Jump to content

Climate Change & Global Warming


Atomic
 Share

How important is Global Warming to you in the Grand Scheme of Things?  

246 members have voted

  1. 1. How important is Global Warming to you in the Grand Scheme of Things?

    • Give me a break, I've enough on my plate
      17
    • I suppose there's something in it, but it's for the Politicians/Corporations/Those in power to sort out
      4
    • Yes I think it is important and I try to do my bit.
      79
    • If we don't stop it, the Planet dies in a few years, it's as simple as that.
      34
    • I think it is all hype and not half as bad as they make out
      108
    • I don't know what to think
      17

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

^^^^ Actually, scientists studying the data have shown that the rise in CO2 lags the rise in temperature. This is because (as I understand it anyway), the initial temperature rise is caused by the Milankovitch cycle (the gradual variations in the Earth's orbit which cause ice ages), this leads to a release of CO2 (from melting permafrost, drought, etc) which then traps more heat which raises the temperature even more, which leads to more CO2 being released, which leads to higher temperatures,.... basically a feedback loop which continues until the Biosphere reaches a warmer equilibrium (an inter-glacial, where we are now).

 

The difference between the process described above, and what is going on now, is that we are already in the warm state (inter-glacial) and the initial driver of the warming process is not the Milankovich cycle, it is the release of giga-tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels.

 

The likely result is still the same though. There are still tens of billions of tonnes of carbon locked up in the rain forests, hundreds of billions of tonnes locked up in the tundra and permafrost, and thousands of billions (trillions?) of tonnes locked away on the sea bed as methane hydrates, and we are risking triggering unstoppable feedback loops which will lead to the release of all this carbon and make global warming a self-sustaining runaway process completely outwith our control.

 

To avoid this we have to stop_burning_fossil_fuels. The models predict that, if we go much over 2 degrees C rise this century, then the rainforests will burn, all of them. This alone will cause enough warming to melt the tundra, and the melting of the tundra will cause enough warming to release the methane hydrates.

 

The thing is, to have a good chance of limiting the warming to 2 degrees, we have to keep the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere down to 350 ppm. We are already at 385 ppm.

 

This is why I keep banging on about why we don't have time to piss around waiting for the *next big thing* in renewable energy to come along. It is already too late. We must act now, with the technology we have now and we still have to come up with some kind of geo-engineering solution to scrub the excess CO2 out of the atmosphere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rising Temperatures Causing Lower Crop Yields

 

The team combined data from climate models that simulate future changes in rainfall and precipitation with historical data on climate and agricultural production and found that by 2030 the productions of key crops in the poorest parts of sub-Saharan Africa could decline by as much as 30 percent or more. Somewhat smaller declines were predicted for south and southeast Africa. Evidence also showed that climate change could immediately harm agriculture in the U.S. and other major exporting regions, putting further constraints on the global food supply.

 

http://www.celsias.com/article/research-rising-temperatures-causing-lower-crop-yi/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is, to have a good chance of limiting the warming to 2 degrees, we have to keep the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere down to 350 ppm. We are already at 385 ppm.

If this is the reality (and I'm not qualified to argue either way) then it seems to me that we're pretty much doomed whatever we do. All of the governments' targets for reducing CO2 in 20-30-40 years will do nothing to bring the CO2 down to safe levels soon enough. And with the best will in the world, they couldn't possibly reduce carbon emissions to zero immediately or even in 5 years. In any case, I firmly believe that humans will only stop burning fossil fuels when forced to economically i.e. when oil becomes so scarce that its cost forces them to use other means on a grand scale. And that could be quite a long time yet, despite the occasional scare about oil prices.

 

Of course, all of the governments in the world will know all of this, so maybe Koy is right that the US is bombarding the atmosphere with SO2 to counteract the effects of CO2 in the short/medium term to play for time.

 

And if this is the real situation, then we need to be devoting more effort (and money) into researching the impact of the anticipated climate change in various parts of the world, and planning what needs to be done to live with it, e.g. irrigation, flood protection, changes to agriculture, mass migration of populations, and whatever else we need to do for the environment and wildlife.

 

As I suggested before, putting up a few thousand windmills and manufacturing more solar panels in order to meet government targets seems like p**ing against the wind. :cry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Essentially we can rub along as we are because of "efficiencies" in the global systems, and almost any changes that climate change or anything else brings will show up the downside - that efficiency means that there is little slack in systems to cope with things not going as expected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is, to have a good chance of limiting the warming to 2 degrees, we have to keep the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere down to 350 ppm. We are already at 385 ppm.

If this is the reality (and I'm not qualified to argue either way) then it seems to me that we're pretty much doomed whatever we do. All of the governments' targets for reducing CO2 in 20-30-40 years will do nothing to bring the CO2 down to safe levels soon enough. And with the best will in the world, they couldn't possibly reduce carbon emissions to zero immediately or even in 5 years. In any case, I firmly believe that humans will only stop burning fossil fuels when forced to economically i.e. when oil becomes so scarce that its cost forces them to use other means on a grand scale. And that could be quite a long time yet, despite the occasional scare about oil prices.

 

Of course, all of the governments in the world will know all of this, so maybe Koy is right that the US is bombarding the atmosphere with SO2 to counteract the effects of CO2 in the short/medium term to play for time.

 

And if this is the real situation, then we need to be devoting more effort (and money) into researching the impact of the anticipated climate change in various parts of the world, and planning what needs to be done to live with it, e.g. irrigation, flood protection, changes to agriculture, mass migration of populations, and whatever else we need to do for the environment and wildlife.

 

As I suggested before, putting up a few thousand windmills and manufacturing more solar panels in order to meet government targets seems like p**ing against the wind. :cry:

Luckily, it's not quite that bad. 350 ppm is where we need to be to pretty much guarantee keeping the temperature rise below 2 degrees, but some of the models suggest we could go as high as 450 ppm and still get away with it. The point is, the farther past 350 we go, the more likely it is that catastrophic change will happen and the harder it will be to get the CO2 concentration down. That's why we have to start reducing carbon output now, not in 2 years, or 5 years or ten.

 

At the moment, the US is looking like it is finally making the changes necessary, a few Republicans have moved to the Democrat side and a meaningful climate change package looks like it might be achievable. China and India are pledging to do their bit (though how you define "bit" has yet to be worked out), and Europe and Japan have already pledged large cuts, so the overall picture is a hell of a lot better than it was even just a couple of weeks ago. I think (hope) the international community might actually achieve something meaningful at Copenhagen in December.

 

Things are moving in the right direction, if not as fast as I would like. Momentum is building, slowly. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nonsense, you could put a graph next to the ones Demascus has of volcanoes that have gone, the population of cows or any other naturally climing population,event etc etc. Another bird fle, swine flew everybody worry as the end of the world is neigh nonsense. Also another way for goverments to tax the good people

 

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

 

Some good reading :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I love the fact that on that site, the first two quotes (by the same person) are:

 

Timothy F. Ball, former Professor of Geography, University of Winnipeg: "[The world's climate] warmed from 1680 up to 1940, but since 1940 it's been cooling down. The evidence for warming is because of distorted records. The satellite data, for example, shows cooling." (November 2004)[5] "There's been warming, no question. I've never debated that; never disputed that. The dispute is, what is the cause. And of course the argument that human CO2 being added to the atmosphere is the cause just simply doesn't hold up..." (May 18, 2006; at 15:30 into recording of interview)[6]

 

Hmm, is it just me or is there a contradiction there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^^^ And just to put that into perspective.
Food production will have to increase by 70% over the next 40 years to feed the world's growing population, the United Nations food agency predicts.

 

Errrm...

 

A better idea would be to cut food waste by 70%. A far more achievable target don't you think?

 

A simple example would be the cost of lamb. I could buy New Zealand lamb cheaper in the Co-op in Lerwick than I can buy it now in New Zealand. At the same time Shetland is exporting its lamb. Where is the sense in any of that? Lamb is a very simple example. Some foodstuffs simply aren't sustainable given the carbon footprint.

 

Before people start spouting off about climate change/global warming/the rate of cows farting they should maybe try to deal with the simple things in life that actually make a difference!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nonsense, you could put a graph next to the ones Demascus has of volcanoes that have gone, the population of cows or any other naturally climing population,event etc etc. Another bird fle, swine flew everybody worry as the end of the world is neigh nonsense. Also another way for goverments to tax the good people

 

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

 

Some good reading :D

Maybe you could try finding a list of climatologists who are not funded by Exxon/Mobil? Oh, and a list of astronomers, ex-astronauts and retired weathermen doesn't cut it. Try listing the current, working climatologists who disagree with man-made climate change.

 

In the meantime, read this.

A better idea would be to cut food waste by 70%. A far more achievable target don't you think?

Not sure what you're on about here, Pooks? Cutting food waste is a laudable aim, sure. But that alone isn't going to solve global warming. And anyway, I've always maintained that increased efficiency will form part of the solution, only it will be a small part. Cutting fossil fuels is the answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A better idea would be to cut food waste by 70%. A far more achievable target don't you think?

Not sure what you're on about here, Pooks? Cutting food waste is a laudable aim, sure. But that alone isn't going to solve global warming. And anyway, I've always maintained that increased efficiency will form part of the solution, only it will be a small part. Cutting fossil fuels is the answer.

 

So you don't think Brazilians slash & burning rainforests to provide poor arrable land feeding vast herds of cows and growing GM crops then sold to European and US markets is worth thinking about?

 

The waste is economic Pooks, no? That's where you were driving?

 

If I may put words in his mouth. He's asking why we are importing lamb, to Shetland specifically, when there is potential to not have to do that. Obviously Shetland and lamb has so much more to that argument as that simple statement - but should the sentiment be there alongside the economics of it all and to the wider British and European market ... even alongside every other thing we end up importing as a continent .... there's a great potential to stop waste and so the manufacturing issues and transport - all causing your climate change?!

 

^^ Then you get to a global stage of how countries actually run and survive. Oh for the joys of capitalism. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^^ It all has to be done. But lets say we:

 

End deforestation, improve efficiency, reduce packaging, reduce flying, drive less, stop flying or shipping food to the other side of the world, recycle paper, recycle metals, recycle plastics, etc, etc, would this solve the problem?

 

No, it might buy us some time, and dog knows we need that, but it will not solve the problem.

 

The only solution is to stop_burning_fossil_fuels.

 

And BTW, I would be quite happy with shipping New Zealand lamb to Shetland provided it was shipped on a sailing ship with solar powered freezers. (Good luck trying to sell it though, seriously, does anyone actually buy NZ lamb in Shetland? And if you do, shame on you for not supporting local producers.) :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...