]

25. Yes, you do make sense...

a lot of sense. A presidential platform is the best place for
Al Gore to dig in and fight global warming. He has the utmost
respect amongst young people, which is so important. They are
the future and can make the difference.

[sam sarrha]

11. GWing will depopulate the world down to about 1 Billion, the Reich will be able to control better

it is a blessing for them

[kineneb]

35. but think, they will be losing "customers"

:sarcasm:

along with killing off the workers...

...who will be left to clean their toilets?

guess they don't think that far ahead.

[leftyclimber]

14. "Unstoppable for centuries" means it's stoppable. nt

[Thor_MN]

15. Not to you or me...

Unless they make some other discoveries, we are literally going to be some of the carbon dioxide causing the problems.

[leftyclimber]

16. I hear ya.

But just because we don't get instant gratification from working to solve the problem doesn't mean that we should just shrug our shoulders and flip the bird to future generations.

[Peace Patriot]

18. Bullshit! Never say never! If we can put men on the moon, we can scrub the

atmosphere. The key is TRANSPARENT elections in the U.S.

Bear in mind that, with the exception of Native Americans and small-impact indigenous tribes with a religious view of Mother Earth, there was no environmental movement, in the entire history of the human race, prior to the late 1960s-early 1970s. The notion that the Earth itself is vulnerable is entirely new to most of humanity. It is an idea whose "time has come," as they say. And when an idea's time has come, it takes off like a rocket. There is no stopping it. That's what happened with the idea of democracy. That's what is happening today with the idea that our planet is vulnerable and that we can repair the damage we've done it, and restore it.

Democracy is the key. And if democracy can be restored in the U.S., one of the major polluters, and the U.S. leads the way, we can influence the other great polluter, China, and utilize our great technical expertise and "can do" attitude, to find the solution.

I agree that the corporate rulers and the super-rich are a great drag on the rest of us, and are in a panic of acquisition to try to insulate themselves from deep fears of chaos and rebellion of "the masses." They are stupid the way royalty is stupid. And their Stupid President sums up who they are. Hoarders. Vicious greedbags. Iraq is the icon of their greed and their fascist outlook on the environment: get all the oil. They need to be toppled and a new vision born, whereby the citizens of the U.S. act in cooperation with the rest of humanity, to save our home, our Earth, the creator of the only life we know of, in the universe. And that new vision IS being born--at the bottom, at the grass roots level, in communities, cities and states, where democracy still flourishes--and it WILL topple them.

Our great creative, adaptable brains, and our ability to manipulate the environment, have gotten us into big trouble. But whenever humanity has been in trouble before, NEW IDEAS ARE BORN that allay the trouble. The religious warfare for centuries in Europe gave birth to American democracy. Nazism gave birth to the United Nations and the Geneva Conventions--to the idea of world peace (--that the Bush Junta has so egregiously violated). The great plagues that decimated Europe in the Middle Ages gave birth to modern medicine--to a scientific understanding of disease--and to public health and sanitation. The horrid aspects of early industrialization gave birth to the labor movement and notions of the dignity and human rights of workers. So it goes. And our great creative, adaptable brains, and our ability to manipulate the environment, which have gotten us INTO trouble, will get us OUT OF trouble. That's who we are: the Great Adapters.

People want to be cooperative. People want to save the planet. Ask anybody (except the few fascist dinosaurs). I have always been struck by this--by polls showing 80% approval for strong environmental regulation. The key is to get that public will implemented. And for that we need TRANSPARENT elections--not Bushite corporations "counting" all the votes with "trade secret," proprietary programming code. Nope. That has to go. The handicap they are putting on voters--an estimated 5% to 10% "thumb on the scales" for Bushites, warmongers and corporatists--has to be removed. And when we no longer have to outvote the machines, to get a Congress that represents us, then we will see democracy in action again--with a fully representative Congress, and a real president. The solution to global warming is DEMOCRACY.

Ever see the movie "Apollo 13"? Remember the scene in which all the engineers, as a collective mind, stood around the table, regarding duplicates of the only objects that the Apollo 13 crew had left on board to save their space ship and bring them home safely--objects like a notebook binder and a roll of duct tape. What was their most critical problem? How to scrub the air of CO2! It took COLLECTIVE INGENUITY. And that was the force that was recognized, and mobilized, by JFK, to put men on the moon in the first place. Egoless, collective thinking and a "can do" attitude. Now, imagine all the engineers in the United States, backed by the government, addressing the same problem, on a larger scale. No self-glorification. No Bushite strutting. No political manipulation. No lies and deceit. No P.R. Just combined brain power, unfetttered. Collective ingenuity.

They said it was impossible. Tell that to an American engineer!

----------------------------

And how did we get that image of earth as a beautiful blue marble with a paper thin film of atmosphere around it?

Idea, meet your time. It has come.

[Peace Patriot]

22. Just want to say that I think the solution is going to be a "chaos theory"

solution--involving small actions spread over a broad field of action. It may not be a big engineering breakthrough, but, rather--as Al Gore suggests in his movie--many individual actions, like turning off a light bulb that isn't needed. And it may happen spontaneously, as critical mass is reached, in human consciousness. But it likely will require positive leadership, government action and some big engineering solutions, in combination with "chaos theory."

We are dealing with a very complex system--life on earth--that operates on "chaos theory" principles. Small actions have big impacts. One species of bird that carries a particular seed in its gut, that is needed in a North American ecosystem, to grow a plant that is utilized by an entirely different species, loses it breeding ground to deforestation or pollution in South America, flies around to exhaustion, and falls out of the sky in great numbers--starved to death. The seed it carries never makes it to the North American ecosystem, and thus the other species, dependent on the plant that the seed grew, develops a new disease, that the plant was a medicinal for. And that species was important to some crop a farmer was growing. So the farmer, to compensate, uses pesticides. Etc.

Proverbially, a "butterfly touches the ground in China, causing a hurricane in Nicaragua." So, say the government in South America bans logging or prevents pollution in 10% of the breeding habitat of the bird that carries the seed that makes the plant that serves as a medicinal for the species needed by the farmer's crop in the North American ecosystem. SOME birds make it. SOME plants grow. SOME of the species that the farmer needs survive. And that is sufficient for the farmer to decide NOT to use pesticides (which has a favorable impact on yet more species). That is "chaos theory." And it's even more complex than this, and involves yet finer gradations of action and its magnified consequences.

So, with our very complex brains, can we not devise a "chaos theory" system to completely reverse global warming? A grand plan, over large volumes of humanity, that gages the impacts of individual actions, and requires, say, turning light bulbs off from 7 pm to 8:15 pm, in one city for one month, or planting x number of trees by a certain date, on one denuded bit of land outside a village in the Amazon, etc.? A system with minimal economic impact on any one place or people, that includes big engineering solutions for certain big problems (coal plant scrubbing, atmosphere scrubbers, clean fuels, "green" architecture), combined with huge numbers of small, local or individual actions, and with production of "green" products and insistence upon "green" distribution (minimal fossil fuel use) as a stimulant to economic health and prosperity?

Are we so stupid that we cannot do this? No, we are not. We just need the vision, the plan and the political will.

[The2ndWheel]

24. We have to pick one, we can't have everything

"small actions"

"A grand plan, over large volumes of humanity, that gages the impacts of individual actions, and requires, say, turning light bulbs off from 7 pm to 8:15 pm, in one city for one month, or planting x number of trees by a certain date, on one denuded bit of land outside a village in the Amazon, etc.?"

Is it small action, or a grand plan?

[kestrel91316]

34. kestrel's nutshell summary: As ecosystems increase in complexity,

they increase in adaptability and long-term stability.

We need to DIVERSIFY and make our human ecosystem MUCH MORE COMPLEX. We have put all our eggs in the fossil fuel basket for WAAAAYYYYYY too long.

[The2ndWheel]

23. Seems like it'll get us into more trouble

"And our great creative, adaptable brains, and our ability to manipulate the environment, which have gotten us INTO trouble, will get us OUT OF trouble."

Do we adapt, or manipulate? Which is it?

So if our solutions to problems only create new, or enhance current problems, we have to hope we can manipulate the environment into a completely artificial cage. If we cannot do such a thing, then we're all quite screwed, because the problems will consume us. If we can do it, then what?

Are we that insane of a species? We keep manipulating, and we end up with more problems. However, if we just keep manipulating, on an ever larger scale, we'll get it right eventually. If we don;t, we'll just manipulate more. Surely then we'll solve the problem. If not, more manipulation. Seriously, this time it'll work.

[Taoschick]

40. What would be the secondary

Effects of "scrubbing the atmosphere"? Do we know what other changes that might cause?

[The2ndWheel]

48. Ah, unintended consequences

Whatever they are, they will make the problem bigger and more complex.

[Shoelace]

80. Amen to that! The ideas are out there, we need to will to capture them now

great post with positive ideas. We can't give up hope for the sake of the earth, our children and all those who follow.

With all the funding going into the war, diverted into research, we
WILL be able to find amazing new ways to mitigate the problems we've created. New forms of energy, carbon sequestration, all need research right now. Thanks for your post!

[ohio2007]

19. So, what they are saying is ; "If you are going to hit the wall anyway-

- might as well get the cart up to full speed" ?

[Virginia Dare]

20. We have lost 6 critical years in dealing with this issue...

most likely we'll lose at least 2 more. For those who think elections don't matter, there's something to chew on.

[AnneD]

21. Good News!!!!!

for conservative right wing nut jobs.....you were right, all of us liberals will burn in hell.

The Bad News....the rapture isn't scheduled for a few more millenniums. :evilgrin:

[cain_7777]

26. Another sugar coated report

We have royally fucked ourselves and greedy ignorant assholes continue to fuck us while telling us its all roses.

[JPZenger]

27. "That will only reduce warming by 0.6 degrees"

The new strategy of the Reichwing is not to totally lie about global warming. Instead, whenever there is a proposal to reduce the problem, they have a scientist show up on TV and say that the measure is not worthwhile because it will only reduce global warming by 0.6 degrees.

Of course, many small measures can combine to big improvements. Also, that media approach completely igores the fact that warming is uneven. It is much more severe near the poles than it is near the equator. Therefore, a regulation may reduce warming by 0.6 of a degree in the south, but a few degrees at the north pole.

[Marie26]

28. NYT: Panel Says Warming Caused by Humans

PARIS, Feb. 2 —The world is already committed to centuries of warming, shifting weather patterns and rising seas from the atmospheric buildup of gases that trap heat, but the warming can be substantially blunted by prompt action, an international network of climate experts said today.

The report released here represented the fourth assessment since 1990 by the group, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the United Nations, of the causes and consequences of climate change. But for the first time the group asserted with near certainty — more than 90 percent confidence — that carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases were the main drivers of warming since 1950.

In its last report, in 2001, the panel, consisting of hundreds of scientists and reviewers, put the confidence level at between 66 and 90 percent. Both reports are online at www.ipcc.ch.

If carbon dioxide concentrations reach twice their pre-industrial levels, the report said, the climate will likely warm some 3.5 to 8 degrees. But there would be more than a one in 10 chance of much greater warming, a situation many earth scientists say poses an unacceptable risk.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/02/science/earth/02cnd-climate.html?hp&ex=1170478800&en=7f0ce59ee7d312e5&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[bdamomma]

29. we better get ready for the consequences for our actions.

even our earth is telling us to stop. :cry:

[Gato Moteado]

30. but rush limbaugh, sean hannity, dennis miller, michael crichton....

...pat robertson, and a whole bunch of other rightwing pundits and oil industry executives and spokespeople say that global warming is hogwash.

so, how am i supposed to believe some scientists that also support ridiculous claims like evolution?

[Dark]

82. Actually, Pat Robertson has come over to the environmentalists' side. Fuck the others.

And Robertson, he's still a bastard.

[PinkTiger]

31. This is tantamount to hearing the Earth is spherical in shape.

Not really surprising news, except to those who still hold to the "flat Earth" theory.

[kestrel91316]

32. Our local talk radio fascist shill, Bill Handel, did his AM rant today

on KFI radio, talking about this report. He essentially agreed with it, as far as acknowledging man's responsibility.

You wanna know what he said his personal response would be? Bear in mind, this allegedly caring parent has two pre-teen daughters. He said it really made no difference to him whether GW existed, or was caused by man. He will just make sure not to live on the beach, and as it gets hotter he'll JUST CRANK UP THE A/C. He said it's only a matter of money, and basically he can afford to run more A/C.

Total lack of comprehension of CAUSE AND EFFECT. And this man claims to love his daughters.

[Celefin]

36. "...whether GW existed, or was caused by man."

sorry...
you really made me laugh there.
hehe.

That he does exist seems a fact.., unless he's a hologram.
Which might explain something.

Have a nice warm day!

[kestrel91316]

64. Well that would be the OTHER GW i was referring to, lol

[Lydia Leftcoast]

37. Dupe

:shrug:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

38. And yet people come onto DU and try to tell us why they

absolutely HAVE TO drive an SUV (or two, one for each spouse) and HAVE TO build a trophy house out in the country that means they'll be driving their behemoths at least 20 miles a day EACH, and when some of us object to their environmental irresponsibility, we're being "politically correct" or "trying to impinge on their freedom" or some nonsense like that.

Yeah, yeah, I know houses are more expensive closer in--but with all the driving the typical exurbanite has to do, it's probably a wash. Besides, each car you give up saves you several thousand dollars a year. I have a "free" car, given to me when my mother gave up driving, I hardly ever use it, and it still costs me $3000 a year in insurance, gas, repairs, and maintenance. If I had car payments, it would be closer to $6000. Let's see--give up one car, afford $500 more a month in mortgage payments .

If we were serious about global warming, we'd demand, yes, demand, better mass transit, better inter-city rail, and the banning of further building of Typical Strip-Mall Suburbia, a land-use pattern that requires people to drive.

We'd redefine "standard of living" and "quality of life" not in the amount of Big Stuff that we own but in access to wholesome food, sensible clothes; stores, entertainment, and services located within walking or biking distance; access to effective and humane schools, well-stocked libraries, well-maintained public spaces such as parks and recreation areas, public transit that takes you everywhere, clean air and water, health care as a human right, and jobs that pay a living wage.

[Taoschick]

41. Great

Tell my state legislature to pave the roads in NM so I won't have to drive a 4WD vehicle. I'm not going to close down my business, abandon my home and move into a city just because someone who already lives in one believes that's the best choice for everyone else.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

59. I rest my case

I wonder what people did before 4WD vehicles, like in the old days before World War II, when few rural roads anywhere were paved.

[TheMadMonk]

66. Made the vehicles robustly enough that metal fatigue wasn't a problem.

[Taoschick]

72. Well, Gee...

They got stuck a lot and had to walk. Of course, most people living in rural areas were farmers. It should also be noted their vehicles weren't nearly as "clean" as my 4WD.

It's generally very difficult for someone accustomed to cities to understand that some of us do not want to live packed like sardines. When I open my bedroom window, I'm not looking straight into my neighbor's living room. I certainly don't begrudge anyone who wants to live that way the opportunity, all I ask is that they not expect me to live the way they choose.

[Psephos]

71. No. you must do exactly what someone else tells you to do

New Mexico is going to be closed down, anyway, except for Santa Fe.

So pick a city like, hmmm, New York. Then dismantle your life and move there. You can always get a waitress job until something better comes along. Yeah, the rents are a little pricey (forget about ownership), but at least the street food is cheap.

Or Los Angeles. No, scratch that, L.A. is going to be closed down, too, because of its insane horizontal spread.

Well, you could come to Detroit. Lots of cheap property for sale there.

Ok, enough sarcasm. Global warming actually *is* inevitable. How do we know? Because the Earth goes through it pretty regularly, every 1200-1500 years. There was a centuries-long episode of it a thousand years ago called the Medieval Warm Period, that brought farming and villages to Greenland, right where the thick ice is now.

That was followed by a cooling period, called the Little Ice Age, that lasted from around 1600 to 1850 or so. During this time, the Thames River (and the Great Lakes) froze solid every winter, and the apparent latitude of England and Northern Europe was 5-8 degrees more northerly than currently.

SUV emissions obviously cannot be blamed for the M.W.P. any more than they can be blamed for the Bolling Interstadial (warm period) that melted the North American glaciers 12000 years ago, followed by the extremely rapid-onset Younger Dryas re-advance of the glaciers. Then, poof, the cold was gone again, and the Earth has been warming for 10000 years ever since, basking in the Holocene sun.

The point is that warming and cooling periods are the nature of Nature and have been for millions of years.

There's no doubt that human activity is impacting natural processes and cycles already in play. How much? Anyone who claims to know is a charlatan, or worse, someone who substitutes political belief for science. Leave it to the True Believers to muck up the process of science, which by definition requires a nonpolitical attitude and a "prove it" attitude about new theories.

The prudent course is to treat human impact as a major problem, and work to diminish it. If we're wrong, and overshoot, that just means Nature will be back to her unsupplemented ways. Of course, the right way to diminish human impact is to diminish the number of humans.

Meanwhile, the finger-waggers who want you to move out of Taos to, I guess, Houston or St. Louis or something think they understand what no career climatologist understands. They also think they understand you better than you do yourself.

And meanwhile, while you lose your business and jam yourself in some inner-city apartment, a billion Chinese and a billion Indians will continue to dump ever-increasing amounts of industrial gases into the atmosphere at ever-increasing rates (China is already the #2 emitter of CO2, and soon will be #1). And as mainland Asian wealth increases, they'll all be buying (non-emission-controlled) cars at ever-increasing rates, soon dwarfing the number of cars used in North America and Europe. If we're serious about diminishing greenhouse gases, mainland Asia is the bullseye on the target.

I'm a thinking, rational person, and so are you, Taoschick. I have a small carbon footprint, and it's getting smaller as I figure out how to live even more greenly. But green living does not include using pop-culture science myths to justify engineering other peoples' lives, and destroying the reasons we're alive in the first place.

Peace.

[ItNerd4life]

39. Unstoppable? What horse manure is this?

If we are causing global warming then we can stop global warming.

Who allowed the 'Morans' to help write this? sheesh, talk about RW talking points.
If we can't stop it, then how can they say we are the ones who started it?
If we can't stop it, then why bother trying? Let's just let the earth go to hell.

[WindRavenX]

43. Well, sadly, that's not true--we may have gone past the tipping point

While that's debatable, I am sad to say that just because we ARE the biggest cause of global warming...we may be too late.

Al Gore needs to run. The world needs him.

[slackmaster]

45. Have you seen the graphic of projected precipitation changes on page 20?

It shows precipitation estimated for years 2090 - 2099. The places that show the highest projected increases happen to be the northern and southern polar regions.

I'm not sure what passing the tipping point will do, but if history is a guide it should eventually result in glaciation.

[WindRavenX]

46. it depends

I disagree that this current chain of events will lead to glatiation--that was in the past when the carbon cycle was still functional and could return to some sort of equilibrium. The other factor is whether or not the sun's output will change.

on edit: where is that chart? The problem is the freakin' arctic shelf is melting away--not sure what the percep. will do.

[slackmaster]

50. Link to the full report in PDF format

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/02_02_07_climatereport.pdf

The problem is the freakin' arctic shelf is melting away--not sure what the percep. will do.

It's happened before, and between every interglacial period there has been a period of glaciation.

If the Earth cannot regulate itself, maybe it will become more like Venus. I suspect that the heat will lead to more cloudiness, which will reflect away some of the heat.

[slackmaster]

44. We can reduce the amount of CO2 and CH4 we put into the atmosphere

And the Earth's natural feedback and regulatory systems should put it back in the glacial/interglacial cycle it's had for as long as we have measured back in time.

Here is the Vostok Ice Core data summarized:

[NickB79]

70. Current CO2 levels are already off that chart

They're approaching 390 ppm, and there have been numerous reports estimating CO2 concentrations of 550 ppm by 2050 may be realistic.

What worries me is that natural glaciation hasn't kicked in yet to reverse the effects of global warming even though we're far past the point in previous cycles where it did kick in, at least in terms of CO2 concentrations.

[ponthedge]

49. More information...

This issue is complex. There is way more going on here than meets the eye. I do not trust either side right now, seems to me like a wag the dog moment...oops, by the way, we invaded Iran while the country was sidetracked...

<http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/moveabletype/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=2&search=trenberth>

[Morgana LaFey]

52. Just how bad could it be???

THIS bad (from the article):

The panel predicted temperature rises of 2-11.5 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2100. It said its best estimate was for temperature rises of 3.2-7.1 degrees.


this is simply catastrophic.

[Altean Wanderer]

53. Yes, especially when you consider that...

the freaky weather and warming seen to date is the result of only a 1 degree rise over preindustrial times.

[Morgana LaFey]

56. Yes, thanks for the context

NOW imagine 11.5 degrees rise? The planet WILL be uninhabitable. Very simply. Of course, it won't be so bad - - we will all have perished in the meantime, along with just about every other species on the planet (except maybe roaches and rats).

[spanone]

58. Ms. Mother Nature put an exclamation mark on it this morning.

[Judi Lynn]

60. Bolivia's only ski resort faces a snowless future

Bolivia's only ski resort faces a snowless future
By Simon Romero Published: February 2, 2007

CHACALTAYA, Bolivia: The lodge here at what bills itself as the world's highest ski resort has fraying black-and-white photos evoking memories of the years when this country had an Olympic ski team.

Bolivia's die-hard skiers still boast about the place, asking where else one can ski above the clouds at a dizzying 17,388 feet with a view of Lake Titicaca on the horizon.

Where else, they ask, would the après-ski tradition include coca tea and soup made from the grain of the quinoa plant?

Their pride in the ski resort here, the only one in Bolivia, soon gives way to a grim acceptance that the glacier that once surrounded the lodge with copious amounts of snow and ice is melting fast.
(snip/...)

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/02/healthscience/web.0202bolivia.php

[LanternWaste]

61. And from Denial River in Freeperville....

I do have one obvious guilty pleasure-- I like to hit FR and gauge reaction to stories like this. It's a bit plain to all of us that they really are they Ostrich Party. So, enjoy the non-edited absurdities (but weep a bit also...)

My fav-- it's all a hoax to make Bush* look bad.





So why bother spending massive amounts of money to reduce Co2 amounts?
Because that's their real socialist agenda. If their models were accurate, which they are not, we could easily use them to determine relative inexpensive climate mitigation if that became necessary.
***************************************************************************************


When serious scientists brought up the concept of the sun, it evidently panicked the socialists who were championing this hoax to gain advantage in their global socialist scheme and the redistribution of wealth that it would push.


***************************************************************************************
This statement says it all. If we are powerless to stop it, then how in the heck did we have the power to start it?????

***************************************************************************************

So what is the point of Kyoto?
Global socialism - with the US taxpayer footing the bill.

***************************************************************************************


So these idiots are going to meet in France and try to blame nature on man? If man doesn't believe man caused nature then man is in the clear. I guess the lawyers are becoming nervous. It will be difficult to serve a summons on God.
***************************************************************************************

I propose that all 'man causes global warming' articles be posted in the religion section in that there is no fairy-tale section.

***************************************************************************************

WHy are they pushing this?? Is it all just to make Bush look bad?

***************************************************************************************


Why is there push every year concerning global warming when it is the coldest time of year?

[MasonJar]

63. The only bright spot is that the idiots Pugs like Bush, Cheney, etc.

will suffer dire consequences (along with the rest of us) because of their own actions.

[entanglement]

65. I hope they don't accept the $10000 AEI is offering scientists to change their report

;)

[paparush]

67. Bush to ask Congress for $245 B I L L I O N......

for the f#cking war! ARGGGGGHHHHH!! The best minds on the planet are saying we better get our shit together and the leaders of the wealthiest country in the history of civilization are just fucking psycho for warfare.
Like, we're not gonna notice that Miami is underwater 'cause we're too glued to Faux news to see the live footage from Falujua?

[Matilda]

74. We don't need a War President right now,

we need an Environment President. Please step up, Al Gore.

And I say "we" because the world needs the US to take a lead on this
issue.

[Heidi]

73. Kick.

:kick:

[PaulaFarrell]

75. UN delivers definitive warning on dangers of climate change

A terrifying leap in average global temperatures of 6.4C ­ with higher figures nearer the poles ­ could occur over the next century, according to the most authoritative report yet on global warming.

The rise, which would make agriculture, even life, almost impossible over much of the Earth, was the worst-case scenario envisaged by hundreds of scientists on the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They reported yesterday on their three-year study of how temperatures are likely to rise as global warming takes hold.

The "six-degree world" might come about by 2100, the scientists said, if human society carries on with rapid economic growth and high levels of burning fossil fuels ­ coal, oil and gas ­ which emit the carbon dioxide causing the atmosphere to warm. Their worst case was worse than that suggested in the previous IPCC report, published in 2001, when the highest rise envisaged by the end of the century was 5.8C.

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2211571.ece


...are we fucked yet?

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PaulaFarrell]

77. 6.4 degrees Celsius = about 12 F

I think you are getting confused because freezing point is 32F and 0C so if it's 6C outside it's about 43F. But the difference for 32 to 43.52 is 11-12F which is equla to diff btween 0C and 6C.

[dethl]

79. My bad....I used google to calculate it...

Oops. :P

If you want a mod to delete it...go for it.

[Taoschick]

78. Could occur?

And flying pink unicorns could sail over my house as well.

Why on earth to we allowing these predictions to throw us into a panic? It's not like they've got a long track record of accurate climate predictions, is it? As a matter of fact, it's an ever changing *science* and their record of accuracy is just about on par with the pre-war intelligence we "predicted" for a decade before we invaded Iraq.

[Joe Bacon]

81. It doesn't matter because Jesus is comin back in a week or 2!

'course when JC AND HIS SONSHINE BAND® make a return engagement, there may be nothing left for them to resurrect!

:sarcasm: mode now off