Global warming: the final verdict

[zimv20]

guardian (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1995348,00.html)


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

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.

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.'

i know i'm risking a whole 'nother round of cries of junk science, but this piece is interesting in how more certain the so-called junk scientists are becoming.

just thought i'd share.

[skunk]

If this is such a conservative scenario (and I use the word in the loosest possible sense), I'd like to know what a "worst-case" version would be.

[obeygiant]

Unless you can stop everyone from driving cars or stop cows from farting there is nothing anyone can do to stop it.

[highres]

Unless you can stop everyone from driving cars or stop cows from farting there is nothing anyone can do to stop it.

What a load of crap, you really need to do some research before spouting off ignorant answers like that. There are many fairly easy things you can do that will make a difference. Ignorance like you displayed above is easy to remedy.

Or are you one of those people that says global warming is still a myth? Even after worldwide panels of scientists and experts agree that we have a serious problem on our hands.

Start here:

http://www.climatecrisis.net/takeaction/whatyoucando/index.html

[MacNut]

I wish we could get data going back 1000 years. Since the records only go back like 110 its hard to determine what is a normal cycle from global warming.

[highres]

I wish we could get data going back 1000 years. Since the records only go back like 110 its hard to determine what is a normal cycle from global warming.

Via ice core samples from Soviet Station Vostok in Antarctica they are able to go back MUCH further than 1000 years, they can get accurate data from as far back as 200,000 years at least if not earlier.

http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/labs/vostok/

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Paleoclimatology_IceCores/

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

[Ugg]

I wish we could get data going back 1000 years. Since the records only go back like 110 its hard to determine what is a normal cycle from global warming.

But it's not hard to determine that human activity over the last 100+ years has had a very negative effect on the planet. Cutting back our hydrocarbon usage isn't just about global warming but our health and such things as water and air quality.

[MacNut]

But it's not hard to determine that human activity over the last 100+ years has had a very negative effect on the planet. Cutting back our hydrocarbon usage isn't just about global warming but our health and such things as water and air quality.I agree but when they say hottest year on record and they only go back 100 years, that doesn't say much since the Earth is a few billion years old.

[skunk]

I agree but when they say hottest year on record and they only go back 100 years, that doesn't say much since the Earth is a few billion years old.It's possible to tell what the sea temperature was thousands of years back from ice-cores and sediment analysis. "Hottest year on record" just refers to the advent of accurate thermometers.

[Scarlet Fever]

Even if we aren't the direct cause of global warming, you can't deny that pumping the skies with greenhouse gases isn't doing some kind of damage. It may be some kind of cycle, but we must be altering the system somehow.

[bozigle]

Unless you can stop everyone from driving cars or stop cows from farting there is nothing anyone can do to stop it.

That is sooooooo sad and depressing to see that some people still think like that... stopping people from using their car is not even a viable option... going for hybrid or biodiesel or any environment friendly , using common transportation would be a good start.
As for the farting cow... i do not think that everyone should be vegetarian... but people eat much more meat that they really need... that could also reduce the amount of farting cow.

I encourage you to look for what individual can do in their daily life or as pressure group in order to change things... unless of course you're naturaly pesimist and consider we are already doomed... in wich case, without being prophet i can tell you that this little piece of earth won't be much fun in the coming decade.

A LOT of things can be done...

bozigle

[solvs]

Unless you can stop everyone from driving cars or stop cows from farting there is nothing anyone can do to stop it.

Apparently my previous tongue in cheek post was deleted, so I'll just make my point a little clearer and say this is a very defeatist attitude. I'd rather we do something, because doing nothing is just going to make the matter worse. Unless you're one of those who wants to hide their heads in the sand and pretend there is no problem.

If they're right, and global warming is real, we can at least help to prevent it. If they're wrong, we've spent a little money to make driving cheaper and clean the very real problem of pollution. Unless you don't believe in that either.

[EGT]

Education and awareness is key. Energy saving light bulbs, turning off appliances when not in use, not running the drier at 40* with ony a pair of socks in it, etc. :rolleyes:

We're also thinking of putting a wood-chip boiler (it'll do pellets, shavings and logs) into our house instead of an oil boiler for heating. That and getting proper insulation to make it more efficient.

Any MR members know anything about wood-chip boilers? :o :cool:

[takao]

We're also thinking of putting a wood-chip boiler (it'll do pellets, shavings and logs) into our house instead of an oil boiler for heating. That and getting proper insulation to make it more efficient.

Any MR members know anything about wood-chip boilers? :o :cool:

very popular for new built houses.. (as long as you have those transport "screws".. you know like the archimedes thing)
pellets have the problem of price and sensibility to water .. they have to be kept very dry
another thing worth looking at is a heat pump solution (which are booming totally insane) especially if living somewhere with high ground water levels and high temperatures during summer
or of course a combination of the two

[mactastic]

Unless you can stop everyone from driving cars or stop cows from farting there is nothing anyone can do to stop it.Gonna cut 'n' run on the environment eh? It's almost like you want the global warming to win. Maybe you're giving global warming aid and comfort...

I'll echo solvs - what a load of defeatist crap. If we can't halt all emissions all at once right now, there's no point in trying? Our only two options are All or None?

Get your eyes fixed sir, you're missing all the shades of grey out there!

[obeygiant]

LOL :D This thread is getting a little warm. :)

So, okay, say you have this HUGE boulder. It takes massive amounts of energy to get it to move, right. Well its going to take massive amounts of energy to get it to stop.

So what do you think could stop global warming? How long would it take?

This "take action" site is nice

http://www.climatecrisis.net/takeact...ndo/index.html

However, even if the 300 million or so people in the US start conserving right now, there are almost a BILLION people in china who arent.

For the record, I'm all for trying.

[takao]

So what do you think could stop global warming? How long would it take?


at least decades ... if we _seriously_ start and not this "but the economy" whining you get as excuses from a lot of politician or the flat out ignoring which is even worse

the problem with global warming is that it actually turns into a "runaway process" if not stopped before the "point of no return"(which is opposed to the movie "back to the future 3" not known and there is of course no time machine to get saved from the train wreck):

the problem is that the biggest,most dangerous gas for the atmosphere is h2o ... yeah vaporized water is accounting to 60% of all greenhouse gasses..
the thing is that: if the temperature on average increases more h2o vaporizes, which of course increases the temperature because of the greenhouse effect etc.
the h2o cycle including rain is a very sensible cycle so our amount of _additional_ greenhouse gases possible could already have been enough to pass the point of no return and thus the global warming might never be stopped

if you want to know what happens to a planet where such a runaway circle happens you simply have to look at venus our neighbor in the solar system


sure we only account to perhaps 40% of the temperature increase and the rest might be volcanos etc. but that 40% might already be too much

and i guess we all don't want to risk ruin it for all those coming after us ... after all this is our only planet we will be able to live on
except politicians who just happen to think in legislation period dimensions

[BoyBach]

Unless we all (individuals, businesses, organisations, governments, etc) start making changes to the way we live our lives, then the human species is doomed. It isn't scare-mongering, it's a fact.

And using China, India and the other industrialising nations as an excuse doesn't work. Where we lead, the others - when they can afford to - will eventually follow.

[Peterkro]

If this is such a conservative scenario (and I use the word in the loosest possible sense), I'd like to know what a "worst-case" version would be.
Eric Pianka has a slightly less Pollyannaish view of the possible future:


http://www.rense.com/general70/massdeath.htm

But Pianka, a 38-year UT educator, maintains he's not campaigning for genocide. He likens mankind's story to an unbridled party on a luxury cruise liner. The fun's going strong on the upper deck, he says. But as crowds blindly absorb the festivities, many fail to notice the ship is sinking.

"The biggest enemy we face is anthropocentrism," he said, describing the belief system in which humans are the central element of the universe. "This is that common attitude that everything on this Earth was put here for [human] use."

[takao]

you know 15 years ago everybody around here said "why should we here in austria separate our garbage and recycle, when in the united states they throw everything together and they are hundred millions more"

and also for china, considered this: how many of that pollution is created while making products for europe and the US etc. , you can bet on it that it is a lot

6 years ago the US was one of the leading producers of new wind energy power plants
now you have been surpassed by Spain

[elfin buddy]

So, okay, say you have this HUGE boulder. It takes massive amounts of energy to get it to move, right. Well its going to take massive amounts of energy to get it to stop.

Heh, thanks for clarifying your lack of a scientific foundation.

Try looking up some information about dynamic equilibrium. The Earth is a large-scale example of one and we still haven't moved too far into the process of shifting the equilibrium, which is why we are only now beginning to see minute effects.

Also, check this out...

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn5038

Perfect example of what I'm talking about.

[Thomas Veil]

From the FWIW file:

The House Democrats had not quite finished their "100 hours" agenda when they met in the Capitol basement Thursday morning, but Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) was already looking ahead. As her colleagues ate bagels and turkey sausage, she warned that their next challenge would be a lot tougher than popular issues such as student loans and ethics reforms. For her next act, she planned to take on global warming.

Democrats, she explained, had to show a sense of urgency about the carbon emissions that threaten the planet, and so she was creating a select committee on energy independence and climate change to communicate that urgency. The new committee, she said, would help the caucus speak with one voice -- even if it trampled the turf of existing committees....

Pelosi's power play demonstrated her seriousness about climate, a complex issue that may be as legislatively difficult and politically treacherous as health care was in the 1990s. But it also reflected her seriousness about imposing discipline on her caucus and preventing a return to the days when long-serving Democratic chairmen ran their committees as independent fiefdoms.

Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John D. Dingell (Mich.) -- the longest-serving House member and a legendary defender of his committee's prerogatives as well as the carbon-emitting auto industry of his home state -- had made it clear that he expected to lead the party's global-warming debate in a rather leisurely fashion. Pelosi was end-running him.Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/22/AR2007012201508.html)

Now I'm not so naive as to believe Democrats will having us all driving electric cars in two years, but it's nice to see somebody taking political risks to move us in the right direction. I'm liking Pelosi more and more.

But...something better come of all this. We just can't afford to keep screwing around anymore.

[Dont Hurt Me]

I find it mind boggling that anyone such as our president can sit there and pretend thousands of factories and billions of heat creating cars and their exhuast emissions arent changing the Earths atmosphere? We have been in denial for decades but when you have a govt for the corporations by the corporations what do you expect? Im glad this knowlege is breaking out of the Neocon mindset. Its good we are talking about it at last. We should be pushing clean energy solutions we have the technology we just dont have the political will to get anything done.

Example Old George says at the last state of the union we are hooked on Oil but what has he done about it other then Lip service?

[iJon]

However, even if the 300 million or so people in the US start conserving right now, there are almost a BILLION people in china who arent.

For the record, I'm all for trying.

You do realize that the United States produces most of our environmental problems and do you also realize how many people in China use bikes compared to us. I'll try to dig up some factual numbers but it's a much higher percentage than us.

jon

[pseudobrit]

You do realize that the United States produces most of our environmental problems and do you also realize how many people in China use bikes compared to us. I'll try to dig up some factual numbers but it's a much higher percentage than us.

jon

The United States, with less than 5% of the world's population, uses about 25% each of the world's oil, natural gas and electricity.

Our economy does not account for this consumption, as per-GDP usage is not on par with other industrialized nations.

[hulugu]

I agree but when they say hottest year on record and they only go back 100 years, that doesn't say much since the Earth is a few billion years old.

At one point the hottest temperature of the Earth was several thousand degrees higher than it is now when the planet was still forming, however I wouldn't consider this a useful measure of our current environment.

What's more important is to note the temperature of the Earth within its last equilibrium—as much as such a thing exists in a chaotic system. This has been done using several different studies include ice-core drilling, tree-ring assessments, and other measurements. With this in mind we can continue to do the hard science required to understand how the carbon affects the atmosphere, but unfortunately that's not the only problem.

Carbonic acid is increasing in the oceans, and that's going to have massive and detrimental effects for much of the world's food supply.

Link (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-07-05-ocean-acidity_x.htm)

[hulugu]

LOL :D This thread is getting a little warm. :)

So, okay, say you have this HUGE boulder. It takes massive amounts of energy to get it to move, right. Well its going to take massive amounts of energy to get it to stop.

So what do you think could stop global warming? How long would it take?
...For the record, I'm all for trying.

The problem is we don't know if the boulder is not going to move, about to move, or already rolling down a big hill. However, it is always wise to stop kicking it with your shoes.

Furthermore, if we can create the policy, and more importantly the technology to curb greenhouse gases, the Chinese will almost certainly follow our lead especially if it means self-sufficiency and money. Frankly, curbing greenhouse gases is an opportunity for every company that can come up with a solution, this includes everyone from glasers who understand how to inject krypton between two panes, to solar-panel manufacturers to newly graduating civil planners.

I would again reiterate how great a book Cradle to Cradle (http://www.amazon.com/Cradle-Remaking-Way-Make-Things/dp/0865475873/sr=8-1/qid=1169628132/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-5119148-3900660?ie=UTF8&s=books) is.

[Abstract]

To tell you the truth, I'm much more concerned about ocean life than life on land. Trees may go, but if we don't have life in the ocean, goodbye oxygen.

[skunk]

Eric Pianka has a slightly less Pollyannaish view of the possible future:


http://www.rense.com/general70/massdeath.htm

But Pianka, a 38-year UT educator, maintains he's not campaigning for genocide. He likens mankind's story to an unbridled party on a luxury cruise liner. The fun's going strong on the upper deck, he says. But as crowds blindly absorb the festivities, many fail to notice the ship is sinking.

"The biggest enemy we face is anthropocentrism," he said, describing the belief system in which humans are the central element of the universe. "This is that common attitude that everything on this Earth was put here for [human] use."I do agree that anthropocentrism is symptomatic of a very blinkered and arrogant view of Life, the Universe and Everything, the ultimate expression of which, of course, is almost any religion you care to name. We are probably just an unfortunate by-product of some cosmic process.

Pianka's personal history is a bit of an eye-opener, isn't it? Thanks for the link.

[zimv20]

If this is such a conservative scenario (and I use the word in the loosest possible sense), I'd like to know what a "worst-case" version would be.

AP (http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/01/29/climate.report.ap/index.html)


Experts slam upcoming global warming report

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Later this week in Paris, climate scientists will issue a dire forecast for the planet that warns of slowly rising sea levels and higher temperatures.

But that may be the sugarcoated version.

Early and changeable drafts of their upcoming authoritative report on climate change foresee smaller sea level rises than were projected in 2001 in the last report. Many top U.S. scientists reject these rosier numbers.

Those calculations don't include the recent, and dramatic, melt-off of big ice sheets in two crucial locations:

They "don't take into account the gorillas -- Greenland and Antarctica," said Ohio State University earth sciences professor Lonnie Thompson, a polar ice specialist. "I think there are unpleasant surprises as we move into the 21st century."

Michael MacCracken, who until 2001 coordinated the official U.S. government reviews of the international climate report on global warming, has fired off a letter of protest over the omission.

The melting ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are a fairly recent development that has taken scientists by surprise. They don't know how to predict its effects in their computer models. But many fear it will mean the world's coastlines are swamped much earlier than most predict.

Others believe the ice melt is temporary and won't play such a dramatic role.

That debate may be the central one as scientists and bureaucrats from around the world gather in Paris to finish the first of four major global warming reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The panel was created by the United Nations in 1988.

After four days of secret word-by-word editing, the final report will be issued Friday.

The early versions of the report predict that by 2100 the sea level will rise anywhere between 5 and 23 inches. That's far lower than the 20 to 55 inches forecast by 2100 in a study published in the peer-review journal Science this month. Other climate experts, including NASA's James Hansen, predict sea level rise that can be measured by feet more than inches.

The report is also expected to include some kind of proviso that says things could be much worse if ice sheets continue to melt.

The prediction being considered this week by the IPCC is "obviously not the full story because ice sheet decay is something we cannot model right now, but we know it's happening," said Stefan Rahmstorf, a climate panel lead author from Germany who made the larger prediction of up to 55 inches of sea level rise. "A document like that tends to underestimate the risk," he said.

(more)

an unfortunate headline, i know.

[obeygiant]

Heh, thanks for clarifying your lack of a scientific foundation.

Try looking up some information about dynamic equilibrium.

I was actually talking about conservation of energy, or as some people put it, the first law of thermodynamics. But of course you knew that.

[herr_neumann]

LOL :D This thread is getting a little warm. :)

So, okay, say you have this HUGE boulder. It takes massive amounts of energy to get it to move, right. Well its going to take massive amounts of energy to get it to stop.

So what do you think could stop global warming? How long would it take?

This "take action" site is nice

http://www.climatecrisis.net/takeact...ndo/index.html

However, even if the 300 million or so people in the US start conserving right now, there are almost a BILLION people in china who arent.

For the record, I'm all for trying.

Personally if I had a huge bolder to move I would break it into smaller more manageable pieces. I would then move these pieces. But that is how I handle tasks I see as overwhelming.

[herr_neumann]

And using China, India and the other industrialising nations as an excuse doesn't work. Where we lead, the others - when they can afford to - will eventually follow.

It is easy to force their hand a bit if we implement tariffs and duties on good from countries with environmental standard lower than our own. I welcome any other country or group of countries *cough, hey EU, cough* to do the same to force our hand.

[srf4real]

Unless you can stop everyone from driving cars or stop cows from farting there is nothing anyone can do to stop it.

lol.:D I got the humor in that. You're not a bad person, more like a realist.:cool:

One launch of the space shuttle contributes more pollution than all the automobiles in America will output in an entire year. How 'bout the scientists start by getting the hell out of space!:p

[pseudobrit]

Not to mention that China, for all its billion+ people, still doesn't use as much energy as we do.

The U.S. uses 25% of the world's energy to create 20% of the world GDP.
China uses 8% to create 15% of the world GDP.

[MacNut]

lol.:D I got the humor in that. You're not a bad person, more like a realist.:cool:

One launch of the space shuttle contributes more pollution than all the automobiles in America will output in an entire year. How 'bout the scientists start by getting the hell out of space!:pLets shut down NASCAR too, do we really need people driving in circles for 500 miles.:rolleyes:

[wonga1127]

I think the easiest way to change society away from being ridiculously wasteful to somewhat conservative with resources is to stop spending billions of dollars on stupid crap like wars and put that money into installing ethanol pumps at every gas station, putting more money into hydrogen fuel cell research, and making it easy for diesel drivers to convert and obtain biodiesel fuel.

Stop global warming by stop selling the crap that's causing it. There's no catalyst like necessity.

[srf4real]

Lets shut down NASCAR too, do we really need people driving in circles for 500 miles.:rolleyes:

Hey I like Nascar.:o I guess everyone would have to sacrifice a little.:p

[Desertrat]

wonga, if you used the entire US corn crop for ethanol, you'd have the equivalent to about a two-week supply of motor fuel. And the energy in would be greater than the energy out.

The hydrogen fuel cell sounds nice, but the cost would put it beyond the reach of most buyers. And then?

The only way to feasibly use bio-diesel on any large scale would be if it were compatible in the fuel tank with conventional diesel.

'Rat

[pseudobrit]

The only way to feasibly use bio-diesel on any large scale would be if it were compatible in the fuel tank with conventional diesel.

What? I've got a tank of B10 in my Golf right now.

[srf4real]

This (http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070218/NEWS01/702180353/1006) is a novel idea, however it does seem a little impractical and hazardous to marine life. That is if the gulf stream doesn't shut down due to the the melting Iceland scenario..

[Desertrat]

pseudobrit, I was just wondering if there were any chemical problem if bio-diesel is mixed with conventional. Diesel does funny things, sometimes. Sort of weird to pull a fuel filter and find it full of the black glop of algae, for instance, although that only happened to me once, several years back.

'Rat

[scem0]

LOL :D This thread is getting a little warm. :)

So, okay, say you have this HUGE boulder. It takes massive amounts of energy to get it to move, right. Well its going to take massive amounts of energy to get it to stop.

So what do you think could stop global warming? How long would it take?

This "take action" site is nice

http://www.climatecrisis.net/takeact...ndo/index.html

However, even if the 300 million or so people in the US start conserving right now, there are almost a BILLION people in china who arent.

For the record, I'm all for trying.

Push for cleaner sources of energy, push for energy efficiency in automobiles, push for energy efficiency in home development, push for significant government involvement in research and development. Push for legislation that mirrors a desire for cleaner energy.

You're right about China - even if we are all energy conscious, they might not be. And in that case, we'll be leading the way. They'll have to adopt better standards, and the sooner we do, the sooner they will.

e

[pseudobrit]

pseudobrit, I was just wondering if there were any chemical problem if bio-diesel is mixed with conventional. Diesel does funny things, sometimes. Sort of weird to pull a fuel filter and find it full of the black glop of algae, for instance, although that only happened to me once, several years back.

No problems blending at all. In fact, it's often better to blend them, especially in winter. Many commercial and government fleets run a B5 blend. As long as it's good biodiesel from a trusted source, you're okay running it in whatever proportions are suitable for your climate.
I have a local place that's on my way home from work and carries AmeriGreen B10, so I get that. I've filled with B100 when travelling.

[YS2003]

For argument's sake, let's assume the global warming will melts like 50 to 80 % of ice in the North pole areas and Antarctica.

Which country would be the best place to live as some countries, islands, or cities would be submerged by the rising sea water?

[Desertrat]

YS2003, probably same as now. People would slowly evacuate coastal cities as the level rises. There would still be the need for navigation facilities and thus the associated infrastructure. Your best guide would be a topographic map.

The biggest worry, seems to me, is changes in weather patterns. It's possible that some areas now good for rainfall agriculture* could dry out, reducing the availability of food grains. And, of course it's possible that some areas now rather arid, could become wetter. Nobody knows.

I have read that the main contributor to a higher average temperature would be less cooling at night. This would extend the range of food-grain agriculture in areas such as Canada and Russia. If it rains.

'Rat

* "Dryland farming", as in non-irrigated.

[pdham]

Here is a great article on a company in my city that is working on the future of green gasoline. Pretty interesting stuff, worth the read.

http://www.thedailypage.com/isthmus/article.php?article=5515

[BoyBach]

Australia has announced plans to ban incandescent light bulbs and replace them with more energy efficient fluorescent bulbs.

The environment minister said the move could cut the country's greenhouse gas emissions by 4 million tonnes by 2012.

"It's a little thing but it's a massive change," Malcolm Turnbull said.

The decision will make Australia the first country to ban the light bulbs, although the idea has also been proposed in the US state of California.

- BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6378161.stm)


Sometimes a little change can make a big difference.

[psychofreak]

I would love it if after all this 'We're gonna die!' stuff, global warming saved us from an unpredicted ice age...

[BoyBach]

I would love it if after all this 'We're gonna die!' stuff, global warming saved us from an unpredicted ice age...


Like our much loved First Minister, Rhodri Morgan (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/6358059.stm) said:

"If our climate in Wales is going to be more like Spain's or southern California's in the summer, then Spain will be more like the Sahara.

"If that is the kind of climate shift we cannot avoid having by 2050, it will hardly be unhelpful to Wales."


So we'll all be living under the sea and have mass extinction of species, but at least the hotel/tourism industry will be booming in Llandudno and Aberystwyth!

:rolleyes:

[psychofreak]

Like our much loved First Minister, Rhodri Morgan (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/6358059.stm) said:


So we'll all be living under the sea and have mass extinction of species, but at least the hotel/tourism industry will be booming in Llandudno and Aberystwyth!


Even with nice weather...would ANYONE go to Wales?

[Cassie]

I feel very strongly about this issue, so some may consider this a http://deephousepage.com/smilies/rant.gif

This is a big problem, and we need to do something about it, fast.

How come no one has mentioned recycling? We not only need to decrease greenhouse gas emissions, but we need to conserve our natural resources too!

This is going to be a big problem soon, but here's the thing: no one knows exactly how soon. People keep acting like "Oh well, this global warming isn't going to happen for another 100 years at least."

Maybe

But how can you assume that everything is going to be fine? As pointed out by several members already, global warming is already affecting major portions of our planet and our lives. Devestating effects could very well happen in the next 50 years. Or maybe never. But chances are, it's going to happen, and we need to do our part to stop or at the very least, slow it down until we find a better solution.

Instead of driving, we need to walk or ride a bike, or at least carpool.

Increase world-wide funding for cleaner, less (or even better-NON) polluting energy sources.

This earth is all we've got, and we have to take care of it. And we haven't done a very good job so far.

If this keeps up, there will be heat waves, droughts and flooding of unimaginable magnitudes.

Any of you ever seen "The Core" or the "The Day After Tomorrow"?

Yeah, think that.