Billions face climate change risk

[zimv20]

bbc (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6532323.stm)


Billions of people face shortages of food and water and increased risk of flooding, experts at a major climate change conference have warned.

The bleak conclusion came ahead of the publication of a key report by hundreds of international environmental experts.

Agreement on the final wording of the report was reached after a marathon debate through the night in Brussels.

[...]

Outlining the report's findings, Martin Parry, co-chairman of IPCC Working Group II, said evidence showed climate change was having a direct effect on animals, plants and water.

"For the first time, we are no longer arm-waving with models; this is empirical data, we can actually measure it," he told a news conference.

Key findings of the report include:
75-250 million people across Africa could face water shortages by 2020

Crop yields increase could increase by 20% in East and Southeast Asia, but decrease by up to 30% in Central and South Asia

Agriculture fed by rainfall could drop by 50% in some African countries by 2020

20-30% of all plant and animal species at increased risk of extinction if temperatures rise between 1.5-2.5C

Glaciers and snow cover expected to decline, reducing water availability in countries supplied by melt water

The report states that the observed increase in the global average temperature was "very likely" due to man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

The scientific work reviewed by IPCC scientists includes more than 29,000 pieces of data on observed changes in physical and biological aspects of the natural world.

Eighty-nine percent of these, it believes, are consistent with a warming world.

(more)


i fully expect the nay-sayers to come out in droves, or some wondering what's new here. i'll refer back to the bolded bits (my emphasis).

good times.

[G5Unit]

Me, being 15, is going to grow up in a messed up would.

(that somehow doesn't sound right grammar wise)

[Desertrat]

Hey, that's long term. What's happening with the NBA?

Sarcasm switch off.

If you really want something worrisome, Google up "honeybee" + "mortality". That's far more short term.

'Rat

[miloblithe]

Being young or old should make no difference. It takes an impressive level of misanthropy and selfishness not to care about these things.

Unfortunately, issues like these require leadership, and we're not going to have any of that in the White House until at least 2009.

[SMM]

Being young or old should make no difference. It takes an impressive level of misanthropy and selfishness not to care about these things.

Unfortunately, issues like these require leadership, and we're not going to have any of that in the White House until at least 2009.

I read The Greening Of America when I was pretty young. Still, I was enlightened to the environmental cause, before I had finished the book. That was 1972. I became active in 1980. Many years have gone by, and we are still debating whether we have a problem.

[someguy]

Am I the only one who feels like it's becoming harder and harder to really care about these kinds of things?

I mean, I'm all for saving the environment and everything, but somewhere between pollution, accumulating waste, killer bees, oil shortages, terrorists, meteors the size of Rhode Island, weapons of mass destruction, the rain forest burning down, the increasingly large hole in the ozone, the West Nile virus, California floating away (I never really understood this one), increasing crime rates, the national debt, the Bush Administration (this one speaks for itself), and of course global warming, I tend to lose focus.

I'm not saying in any way that this issue isn't a big deal, it's just hard to care so much about something when there seems to be so many "somethings" to care about.

Anyone feel the same way?

[Mr. Anderson]

I mean, I'm all for saving the environment and everything, but somewhere between pollution, accumulating waste, and the list goes on

You see, your list is only going to get bigger as more and more pressures from environmental upheaval affect the populations around the world.

What happens when all those Africans start to get thirsty? What happens when 3 or 4 cities get hit by Katrina-esque hurricanes in one year? What happens if the sea level rises just 10 feet and force mass displacement of coastal areas world wide?

Its just the start and the only real question is how long is it going to take before it happens. Even if we cut back on emissions now, things are still going to change.

The potential for worse is definitely there - I just hope something happens to prevent most of it.

D

[MacNut]

The problem is that over the last week the temps in the northeast have been some good 15 degrees below normal with snow. Most people are wondering where the global warming is. It is hard to push it on people when everyone is still worrying about their winter oil bills.

[Swarmlord]

The problem is that over the last week the temps in the northeast have been some good 15 degrees below normal with snow. Most people are wondering where the global warming is. It is hard to push it on people when everyone is still worrying about their winters oil bills.

We had record lows here in the Midwest last weekend too.

[zimv20]

The problem is that over the last week the temps in the northeast have been some good 15 degrees below normal with snow. Most people are wondering where the global warming is.

as i've said before, the greatest disservice done to this problem is to call it "global warming". now it's easy for anyone to say, "hey, it's cold! ain't no such thing!"

we should be calling it climate change. some places will get hotter, some colder. seasons will be more extreme. weather patterns will change, storms will become more violent. arid areas will become more dry -- catastrophically so, while wet areas will get more precipitation -- catastrophically so.

the oceans are getting more acidic and the bottom of the food chain is dying off.

so please stop citing an anecdotal cold snap as evidence that all is normal. it's not, surely as the earth is no longer flat.

[zimv20]

We had record lows here in the Midwest last weekend too.

after record highs in january. huh.

[MacNut]

That is the problem tho, people say the earth is getting warmer, yet when we are in a cold snap everyone says, well when is it going to warm up. Its not going to be easy to convince people that this is effecting them when they don't see it happening first hand.

[someguy]

One thing I've always wondered about "global warming" is, if the ice caps are melting, how would that cause the sea level to rise? The ice caps displace the same amount of water whether they are floating on the surface of the ocean or melted away, so how does this cause the sea level to rise? If anything, I would think that it would become lower, because the ice caps take up a higher amount volume in a frozen state than liquid.

:confused:

[zimv20]

That is the problem tho, people say the earth is getting warmer, yet when we are in a cold snap everyone says, well when is it going to warm up. Its not going to be easy to convince people that this is effecting people when they don't see it happening first hand.

welcome to the land of anti-science. just because people can't differentiate between anecdotal experience and, say, 29,000 experiments and a worldwide consortium of scientists saying we're already seeing the beginnings the coming catastrophe, doesn't make it untrue.

sadly, as you're alluding, it does make it difficult to put pressure on politicians to do anything. so the smart people like me go down in the same ship w/ the nay-sayers driving SUVs.

all hail short-sightedness and stupidity.

[zimv20]

One thing I've always wondered about "global warming" is, if the ice caps are melting, how would that cause the sea level to rise? The ice caps displace the same amount of water whether they are floating on the surface of the ocean or melted away, so how does this cause the sea level to rise?

because much of the ice is isn't in the water now. like all that ice sitting on top of land in antartica, for example.

it's more than just sea levels, too, we're talking about introducing a massive amount of fresh water into sea water. there's already evidence that the forces which circulate cold/warm water and cold/warm air all throughout the atlantic, indian ocean and parts of the pacific are shutting down. once it does, the northern half of europe will go into a deep, uninhabitable freeze. like another ice age. ironic? only if we keep mislabeling it "global warming".

[MacNut]

When we had a warm spell in January the people were not saying oh no global warming but, wow this is nice Im gonna go outside. Then when it got cold everyone was pissed off.

[zimv20]

When we had a warm spell in January the people were not saying oh no global warming but, wow this is nice Im gonna go outside. Then when it cold everyone was pissed off.

"the people". "everyone". you still don't get the difference between anecdotes and science, do you?

[Swarmlord]

<snip>the oceans are getting more acidic and the bottom of the food chain is dying off.

Wouldn't be because there's more than 6 BILLION at the top of the food chain? Face it, as long as it's tolerable here that number will grow to 7 and then 8 and then continue to grow upwards from there. If we're the source of warming (as opposed to the Sun) then addressing the growth in population is going to matter a hell of a lot more than getting 2 more miles per gallon.


so please stop citing an anecdotal cold snap as evidence that all is normal. it's not, surely as the earth is no longer flat.

Seems we should go back to burning coal and get that nuclear winter thing going again because we were heading for an ice age not 30 years ago. They'd probably offset nicely .

[MacNut]

We could get all the SUV's off the roads but as more people drive smaller cars those numbers will offset anyways. We still have to find away to get the big 18 wheelers off of the fuel.

[Swarmlord]

<snip>
sadly, as you're alluding, it does make it difficult to put pressure on politicians to do anything. so the smart people like me go down in the same ship w/ the nay-sayers driving SUVs.



But I have Sudanese carbon offsets! Between the 27 of us, we only have one SUV!

[someguy]

Hasn't the earth naturally gone through climate cycles (read: time periods where it was much hotter than normal and time periods where it was much cooler) in the past several million years? What makes this any different? How can we be so sure we are causing it, and more importantly, that we have the power to do anything about it?

[MacNut]

Those damn dinosaurs and their big SUV's ironic that when they died we used them for fuel.

[Swarmlord]

I still can't figure out the SUV thing though. Those of us with large numbers of passengers every trip can't be expected to drive everywhere in two or three cars.

I drive a small car when I'm by myself, but I have my SUV when we go anywhere with the family.

[Swarmlord]

Hasn't the earth naturally gone through climate cycles (read: time periods where it was much hotter than normal and time periods where it was much cooler) in the past several million years? What makes this any different? How can we be so sure we are causing it, and more importantly, that we have the power to do anything about it?

Yes, there's already been several 100 milliion plus year periods where it has been warmer than it is now.

[someguy]

I still can't figure out the SUV thing though. Those of us with large numbers of passengers every trip can't be expected to drive everywhere in two or three cars.

I drive a small car when I'm by myself, but I have my SUV when we go anywhere with the family.

*prays this doesn't turn into another exhaustingly long hummer thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=282655)*

[zimv20]

catching up on a whole slew of posts:

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


every year, i get more disgusted w/ willful ignorance.

[someguy]

every year, i get more disgusted w/ willful ignorance.
I hope you aren't referring to me. I assure you my ignorance is anything but willful.

At least I'm asking questions. :)

[zimv20]

I hope you aren't referring to me.
nah, i think you're simply a victim of my crossfire :-)

[someguy]

nah, i think you're simply a victim of my crossfire :-)

Fair enough, but don't be so quick to assume the ignorance of the masses is willful. Ignorance spreads like a virus and should be treated as such. It's not their fault for believing what they heard, but they should know better than to pass it on as fact without researching it themselves first. I'm guilty of this, I admit it.

[SMM]

There are a very long list of things contributing to global warming. It is easy to place the blame on single groups (SUV users, Transit Buses, etc.). It gets everyone fighting against each other. For our common survival, the challenge is for all of us to work together. You can make a difference. This weekend, my wife is out doing stream repairian work. Next week she is being confirmed to the King County Surface Water Advisory Board. I am equally involved (but differently). We donate 10&#37; to Mother Earth, but we also give of our time. If you want to make things better, do not complain, take action.

[MacNut]

This planet has been here for billions of years and it has gone through millions of changes during that time, we are visitors here and the earth is going to change and we won't be able to stop it. Eventually we will not exist here and it won't be from a man made occurrence but natures doing. We can try to change mother nature but that is impossible.

As long as humans live here we will be doing damage no matter what we do.

[SMM]

This planet has been here for billions of years and it has gone through millions of changes during that time, we are visitors here and the earth is going to change and we won't be able to stop it. Eventually we will not exist here and it won't be from a man made occurrence but natures doing. We can try to change mother nature but that is impossible.

As long as humans live here we will be doing damage no matter what we do.

I cannot accept your non-empirical, hypothesis, with little more that a (gleaned) personal belief prejudice attached. I actually share your thoughts, but cannot arrive at so definitive a conclusion. I think it quite possible mankind could cause catastrophic damage to the livability of the planet.

[OldCorpse]

sadly, as you're alluding, it does make it difficult to put pressure on politicians to do anything. so the smart people like me go down in the same ship w/ the nay-sayers driving SUVs.

all hail short-sightedness and stupidity.

Ain't that the truth. I prefer to put it more neutrally. I won't claim to be "smart" or "smarter", I'm past arguing. I've long since adopted the attitude "to each his/her own". That's why I moved from a redneck area to a liberal part of Los Angeles, California. Every time, rather than argue, I just did my thing, and ignored the other side. The guys who used to argue with me back in the day... well, most that I know of, ended up with crap lives (one enlisted for Iraq and just this past November I heard he lost both legs). I mean, I don't believe in wishing anything bad on anyone - I just believe in living with the consequences of your actions and beliefs. However, the sad truth is I've run out of places to move to. This planet is it. And the forces of darkness are happily destroying it - and there's nowhere for me to go... I can't say "suit yourself". They'll take me down with them, and there's not a thing I can do. Just as Bush has saddled us with a bankrupting debt, and an unwinnable war - and there's absolutely nothing I can do about that... we all get stuck with the bill.

[MacNut]

Ever since mankind discovered fire that was the start of the end. No matter what we do people will want comforts in their lives. You wont be able to take away cars or power or anything else deemed a necessity. Until people can learn to live without those things then we will never be able to truly stop what everyone is predicting.

[orangemacapple]

Wouldn't be because there's more than 6 BILLION at the top of the food chain? Face it, as long as it's tolerable here that number will grow to 7 and then 8 and then continue to grow upwards from there. If we're the source of warming (as opposed to the Sun) then addressing the growth in population is going to matter a hell of a lot more than getting 2 more miles per gallon.

the cannibals have a cure for that!

[IJ Reilly]

Permanent drought predicted for Southwest

Study says global warming threatens to create a Dust Bowl-like period. Water politics could also get heated.

The driest periods of the last century — the Dust Bowl of the 1930s and the droughts of the 1950s — may become the norm in the Southwest United States within decades because of global warming, according to a study released Thursday.

The research suggests that the transformation may already be underway. Much of the region has been in a severe drought since 2000, which the study's analysis of computer climate models shows as the beginning of a long dry period.

The study, published online in the journal Science, predicted a permanent drought by 2050 throughout the Southwest — one of the fastest-growing regions in the nation.

The data tell "a story which is pretty darn scary and very strong," said Jonathan Overpeck, a climate researcher at the University of Arizona who was not involved in the study.

Richard Seager, a research scientist at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University and the lead author of the study, said the changes would force an adjustment to the social and economic order from Colorado to California.

"There are going to be some tough decisions on how to allocate water," he said. "Is it going to be the cities, or is it going to be agriculture?"

Seager said the projections, based on 19 computer models, showed a surprising level of agreement. "There is only one model that does not have a drying trend," he said.

Philip Mote, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Washington who was not involved in the study, added, "There is a convergence of the models that is very strong and very worrisome."

...

The mechanics and patterns of drought in the Southwest have been the focus of increased scrutiny in recent years.

During the last period of significant, prolonged drought — the Medieval Climate Optimum from about the years 900 to 1300 — the region experienced dry periods that lasted as long as 20 years, scientists say.

Drought research has largely focused on the workings of air currents that arise from variations in sea-surface temperature in the Pacific Ocean known as El Niño and La Niña.

The most significant in terms of drought is La Niña. During La Niña years, precipitation belts shift north, parching the Southwest.

The latest study investigated the possibility of a broader, global climatic mechanism that could cause drought. Specifically, they looked at the Hadley cell, one of the planet's most powerful atmospheric circulation patterns, driving weather in the tropics and subtropics.

Within the cell, air rises at the equator, moves toward the poles and descends over the subtropics.

Increasing levels of greenhouse gases, the researchers said, warms the atmosphere, which expands the poleward reach of the Hadley cell. Dry air, which suppresses precipitation, then descends over a wider expanse of the Mediterranean region, the Middle East and North America.

All of those areas would be similarly affected, though the study examined only the effect on North America in a swath reaching from Kansas to California and south into Mexico.

The researchers tested a "middle of the road" scenario of future carbon dioxide emissions to predict rainfall and evaporation. They assumed that emissions would rise until 2050 and then decline. The carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere would be 720 parts per million in 2100, compared with about 380 parts per million today.

The computer models, on average, found about a 15% decline in surface moisture — which is calculated by subtracting evaporation from precipitation — from 2021 to 2040, as compared with the average from 1950 to 2000.

A 15% drop led to the conditions that caused the Dust Bowl in the Great Plains and the northern Rockies during the 1930s.

Even without the circulation changes, global warming intensifies existing patterns of vapor transport, causing dry areas to get drier and wet areas to get wetter. When it rains, it is likely to rain harder, but scientists said that was unlikely to make up for losses from a shifting climate.

Kelly Redmond, deputy director of the Western Regional Climate Center in Reno, who was not involved in the study, said he thought the region would still have periodic wet years that were part of the natural climate variation.

But, he added, "In the future we may see fewer such very wet years."

Although the computer models show the drying has already started, they are not accurate enough to know whether the drought is the result of global warming or a natural variation.

"It's really hard to tell," said Connie Woodhouse, a paleoclimatologist at the University of Arizona. "It may well be one of the first events we can attribute to global warming."

...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-swdrought6apr06,1,1875684.story

[miloblithe]

Wouldn't be because there's more than 6 BILLION at the top of the food chain? Face it, as long as it's tolerable here that number will grow to 7 and then 8 and then continue to grow upwards from there. If we're the source of warming (as opposed to the Sun) then addressing the growth in population is going to matter a hell of a lot more than getting 2 more miles per gallon.

There's a huge amount of truth in part of what you're saying. The other part is idiotic.

Yes, we absolutely will be better off in the long run if we can slow population growth. There has been a ton of progress on this front in a lot of places. There is a lot more to be done, and we have to abandon certain archaic ideas (family planning is bad, condoms are bad, having 10 children is a blessing from god--it's a vagina, not a clown car)

The idiotic part is implying that because population growth is a bigger issue (according to you) we should tackle that and climate change is secondary. The world is a massively complex system. There is no one solution to all the world's problems, and there are plenty of us to work on a lot of the big ones.

[miloblithe]

Yes, there's already been several 100 milliion plus year periods where it has been warmer than it is now.

Care to tell the class when those 100 million year periods were? And what creatures were living on earth during these periods?

[EricNau]

The problem is that over the last week the temps in the northeast have been some good 15 degrees below normal with snow. Most people are wondering where the global warming is. It is hard to push it on people when everyone is still worrying about their winter oil bills.
This is an example of weather, not climate. Weather is constantly changing and is virtually unpredictable. Weather will change from year to year, and some years will be colder, or hotter than others. Climate, on the other hand is very constant, and virtually never changes.

as i've said before, the greatest disservice done to this problem is to call it "global warming". now it's easy for anyone to say, "hey, it's cold! ain't no such thing!"

we should be calling it climate change. some places will get hotter, some colder. seasons will be more extreme. weather patterns will change, storms will become more violent. arid areas will become more dry -- catastrophically so, while wet areas will get more precipitation -- catastrophically so.
Your point is completely valid, but I just want to clear things up for some who might be confused. The term "Global Warming" is still compltely accurate. The world, as a whole, is getting warmer. Temperatures may get lower in some areas temporarily, but the trend is undoubtedly that the entire world is going to get warmer.

But I agree that the term "Climate Change" should be used instead to avoid confusion, but part of me still feels like we shouldn't have to, because after all, "Global Warming" is the most accurate.

There are also the group of people who believe that Global Warming and Climate Change are actually two different things. :rolleyes:

Overall, our best bet is to start using the terms interchangeably, so everyone can figure out that Global Warming = Climate Change.

[Desertrat]

Yeah, IJ, I read that. I learned from it that west Texas and southeastern New Mexico aren't part of "the southwest". Our drouth was in the mid-1990s; the last half-dozen years have seen rather exceptional above-average rainfall. :)

We had an inch of rain two weeks back, and it rained last night. Commonly, we have no rain between October and late May. May El Niño be blessed.

Overall, of course, I have no real argument with the hypotheses...

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

Dire warming report too soft, scientists say

Some nations lobbied for changes that blunt the study, contributors charge. The U.N. forecast is still bleak.

A new global warming report issued Friday by the United Nations paints a near-apocalyptic vision of Earth's future: hundreds of millions of people short of water, extreme food shortages in Africa, a landscape ravaged by floods and millions of species sentenced to extinction.

Despite its harsh vision, the report was quickly criticized by some scientists who said its findings were watered down at the last minute by governments seeking to deflect calls for action.

"The science got hijacked by the political bureaucrats at the late stage of the game," said John Walsh, a climate expert at the University of Alaska Fairbanks who helped write a chapter on the polar regions.

Even in its softened form, the report outlined devastating effects that will strike all regions of the world and all levels of society. Those without resources to adapt to the changes will suffer the most, according to the study from the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

"It's the poorest of the poor in the world, and this includes poor people even in prosperous societies, who are going to be the worst hit," said Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, which released the report in Brussels.

The report is the second of four scheduled to be issued this year by the U.N., which marshaled more than 2,500 scientists to give their best predictions of the consequences of a few degrees increase in temperature. The first report, released in February, said global warming was irreversible but could be moderated by large-scale societal changes.

That report said with 90% confidence that the warming was caused by humans, and its conclusions were widely accepted because of the years of accumulated scientific data supporting them.

In contrast, the latest report was more controversial because it tackled the more uncertain issues of the precise effects of warming and the ability of humans to adapt to them.

"When you put people into the equation, people who can adapt and respond and change their behavior, it adds another layer of complication," said Gary Yohe, an economist at Wesleyan University who helped write the report.

But the report is also, in a sense, a more pointed indictment of the world's biggest polluters — the industrialized nations — and a more specific identification of those who will suffer.

Thus, some nations lobbied for last-minute changes to the dire predictions. Negotiations led to deleting some timelines for events, as well as some forecasts on how many people would be affected on each continent as global temperatures rose.

An earlier draft, for example, specified that water would become increasingly scarce for up to a billion people in Asia if temperatures rose 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit — a point that previous studies have said is likely to be reached by 2100.

A table outlining how various levels of carbon dioxide emissions corresponded to increasing temperatures and their effects was also removed.

The actions were seen by critics as an attempt to ease the pressure on industrialized nations to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that are gradually warming the planet.

Several scientists vowed afterward that they would never participate in the process again because of the interference.

...

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-warming7apr07,0,6019103.story

[simontarr]

Have any of you seen 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'? It was a massivly controversial documentary aired in March on Channel 4 here in the UK. It totally destroyed the "Human Global Warming" issue. It's a facinating watch and it really opens your eyes. Top scientists in their fields just rip the "theory" to bits. It's probably against MR rules, but I would be happy to post links where you can download it- it's only a documentary after all.

Check out the website (http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html) and let me know if you would like the download links.

"The film brings together the arguments of leading scientists who disagree with the prevailing consensus that carbon dioxide released by human industrial activity is the cause of rising global temperatures today.

That Earth's climate is changing and always has done is not disputed by anyone. That it is warming now is also not disputed by anyone. But some people think that the warming is our fault, whilst others believe we have nothing to do with it.

The film argues that rises in atmospheric carbon dioxide have nothing to do with climate change. Further, the present single-minded focus on reducing carbon emissions may have the unintended consequence of stifling development in the third world, prolonging endemic poverty and disease.

Recent research, presented in this film, apparently shows that the effect of cosmic radiation, and solar activity may explain fluctuations in global temperatures more precisely than the carbon dioxide theory."

[IJ Reilly]

This "documentary" was discussed extensively here several weeks ago. Turns out the real swindle was the program itself.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=287484

[simontarr]

I didn't know it had been discussed already.

I was totally for Global Warming (That we were responsible) then I watched this documentary. Now I've checked out that thread and a few of the external links, I'm not so sure.

There are always two sides to an arguement, and this arguement is going to rage for a long time to come. I guess we will never know the 'true' answer (Until it's too late)


This "documentary" was discussed extensively here several weeks ago. Turns out the real swindle was the program itself.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=287484

[IJ Reilly]

There are always two sides to an arguement, and this arguement is going to rage for a long time to come. I guess we will never know the 'true' answer (Until it's too late)

Yes, there are two sides to any argument. You can find two argument as to whether the Earth is flat or oblately spherical, but one side has much better evidence to support their claim than the other.

[emw]

Something I thought very telling about this story was the fact that it was buried 8 pages deep in the Tribune this morning while the front page blared about Gonzales' aide resigning and some dude going to church 365 days in a row.

The difficulty in getting any traction on this issue is that it continues to be placed in obscurity by most media outlets as opposed to being on the forefront of our consciousness.

As I've said before, actions required to combat climate change, whether they'll ultimately be effective or even necessary to that end, are simply actions that make sense in total. We're running out of fossil fuel, we're killing off species with pollution, and we're straining our ecological infrastructure in terms of water utilization, etc. Why wouldn't we want to change our behavior regardless of if there is a link to climate change?

[simontarr]

Yes, there are two sides to any argument. You can find two argument as to whether the Earth is flat or oblately spherical, but one side has much better evidence to support their claim than the other.

Who thinks the Earth is flat these days :D

I hear what you're saying though. I was totally against watching the documentary (for the simple fact of that matter that so many people can't be wrong for so long) but in the end my dad forced me into downloading it! I'm all for preventing global warming anyway- If global warming has been over-exaggerated, at least we will have a cleaner, nicer planet on which to live. If it hasn't then at least we have the oppertunity to attempt to do something.

The documentary does raise some interesting points about the media involvement, however. They love doom-mongering so maybe the effects/rate of global warming have been exaggerated to the public to make for more dramatic reading.

[simontarr]

This is what I have just said (but you put it far better than I did!) :p
There are no downfalls (minus cost) associated with becoming green, in my opinion.



As I've said before, actions required to combat climate change, whether they'll ultimately be effective or even necessary to that end, are simply actions that make sense in total. We're running out of fossil fuel, we're killing off species with pollution, and we're straining our ecological infrastructure in terms of water utilization, etc. Why wouldn't we want to change our behavior regardless of if there is a link to climate change?

[Cassie]

I still can't figure out the SUV thing though. Those of us with large numbers of passengers every trip can't be expected to drive everywhere in two or three cars.

I drive a small car when I'm by myself, but I have my SUV when we go anywhere with the family.

That's perfectly OK, it's just when people drive SUV's, and there's only one or two people in the whole thing.

[IJ Reilly]

The documentary does raise some interesting points about the media involvement, however. They love doom-mongering so maybe the effects/rate of global warming have been exaggerated to the public to make for more dramatic reading.

Not really. The media is just a side-show. If you read what the climatologists themselves are saying, the situation is quite dire. Over the last 5-10 years, many of the skeptics and holdouts in the scientific community have been won over by the data. The main scientific debate now seems to be a matter of degrees, so to speak, and some questions as to root causes (meaning, how much warming is naturally cyclical, and how much is produced by human activity). The vast majority of the forecasts are very bleak. Those who are left still arguing that climate change might not really be happening and/or human activity isn't implicated, are the current equivalent of flat-earthers.

[Swarmlord]

That's perfectly OK, it's just when people drive SUV's, and there's only one or two people in the whole thing.


We haven't figured out a way to keep people from being inconsiderate @sses!

[pseudobrit]

I still can't figure out the SUV thing though. Those of us with large numbers of passengers every trip can't be expected to drive everywhere in two or three cars.

Of course not. A bus pulling 5mpg with 20 passengers going to work is getting double the fuel economy per commuter than my car with just me at 50mpg.

But if the average SUV gets 15mpg with four people in it (60pmpg) then forcing automakers up to 20mpg puts it at 80pmpg.

My car with three passengers (in relative comfort) on the interstate makes over 200pmpg.

[solvs]

The problem is that over the last week the temps in the northeast have been some good 15 degrees below normal with snow. Most people are wondering where the global warming is. It is hard to push it on people when everyone is still worrying about their winter oil bills.

We had record lows here in the Midwest last weekend too.
I was going to post some sarcastic comment about how it was raining last week, so Global Warming isn't real, but I see someone beat me to it.

I would have been kidding though.

Hasn't the earth naturally gone through climate cycles (read: time periods where it was much hotter than normal and time periods where it was much cooler) in the past several million years? What makes this any different? How can we be so sure we are causing it, and more importantly, that we have the power to do anything about it?
Because all evidence we've seen has pointed out that things are worse than they have been in the past, especially since the Industrial Revolution, and that it's directly related to our activity. It's kinda scary actually if you look at it. And logically, pouring all of those toxins into the air can't be a good thing.

There are always two sides to an arguement
Not always. Sometimes one side may go a bit far (though from what I've seen, they actually haven't gone far enough so as not to scare people off or make everyone think we're already doomed so we can still fight it if we have a chance), but the other side making stuff up doesn't mean there is legitimate debate. That's been a big problem. 1 side having fact and reason on their side, while we feel some need to give equal time to the other side no matter how ridiculous their claims, and for some reason, both are considered valid.

Pardon me if I believe evidence over politicians and oil companies.

And as you've said, going green couldn't hurt even if they're wrong, but not doing something could be disastrous even if it's not anywhere near as bad as they've said.

[Swarmlord]

Of course not. A bus pulling 5mpg with 20 passengers going to work is getting double the fuel economy per commuter than my car with just me at 50mpg.

But if the average SUV gets 15mpg with four people in it (60pmpg) then forcing automakers up to 20mpg puts it at 80pmpg.

My car with three passengers (in relative comfort) on the interstate makes over 200pmpg.

If they'd install biodiesel engine options into the existing crop of SUV's they'd be there right now. (I'm not talking about the uber diesels they put into the trucks to pull national monuments up hills)

[pseudobrit]

If they'd install biodiesel engine options into the existing crop of SUV's they'd be there right now. (I'm not talking about the uber diesels they put into the trucks to pull national monuments up hills)

There's no such thing as a "biodiesel engine." Any modern diesel will run on biodiesel.

Some older models would need to retrofit new fuel lines.

[ErikCLDR]

Honestly, I do not fully accept global warming. Currently we are in an ice age, our planet has be significantly hotter at other points in history. The way I see it Global Warming is a way that people can make money. It creates news, jobs, and alarm. There are probably zillions of books about global warming, but probably very few putting it down in that publishers would rather sell something thats more interesting and creates alarm.

If you say the same lie over and over again, people will believe it.

[ErikCLDR]

If they'd install biodiesel engine options into the existing crop of SUV's they'd be there right now. (I'm not talking about the uber diesels they put into the trucks to pull national monuments up hills)

Very very very very few SUV's have diesel engines.

[takao]

funny how here global warming was in the media the most big thing during the winter because it was the warmest winter since statistics have been made
and before that it was the warmest fall of all time
and for a country with skiing industry/tourism it's a catastrophe already _now_

also quite a few birds start being stationary in some regions and don't fly south anymore because of the increased temperature

[solvs]

The way I see it Global Warming is a way that people can make money.

This is an old argument that has been debunked here many times. In fact, the opposite is true. Those who are continue to claim there is no global warming are usually profiting from the fact that we do little or nothing to stop it. Like the oil companies. I doubt there are a lot of scientists out there making bank talking about environmentalism, vs. working for the other side, which will make you money. Maybe some writers out there, but again, not everyone is Al Gore.

All evidence is to the contrary of what you've said. There is no more debate. It's real. I used to not believe either, but after seeing the proof, I was swayed. It's actually even worse than most people realize.

Besides, you just don't pump as many chemicals into the air as we do and expect nothing bad to happen.

[pseudobrit]

The way I see it Global Warming is a way that people can make money.

Yes. The energy companies are making billions every quarter pumping CO2 into the air.

If you're talking about people making money offering alternatives, you'll find that it's a niche market dominated by small upstarts.
There is no "Big Renewable" industry that approaches any segment of Big Energy companies.
Fact is, an essential part of renewable energy is its tilt toward conservation before generation. And it's hard to sell something like that. Because in many instances that means selling nothing.
Who makes money when you turn off the lights? Who makes money when you turn down the thermostat?

[Desertrat]

takao, there's a guy in England who's spent the last 30+ years keeping track of where and when certain flowers bloom in the spring. The blooming has been occurring earlier, and farther north. And that's in spite of the de-smogging that's brought about less-cloudy days and greater variations in the temperature spreads. Lower lows, for instance.

I've watched as, during the last 20 years, the nesting habitat area of the whitewing dove has expanded northward some 500 to 600 miles. I've read that in Michigan, the habitat of the wooly-bear caterpillar has expanded northward.

And then we have the NOAA photos of the Arctic ice.

Facets: The rise in the average temperature has been predicted to come about more from higher nighttime lows than from higher daytime highs. That would (absent changes in rainfall patterns) expand the crop-growing areas northward, benefitting Canada and Russia.

Back around 1976, I did a study of drouths in my general part of the southwestern US; central and western Texas, Oklahoma, and the southeastern third of New Mexico. Going back to the Civil War, I found that multi-year drouth periods occurred with centers on roughly 22-year intervals. This interval has continued to the present, although the drouth of the mid-'70s was very mild compared to 22 years earlier. My own jury is still out, to some extent, on the report mentioned by IJ; it applies more to areas farther west.

The argument seems to still be ongoing between the "CO2ers" and the "Water-vaporers" as to causation. I don't know enough to have an opinion on that angle.

So far, 2,500 feet above sea level seems safe enough. :D

'Rat