An international team of scientists has presented its list of those regions of the planet most at risk from global warming, which are in danger of "sudden and catastrophic collapse" should they pass "tipping point" thresholds beyond which they will never recover. The researchers, comprising experts from the Potsdam Institute for …
The Elephant in the room
...Said it before, so I'll say it again:
- Nobody (apart from 1 poster above) seems to mention the fact that at our existing technology levels, we could continue to burn C02 as we do now....if only there was 3 billion of us, rather that 6. And if we hadn't chopped all the trees down - but if there was only 3 billion of us, did we *really* need to chop them down in the first place?
Serious kids - do the numbers on this. To the naysayers: give me one - if you can find one - set of evidence which shows our current GLOBAL population levels & birth rates are sustainable. Or even "a good thing". We already consume resources at a rate 2x higher than can be replenished, and that's not even including oil (which can't).
It's typical human hypocracy to assume we have the right to control/cull other "lower" species, but do nothing (of any significance) to control our own. And that would be far more effective than the "tinkering at the edges" we're doing now, with our governments feeble efforts at CO2 reduction.
we have *not* dumped 4 billions years worth of CO2 into the atmosphere; we *have* merely unbalanced the system by deforestation (to feed those extra billions, remember), and creating more CO2 than the volcanoes. It's all that's needed. Put a 30billion ton weight on both sides of a scale. Pretend 1 weight is C02, and the other is the "negative" effect of our carbon sinks.Then add 1gram to one side, or take 1 gram off the other. Or both.
And to the Naysayers:
stick your fingers in your ears and go "la,la,la,la......". I'd give that more credience that the supposedly inteligent (and typically flawed) hyperbole I've seen here. And maybe you won't hear the agents from the department of population control sneaking up on you with the lethal injection.
@ Mark == Climate Scientist?
"I'm a physicist. Actually took astrophysics but I'm not IT support."
That line made my day.
There's a real unbiased source!
Crichton? You mean the guy who writes all those crappy novels?
Why are you citing Michael Crichton? He's not a scientist, he's just a guy who converts scientific principles into turgid potboilers.
Re:The Elephant in the room
Problem is, fixing that means someone has to die. Or they have to stop having children.
And it's *always* someone else.
Water shortages in the SE would seem to me we here in the UK have a population problem.
Unfortunately, nobody wants to set up a cull in kent...
PS it should have been "now IT support" rather than "not IT support".
Maybe freudian, though...
The graphs, and a lot more
I have seen the IPCC stuff, not convincing at all. It has all the marks of a promotional document produced by a heavily managed political ideology group.
You will find the graphs and a lot more in here:
http://www.rabbitlink.com/www.rabbitlink.com/GlobalWarming.html (the repeat in the URL is not an error). More entertaining than Al Gore's movie, with a lot fewer lies.
An example of many things you have wrong: I am not a boy, I am a professor emeritus. Easy to check my age by by doing some simple research...
Wasting money means people die
Mark, wasting money on ineffective actions and corrupted remedies will also cause people to die.
The misconceived biofuels disaster has already caused that by diverting food production to fuel production.
Nothing I have seen says Kyoto will fix anything, yet it will cost billions which could have been spent on doing directly useful things like feeding people, taking remedial action to adapt to any changes that are affecting peoples' lives, R&D for carbon sequestering and for new energy systems. Kyoto will be manipulated by governments and businesses for their own purposes as is already happening. I expect most of the offsets will be ineffectual shams and the biggest contributors will be shielded and immune.
"What we have now is the closest to the truth we can get."
Only if you don't try, mate.
For Mark's benefit, the IPCC has already declared its level of scientific understanding on climate forcing factors. El Reg even printed the graph:
Greenhouse Gases: Scientific Understanding - HIGH
Ozone: Scientific Understanding - MEDIUM
Water Vapor: Scientific Understanding - LOW
Surface Albedo: Scientific Understanding - MEDIUM/LOW
Direct affect aerosols: Scientific Understanding - MEDIUM/LOW
Cloud albedo aerosols: Scientific Understanding - LOW
Linear contrails: Scientific Understanding - LOW
Solar: Scientific Understanding - LOW
Which looks like the science hasn't even started.
I'm not sure where Mark works but I sure hope it isn't anything to do with the climate. People who say the science is over when our understanding of most of the factors is "LOW" belong in the Vatican, not a scientific institution.
Re: The Elephant in the room
Blimey, someone finally talks some sense round here.
It's basic physics. It's known that CO2 causes atmospheric warming. We're taking lots of C out of the ground (where it was sat about doing, well, not much really) and mixing it with O and bunging it up in the air. Now, there are also *lots* of other things we're doing, like deforestation, lowering biodiversity, chucking particulates into the atmosphere etc, that also have an effect. Thing is, it's nigh-on impossible to determine if the warming is caused by us, natural causes, or both. But it's very well known that CO2 warms the atmosphere, so it might be an idea to cut back on burning fossil fuels, eh? Surely it's not too hard to build some nice nuclear power stations and hope they don't blow up, tax aeroplanes in the same way as cars, make people drive more economical vehicles, and stop flying bloody flowers and mange tout halfway across the world.
It's a bit like smoking. You *know* smoking has a pretty good chance of cutting your life span significantly, and also reducing your quality of life for the duration you are alive, so it's a good idea not to smoke. You might not think you should stop, because you're addicted, but stopping really is the best thing. It might not kill you but the odds make it such that it's worthwhile doing something about it.
Or, we just say screw it and hope there's a whacking great volcano soon to counteract all that nasty CO2. Whaddayasay, Yellowstone?
" so it might be an idea" etc
This is called the Precautionary Principle, aka Leap before you Look - and it's why we're in Iraq right now.
There are better approaches than asking people to swap one superstition (CO2) for another (praying for particulate matter). We could add up the costs and benefits of the approaches rationally, and try and calculate their chances of success.
Yes, we could halt economic growth and go back to the middle-ages, we can predict the cost will be extremely high, and we don't know if this will have any effect, since the anthropogenic contribution to greenhouse gases is minimal.
With the planet cooling again, this is not the rational course of action. Just as taking drastic action on the bet that Iraq had WMDs was not rational in 2003.
And you claim that the scientists are all conspiring to hide the truth, yet in the document they give you, they TELL YOU what they don't know well.
So why don't you find out what really IS happening with linear contrails climatologically speaking? Rather than bleat "ecofacist!".
And where did I say it was The Ttruth? I said it was the closest to The Truth we have. And then I pointed out that where we don't know, how do we know the error is going to be such a way that there is no issue, rather than "OMFG"?
You spend a lot of time trash talking (you work for the Oil Industry?) why don't you help us know what's going on?
Re: Wasting money means people die
So stop wasting money on armed forces until we've got world hunger sorted.
Stop monetising GM foods until we've got world health sorted out.
We waste money on lots of things.
And with AGW we don't have any evidence that that money is wasted.
Unless you want to work out what we should be doing and defend that against AC calling you mad.
Re: Wasting money means people die
"And with AGW we don't have any evidence that that money is wasted."
That's already nonsense and will become more so as the vast bureaucratic industry based on Kyoto cranks into gear.
I already said what we should be doing and am quite prepared to defend that against anyone - or more to the point listen to and consider criticisms objectively and rationally.
Speculating on solutions ahead of firm evidence is a job for private investors, not for Governments with other peoples' lives and money.
Clearly the science is not settled and the debate on both sides degenerates far too quickly into propaganda and personal attacks. In my opinion both Gore's film and the "Great Global Warming Swindle" opposition are polemics that cherry-pick rather than illuminate the facts.
As I said before, from what I have seen of it I think climate science is at the stage where it can raise serious questions but not answer them. I believe good knowledge will eventually come out of it and good solutions will be found for the problems that turn out to be real but I do not think we can identify sufficiently either the problems or the solutions for them at this time. I am sure the current implementations around Kyoto will do much more harm than good.
What would be firm evidence, Alan?
Some say "yeah, it's been warmer in the past" but then it's damn warm now. We know CO2 can cause that and we know that we are pumping out a LOT of CO2.
So we need to reduce or even sopt producing CO2.
So if you really need proof, why isn't that proof enough?
"We know CO2 can cause that and we know that we are pumping out a LOT of CO2."
Because a correlation does not mean causation. So case unproven.
For a pretend climate scientist, you really don't know much about science.
"So if you really need proof"
Uh, as opposed to what? Believing you because... you look pretty? Or you are a Very Special Mark? Or should we just believe the most emotional argument going?
Truly we are in An Age of Reason!
Hang on, the causation IS KNOWN!!!!
CO2 is opaque to IR radiation. THAT'S THE CAUSATION!
And if you really need proof: you can go to your local college physics department and do the experiment to prove it yourself.
Re: So if you really need proof
Well the most emotional argument going is "ecofacists are conspiring to get us all living in caves because they hate us!!!".
Preffy effing emo.
Re: What would be firm evidence, Alan?
1. A model that doesn't require significant twealing every time a new piece of data is obtained or when yet another year without significant average warming passes.
2. A predictive ability that produces confidence in its estimate to within a small percentage of the predicted warming factor rather than one so large that the prediction is worthless.
3. A solid understanding of cloud and convection formation and behaviour including both the reflecting and insulating effects of clouds and precipitation thereby improving our understanding of the critical atmospheric water vapour balance.
4. A better understanding of polar ice behaviour patterns.
5. A better understanding of soil and ocean carbon cycles.
6. Better technologies for carbon sequestering at source as well as by enhancing and protecting natural absorption cycles.
7. Better understanding of the cosmic and solar radiation cycles and their impacts and interactions with the earth and its atmosphere.
Way to spend all your efforts arguing with a troll. I stick by my one and only post. [c.f. Scientists warn on climatic 'tipping points' - Reg moderator]
It's a bit sad to see Mark on his lonesome here with hardly an argument to stand on except CO2 absorbs IR. So does water and a heap of other things - in fact pretty much every molecule that has vibrational quantum states. I may have spent more time working with IR spectra than you have, Mark.
The big question is how our atmosphere controls water vapour content through convection and precipitation. And it is not one that has a simple answer - certainly not yet. Until we understand that we are nowhere near having predictive capabilities.
I am not sure who Mark is (are there two?) or who he is calling a troll but it certainly doesn't inform any debate nor have any place in science.
OK, so all I have is CO2 absorbs IR. IR is heat radiated from the earth. trapped heat causes temerature to rise (like, ooh, a jumper keeping you warm,though it produces no heat in itself).
And that's not any proof that global warming is going on????
I take it you don't wrap up warm in winter because that's notgoing to cause body warming, eh?
Troll or twat? Heck, you could be both.
Now you are just being plain stupid as well as rude, Mark. CO2 absorbs IR. It also radiates it and disperses it via molecular collisions so that it becomes a transport medium.
I don't wrap up in winter with a material that is constantly convecting and interacting with a much denser "insulator" (water vapour) that is also circulating, forming cloud barriers to incoming radiation (my warmth is generated internally, not externally) and in very complex dynamic equilibriums with huge variations in temperature from place to place and time to time.
The amount of CO2 warming is small compared with water vapour. To have a significant GW effect it needs a multiplier deduced from a secondary positive feedback impact on water vapour concentrations. But we don't properly understand the negative feedback systems controlling water vapour, clouds, precipitation and temperature. Hence caution.
A fool never knows what he doesn't know. And I haven't learnt anything useful from your posts yet.
Ha! Look who started it!!!!
"it's a bit sad to see mark all alone here"
yeah, apart from the other people agreeing with me.
Can I add a gramme of cyanide to your coffee, alan? It's a miniscule fraction of your bodyweight and your body naturally produces it, so it should be fine, yes?
Saddam Hussein also found people who agreed with him and was pretty good with stuff like cyanide too, Mark. It didn't make much he said right or useful either. I'll leave you to your opinions and unpleasantness.
Whether the global warming debate is ultimately proven or not - and I'm agnostic. I have to say the arguments used by those who don't believe it's happening are becoming remarkably similar to those who oppose other theories .. .like evolution .
"It was tha sunspots what done it" "God put tha dinosaur bones there to test us".
Think before ranting
It's funny how people say that it's all a conspiracy by the scientists to make money, and then go on about a film they've seen or a book they've read which proves everything, without realising that makers of the books and films have a money motivation of their own.
You can tell how poorly educated someone is on the subject when they think that 1932 was the hottest year in recent world history (it is only one of the hottest years for the US, the whole of the world (you know, "global" part of global warming) has them all in the last 20 years). The actual figures are all freely available from the NASA website.
Why is it that people promote the idea of huge areas of land becoming usable for crops but completely ignore that the current farmland near the equator would turn into desert? Plus, they completely fail to consider if the weather will even be suitable.
Saying "Climate scientists were wrong in the seventies so they are wrong now" is like saying "Schumacher didn't win a single formula one race in the seventies so he won't win one now". There is such a thing as improvement.
It's fair enough to react indifferently every time the media yells "We're all going to die!", but at least look into the actual reports that the documentary is based on (and that includes those who saw An Inconvenient Truth) before you start ranting about it all being rubbish.
@ Justin Case
it's rather simple really -
if climate change is happenning and we try to mitigate the causes and the effects we may avoid catastrophic damage to our society as well as enhancing our qualities of life (no cars pumping out shit) and increasing our technological versatility.
if climate change i wrong and we've tried to mitigae it thru energy efficiency and changing our habits surely that's good as we'll have cut down our reliance on energy supplies from volatile/hostile region (the middle east, russia etc) and gained the advantages stated above.
if climate change does happen and we do nothing our grandchildren will hate us forever and curse us as greedy and selfish.
If climate change doesn't happen and we do nothing we'r stuck with the current system of getting our energy from despotic/unstable regimes and having the U.S control the levers of the world economy.
I've tried little things - driving less, turning lights off when not in the room, making sure items aren't on standby and have noticed a slight financial advantage.
and pls don't quote the great global warming swindle at me, the vast majority of scientists involved in that have complained they were mis-represented. All the denialists just don't want to alter their own behaviour (what do you mean I can't drive my 4x4)
my problems with these vehicles go waaay beyond their emissions, they are not needed in most towns which, especially european towns.don't have road wide enough to properly accomodate them. also you're more likely to suffer serious injury if you're hit by a 4x4. most of my mates look at me in horror but if i was chanceor I'd slap a £10,000 a year tax on 4x4's and use the money to improve our public transport.
let the abuse commence :-)
- World's OLDEST human DNA found in leg bone – but that's not the only boning going on...
- Lightning strikes USB bosses: Next-gen jacks will be REVERSIBLE
- OHM MY GOD! Move over graphene, here comes '100% PERFECT' stanene
- Beijing leans on Microsoft to maintain Windows XP support
- Google's new cloud CRUSHES Amazon in RAM battle