|
There are currently, 125 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
| |
| |
Guest Opinion: Global Warming Twenty Years Later
Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 @ 22:24:04 UTC by vlad
|
|
From the WorldWatch Institute:
by James Hansen on June 23, 2008
Tipping Points Near
Today, I will testify to Congress about global warming, 20
years after my June 23, 1988 testimony, which alerted the public that global
warming was under way. There are striking similarities between then and now,
but one big difference.
Again a wide gap has developed between what is understood
about global warming by the relevant scientific community and what is known by
policymakers and the public. Now, as then, frank assessment of scientific data
yields conclusions that are shocking to the body politic. Now, as then, I can
assert that these conclusions have a certainty exceeding 99 percent.
The difference is that now we have used up all slack in the
schedule for actions needed to defuse the global warming time bomb. The next
President and Congress must define a course next year in which the United States
exerts leadership commensurate with our responsibility for the present
dangerous situation.
Otherwise, it will become impractical to constrain
atmospheric carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas produced in burning fossil fuels,
to a level that prevents the climate system from passing tipping points that
lead to disastrous climate changes that spiral dynamically out of humanity's
control.
Changes needed to preserve creation, the planet on which
civilization developed, are clear. But the changes have been blocked by special
interests, focused on short-term profits, who hold sway in Washington and other capitals.
I argue that a path yielding energy independence and a
healthier environment is, barely, still possible. It requires a transformative
change of direction in Washington
in the next year.
Then: Time to "Stop
Waffling" ...
Full article: http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5798
|
| |
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
| |
Average Score: 1 Votes: 1
| |
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
Re: Guest Opinion: Global Warming Twenty Years Later (Score: 1) by malc on Wednesday, June 25, 2008 @ 00:21:01 UTC (User Info | Send a Message) http://web.ukonline.co.uk/mripley | Nothing will come of this the deniers have won. It is clear (unless you are blind, deaf , don't have a computer on the internet and never read newspapers) that the Earth is changing and doing so more rapidly each year. We have reached the tipping point and there is no way in hell that legislation and actions from it will have any affect in the required timescale.
Goodbye comfortable life we knew.....and the deniers were worried about giving up a 4x4....Jesus that was trivial!
|
|
|
Re: Guest Opinion: Global Warming Twenty Years Later (Score: 1) by dobermanmacleod on Wednesday, June 25, 2008 @ 01:49:09 UTC (User Info | Send a Message) | "Few seem to realise that the present IPCC models predict almost unanimously that by 2040 the average summer in Europe will be as hot as the summer of 2003 when over 30,000 died from heat. By then we may cool ourselves with air conditioning and learn to live in a climate no worse than that of Baghdad now. But without extensive irrigation the plants will die and both farming and natural ecosystems will be replaced by scrub and desert. What will there be to eat? The same dire changes will affect the rest of the world and I can envisage Americans migrating into Canada and the Chinese into Siberia but there may be little food for any of them." --Dr James Lovelock's lecture to the Royal Society, 29 Oct. '07
"Leemans and Eickhout (2004) found that adaptive capacity decreases rapidly with an increasing rate of climate change. Their study finds that five percent of all ecosystems cannot adapt more quickly than 0.1 C per decade over time. Forests will be among the ecosystems to experience problems first because their ability to migrate to stay within the climate zone they are adapted to is limited. If the rate is 0.3 C per decade, 15 percent of ecosystems will not be able to adapt. If the rate should exceed 0.4 C per decade, all ecosystems will be quickly destroyed, opportunistic species will dominate, and the breakdown of biological material will lead to even greater emissions of CO2. This will in turn increase the rate of warming" --Leemans and Eickhout (2004), "Another reason for concern: regional and global impacts on ecosystems for different levels of climate change," Global Environmental Change 14, 219–228
We've warmed at a rate of 0.2 C/decade for the last two decades.
|
Re: Guest Opinion: Global Warming Twenty Years Later (Score: 1) by Koen on Wednesday, June 25, 2008 @ 22:35:03 UTC (User Info | Send a Message) http://no.nl/tesla | Computer simulation of global climate changes are based on an over-simplification of all the physics involved with climate. The result is a "video game" unfit for realistic predictions.
A realistic computer simulation would be very slow: it would take thousands of years to do realistic simulations by our fastests computers of today. Only if we can speed up hardware with factor 1000 or so, will climate simulation become useful.
So don't be fooled by the nerds playing video games, be cool, and after 30 years or so, be warm.
Guys like Lovelock and Gore are not changing their personal life-style (more energy efficient for instance) because there is no carbondioxide based global warming.
Now we are afraid of 0.3 C increase of temperature per decade. We are not afraid of world wide deforestation by tree harvesting ??? It would be much easier to call for a world wide stop of chopping trees into pieces.
Deforestation for the shere profit of a small minority is the real problem here, not the natural changes in "global" climate.
|
]
|
|
Re: Guest Opinion: Global Warming Twenty Years Later (Score: 1) by Technophile on Wednesday, June 25, 2008 @ 06:56:26 UTC (User Info | Send a Message) | Interesting, isn't it, that after 20 years of this warming crisis, when Hansen is calling for heads to roll, that the temperature is actually cooler now than when he gave his first speech.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/ (There's no permalink, so you have to scroll down quite a ways to the graph.)
Face it folks. No matter how hard you BELIEVE, it's not going to change the facts on the ground. And the facts all say that CO2 is a minor player in the climate, and the Sun is the controlling influence.
|
Re: Guest Opinion: Global Warming Twenty Years Later (Score: 1) by malc on Tuesday, July 01, 2008 @ 00:29:47 UTC (User Info | Send a Message) http://web.ukonline.co.uk/mripley | Where does the heat come from? The sun, yes, of course it does. How does the excess heat escape from the atmosphere? That's a different mechanism involving different "players".
For you to link ths Sun and CO2 as you have is very misleading, shame on you. Well not really, shame on the readers falling for it.
There's a big picture involving all the mechanisms that affect the climate. The number of people who DONT "believe" man has something to do with it are few and far between and decreasing in numbers (hello wakey wakey! remaining skeptics). However they are becoming more vocal as does anybody who is losing an argument, human nature. Especially the US skeptics who have a double problem in that they have been lied to for years by their administration and now have to admit two exceptionally difficult things: 1. They are wrong about global warming i.e. a change to their belief system. 2. They fell for the lies of government (that's a very hard one for anybody with supposed intelligence to admit....so they don't).
|
]
Re: Guest Opinion: Global Warming Twenty Years Later (Score: 1) by Technophile on Tuesday, July 01, 2008 @ 07:00:07 UTC (User Info | Send a Message) | Typically, for alarmists, you fail to address the factual point.
It is cooler now than when Mr. "I'm being censored" gave his first speech 20 years ago.
There is a sun - CO2 link. As oceans get warmer they release more CO2. There is also a very minor CO2 greenhouse effect. But the massive positive feedbacks in the models necessary for the catastrophic warming predictions are simply absurd, and completely unfounded.
|
]
|
|
Re: Guest Opinion: Global Warming Twenty Years Later (Score: 1) by Koen on Wednesday, June 25, 2008 @ 22:17:44 UTC (User Info | Send a Message) http://no.nl/tesla | Hansen's solution to "carbon-dioxide based global warming": carbon tax. Again this is the 'problem-reaction-solution' scenario according to David Icke's superb observations.
The problem: carbon dioxide is causing global warming. Hansen is 99% sure of this; well, he is wrong. Carbon dioxide is not causing global warming. Even if extra human made atmospheric carbon-dioxide would block more infra-red radiation (which is NOT proven at all), one should expect global COOLING, because more Infra-red radiation is going DOWN (towards the earth surface) than going UP (towards higher atmosphere). Remember: half of the sun radiation energy spectrum is already Infra-red radiation!!!! Secondly, a greenhouse effect is based on blocking energy flow in the form of GAS CONVECTION by means of glas. Extra atmospheric carbon-dioxide cannot do this !!! Conlusion: there are OTHER factors causing global warming, such as NATURAL climate changes. The formulated "problem" is lie, which is always the case in the 'problem-reaction-solution' scenario.
The public reaction to this fake problem is, as always: fear, and a public demand for a solution. The "standing ovation" for Hansen is an example of this.
The solution is not to replace (on short term) the carbon-dioxide producing technologies, but to TAX EVERYBODY who is making use of this technology. That is about everbody in the "developed" countries. This will cause a global economic depression, which is needed to control us. We are about 10 years away from maturing alternative technologies (solar panels, and multiple other energy conversion techniques) and replacing the oil-coal-gas dependency by a decentralised energy infrastructure. This means that our covert global 'masters' are loosing one of their most important means to control us. In order to prevent the maturing of alternative energy conversion technologies, a great economic depression has to be staged. If this won't do the trick, a global war can be planned as well.
Manipulation of the public conscience is going on for centuries, so c'mon slaves, wake up, and demand for a real and scientific analysis for global warming/cooling and other climate changes.
And for the polar bear, there are 50 times more polar bears than during the fifties, and this animal species survived many climate changes already. "Maybe the polar bear was a little bit green during the times that Greenland was indeed green". It is the nature of living nature to adapt.
|
|
|
A dash of lime -- a new twist that may cut CO2 levels back to pre-industrial levels (Score: 1) by vlad on Monday, July 21, 2008 @ 23:29:10 UTC (User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com | A dash of lime -- a new twist that may cut CO2 levels back to pre-industrial levels
Scientists say they have found a workable way of reducing CO2 levels in
the atmosphere by adding lime to seawater. And they think it has the
potential to dramatically reverse CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere,
reports Cath O'Driscoll in SCI's Chemistry & Industry magazine published today.
Shell is so impressed with the
new approach that it is funding an investigation into its economic
feasibility. 'We think it's a promising idea,' says Shell's Gilles
Bertherin, a coordinator on the project. 'There are potentially huge
environmental benefits from addressing climate change – and adding
calcium hydroxide to seawater will also mitigate the effects of ocean
acidification, so it should have a positive impact on the marine
environment.'
Adding lime to seawater increases alkalinity, boosting seawater's
ability to absorb CO2 from air and reducing the tendency to release it
back again.
However, the idea, which has been bandied about for years, was
thought unworkable because of the expense of obtaining lime from
limestone and the amount of CO2 released in the process.
Tim Kruger, a management consultant at London firm Corven is the
brains behind the plan to resurrect the lime process. He argues that it
could be made workable by locating it in regions that have a
combination of low-cost 'stranded' energy considered too remote to be
economically viable to exploit – like flared natural gas or solar
energy in deserts – and that are rich in limestone, making it feasible
for calcination to take place on site.
... More: http://www.physorg.com/news135820173.html [www.physorg.com]
|
|
|
|
|