STATE OF THE SCIENCE: Greenhouse gas emissions and sea levels continue to rise, outpacing previous predictions in the latest research.
Image: ©ISTOCKPHOTO.COM
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Climate change is "unequivocal" and it is 90 percent certain that the "net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming," the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) —a panel of more than 2,500 scientists and other experts—wrote in its first report on the physical science of global warming earlier this year. In its second assessment, the IPCC stated that human-induced warming is having a discernible influence on the planet, from species migration to thawing permafrost. Despite these findings, emissions of the greenhouse gases driving this process continue to rise thanks to increased burning of fossil fuels while cost-effective options for decreasing them have not been adopted, the panel found in its third report.
The IPCC's fourth and final assessment of the climate change problem—known as the Synthesis Report—combines all of these reports and adds that "warming could lead to some impacts that are abrupt or irreversible, depending upon the rate and magnitude of the climate change." Although countries continue to debate the best way to address this finding, 130 nations, including the U.S., China, Australia, Canada and even Saudi Arabia, have concurred with it.
"The governments now require, in fact, that the authors report on risks that are high and 'key' because of their potentially very high consequence," says economist Gary Yohe, a lead author on the IPCC Synthesis Report. "They have, perhaps, given the planet a chance to save itself."
Among those risks:
Warming Temperatures—Continued global warming is virtually certain (or more than 99 percent likely to occur) at this point, leading to both good and bad impacts. On the positive side, fewer people will die from freezing temperatures and agricultural yield will increase in colder areas. The negatives include reduced crop production in the tropics and subtropics, increased insect outbreaks, diminished water supply caused by dwindling snowpack, and increasingly poor air quality in cities.
Heat Waves—Scientists are more than 90 percent certain that episodes of extreme heat will increase worldwide, leading to increased danger of wildfires, human deaths and water quality issues such as algal blooms.
Heavy Rains—Scientific estimates suggest that extreme precipitation events—from downpours to whiteouts—are more than 90 percent likely to become more common, resulting in diminished water quality and increased flooding, crop damage, soil erosion and disease risk.
Drought—Scientists estimate that there is a more than 66 percent chance that droughts will become more frequent and widespread, making water scarcer, upping the risk of starvation through failed crops and further increasing the risk of wildfires.
Stronger Storms—Warming ocean waters will likely increase the power of tropical cyclones (variously known as hurricanes and typhoons), raising the risk of human death, injury and disease as well as destroying coral reefs and property.
Biodiversity—As many as a third of the species known to science may be at risk of extinction if average temperatures rise by more than 1.5 degrees Celsius.
See what we're tweeting about
62 Comments
Add Comment> "We are above the high scenario now," says climatologist Stephen of Stanford University, an IPCC lead author. "This is not a safe world."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSchneider, I assume?
The elephant in the room, which almost no-one seems to have addressed, is the mass migration of humans as habitats become marginal or uninhabitable. A large proportion of the human population live within 10 or so metres of sea level, and will have to find new places to live: how can this effect be met?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOops. Thanks for catching that typo. You are correct sir.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's an excellent question, and one not entirely ignored (see page 2 of the article:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this[b]Sea Level Rise[/b]—The level of the world's oceans will rise, likely inundating low-lying land, turning freshwater brackish and potentially triggering widespread migration of human populations from affected areas. ...
The risk of climate refugees (and, by extension, climate wars) is not a small one. The small island states of the Pacific are likely to be the first but all those coastal dwellers so horrifically hard hit in Bangladesh by the recent storm surge are not far behind. When they retreat permanently to higher ground will they destabilize their own country or their neighbors (Myanmar, India, etc.)?
Of course, humanitarian and security disasters aside, the Dutch, among others, have shown for centuries how to live with sea level rise. But that is going to require money and that is where an adaptation fund or some such solution would be required. Finding the cash—and the stomach—for such a fund is another political question that the Bali negotiations should address.
I would agree that global warming is induced by humankind. But rather than co2, I think the huge increase in world population is the culprit.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs sea levels rise, and droughts ensue, more people will die. As a result, less people will be driving cars, and using electricity. In effect the decrease in carbon emissions is built into global warming. So what is the problem?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs long as understatements and litotes will substitute for reality, we will continue to believe that progress harms humanity and Africa can sustain two billion inhabitants in 2050. Let the Earth warm and sort the wheat from the chaff on our behalf.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI find it hard to believe that people are still in a state of denial regarding our mass experiment on the environment, it is true that the world undergoes climate cycles without our intervention, however I am extremely frightened about the effects of global warming, we have released in a few tens of decades carbon sequestered by natural possess over millions of years , and while we may find a way to adapt to, or control the effects, we also may not. I do not advocate going and living in mud huts , but I think people should remember that we have only one Earth , We have no where else to go if we mess this one up. Even the most hardened denialists must admit there is a small chance they are wrong, but is that a chance we can , or even have the right, to take?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe big unmentioned impact of global warming is war on a global scale. War is what people do when faced with unresolvable resource problems.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this>The object now is to avoid really dangerous change.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs the closing line of the article. I think there is no real point in making the story even scarier, but the recent scientific reports are not really encouraging. The article already mentions the rapid loss of ice in the Arctic this year, and quotes researcher Mark Serreze about expecting the Arctic to be ice-free in Summer by 2030 as not an unreasonable guess. Other researchers think at the current rate it might even go faster and the Arctic could be ice free in summer as early as 2012:
[i]This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions."[/i]
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/12/11/arctic.melt.ap/index.html
Another recent report investigated the Oxygen isotopes in planctonic forminifera of the Red Sea and coral data from the last interglacial period from 124000 to 119000 years ago, if that data is translated to the expected temperature rise in this century it suggests a possible searise in this century could be [i]twice[/i] as fast as the [i]maximum[/i] estimate from the IPCC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7148137.stm
There are considerable margins of error, the full article in Nature Geoscience mentions figures of 1.6 +/- 0.8 and 1.6 +/- 1.0 m but even at the low end of this range the worldwide effects of such a sealevel rise could be catastrophic.
There are many things we can do to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, and we will have to look at all of them but, if the worst predictions of the IPCCC prove to be too conservative, is there anything else we can do?
I would like to propose just one more possible scenario - possible I think but admittedly outlandish-, that I have not seen elsewhere although variations of this have come up.
If we can't bring down the levels of CO2 quickly enough we would have to find some way of cooling down the earth. This will undoubtedly have side-effects if only for the fact that CO2 is not lowered by it. To limit complications the process should be at least controllable to a degree and temporary. Costs should remain within limits.
The only thing that I could think of with limited side-effects and non astronomical costs would involve trying to set up some sun shading cloud of dust, not close to the earth, but at the L1 Lagrangian point beyond the lunar orbit between the sun and the earth. At this distance the screening capabilities of a cloud of dust would be limited but the advantage is that it would be semi permantly in the direct path of the sunlight, not orbiting the earth where more than half the time it would not be having any effect. No cloud of dust at this L1 point would be permanent but we don't want that anyway, we could repeat the process if it is necessary. The big problem is how to get enough of a cloud to have some impact, but even a 1% reduction of sunlight for a few weeks might be enough to give us some delay in rising sealevels. If we could do it fast...
The best way I can think of doing this would be along the lines of sending a fleet of small, ion propulsion engine spacecraft like further developments of the Stardust mission that would have to find and then land on an asteroid, say somewhere in the asteroid belt and with their motors steer it towards the L1 point. Some spacecraft would remain on the surface of the asteroid and keep controlling with their engines the exact loction of this target asteroid. Other craft would go back, find a few smaller asteroid blocks and with the help of some slingshot technique maybe, would have to get these into a high enough velocity but still on such a precise course that they could impact on the first asteroid, and disintegrate completely, to create a cloud of dust that would screen part of the sunlight. Getting an asteroid to such a required high speed, very precise impact orbit is certainly not an easy objective.
I think we would have to create a dust cloud with the approximate angular size of the moon so it covers the whole face of the sun seen from earth, to have enough effect. That would have to be a very big cloud at that distance but it does not seem totally impossible to do...
There is also the possible danger of some debris eventually hitting earth but if the cloud would be made of small fragments the risk of any dangerous impacts is minimal. To an extent you could control that by choosing objects with limited density and a loose composition. The far away location of the L1 point is something of a plus in that respect and half of the cloud-debris would move in the direction of the sun, away from earth. I see no other big side-effects on say long term climate because any cloud at this L1 point would not be stable and dissipate very quickly.
I think the US has already most of the space technology available to do this and, frankly, I am afraid that we [i]will[/i] have to try at least something like this. It is largely my guess, I'm certainly no astronomer or climatologist who could provide needed better data and better insights about feasibility, timetables, risk assessment and costs etc., but I don't think we have that much time now until the melting of land ice is almost impossible to stop.
Thank you for reading this far, this is just one possible idea to explore, maybe something better can be found!
E. de Groot
--
Edited by Eelco de Groot at 01/07/2008 8:53 PM
--
Edited by Eelco de Groot at 01/07/2008 8:58 PM
I like global warming. Humans are just terra forming the Earth to be more like the warm tropical climates they originally evolved in. We are changing the entire earth to be more like the climate we are are adapted for. If I never saw snow again it would be fine with me. I hate to be cold.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGovernments need to suck up the pain and start implimenting change at a faster pace. Just look the government of the US just approved the MPG of cars to 35mpg but its not effective till 2020. We have the technology now to do that my 94 civic gets better then that. SciAm published an artical a few days ago, "grass makes better ethinol then corn" but the problem is there that the corn industry wants corn because "grass farmer" doesnt sound as benifical as nice as "corn farmer". So if we want to really help change this trend we all need to make changes in our personal habbits and try to "force" the government to act more quickly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven as an environmentalist, I have a hard time being convinced that the CO2 produced by man is the main cause of global warming. I need to see the raw numbers...and the ones I could pull up include 3.5 trillion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere and man puts out 26 to 57 billion tons/yr or 1 to 1.5%. CO2 green house effects is 9-26%, H2O vapor accounts for 36-70% and this doesn't include cloud cover or vapor trails. Methane is 4-9%...in other words, we don't know much about man made CO2 and the numbers are well within the margin of error. Can anyone give me better numbers to clear up my confusion? TIA.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGlobal warming is a hoax. Dr. Manns research has been shown to be full of errors. Go to Micheal Crichton's web site and read his excellent essay on the subject. I would post the link but this web site deletes links.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWAKE UP - 1998 was the "warmest year", since then the real NATURAL causes of global warming have at best led to a plateau of temperature change even as carbon dioxide emissions continue to ramp up significantly. I gave up my SciAm subscription years ago as I saw the mag become politicized - science is science, not politics. Anthropogenic warming is just another false political football being tossed about to achieve the usual obvious leftists social ends. Al Gore admitted that he is deliberatly lying to us to scare us into action on this issue. He openly says that lying to us to motivate us is acceptable. Well, IS IT?
If you want to put this global warming scam into perspective (loonyman - WHAT A NAME - clearly is a "true believer" but the only "denialists" are those that deny that it is nature, not man, that is the primary driver of climate change) read POPULATION BOMB by Paul Ehrlichman. He made IPCC style claims in his book - one that comes to mind was how, by the year 2000, the Earth would be STANDING ROOM ONLY - every available chunk of land would have a person standing on it. Famine, disease, catastrophe - it is all there predicted in his book which is essentially a foreshadowing of the IPCC reports.
In fact the comparisons are chilling - here is what Ehrlichman said would be required for catastrophe:
A rapid rate of change
A limit of some sort
Delays in perceiving the limit
Sound familiar? It's EXACTLY the line used by the IPCC and the alarmists. Paraphrased, it says, "We cannot afford to wait for data to see if we are right because if we wait it will be too late. We have to take drastic action now."
Fortunately with global warming apparently on hold since 1998 even as CO2 emissions continue to rise along with atmospheric levels, cooler heads, hopefully, will begin to prevail.
The "consensus" argument was not only a lie, it is the first refuge of those who know they have no real argument to offer.
The "science is settled/debate is over" crowd don't have a clue either because the more real science is done on this issue the less it looks like a problem.
http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html
http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-environmentalismaseligion.html
http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-senatetestimony.html
http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-sciencepolicy.html
Before you say that Crichton is "not qualified" to speak on this topic, compare his background with that of Al Gore then tell me which is not qualified.
Oh, I see another comment states that "this web site deletes links" or some such.
Not yet...
Let us just wait and see - I posted links to the essays and speeches but yes, if they get deleted, do go check them out - required reading for the CACCA crowd (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmists) - a fitting name do you not agree - and so-called "denialists" - those who curiously do NOT deny that climate change is natural, normal, inevitable oddly enough - alike.
Dr. Crichton has a site that is his first and last name, no spaces, followed by dot NET. Or you can google (or yahoo or whatever) his name. Check it out.
--
Edited by Greg001 at 01/27/2008 12:45 AM Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
The teaser for this bit in the Feb 08 issue (Pg 2 in TOC) said "The IPCC has declared man-made climate change "unequivocal". Here is another myth of the proportion of past beliefs all matter was made of earth, air, fire and water. It is on par with the belief the Earth was flat - although it is odd those that believe in this new "Church of Gore" religion call those who do not "flat-Eearthers" oddly enough. I mean this new scam is right up there with "The Earth (i.e. MAN) is the center of the solar system, the universe, indeed of everything." Meanwhile it is clear to anyone who can think for themself that carbon dioxide continues to rise since 1998 but temperatures are at best flat if not declining. What is wrong with that picture?
Let's think for a moment - Carbon Dioxide makes up such a miniscule portion of the atmosphere. Alarmists love to quote it as a total quantity - but do the math and figure out what percent is represented by 270 parts per million. Then figure out what percent is represented by 370 parts per million. Atmospheric carbon dioxide increased from almost nothing to next to nothing.
Let us look at it another way. Between 2001 and 2003 the rate of increase "spiked" according to NOAA and others. So if carbon dioxide is driving temperature as these people claim (even as carbon dioxide continues to rise and temperatures at best have flattened if in fact they hav not begun to fall) WHERE IS THE CORRESPONDING TEMPERATURE SPIKE?
Here is a quote from NOAA:
"the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increased by nearly 5 parts per million (ppm) between 2001 and 2003. The increase in 2002 was 2.43 ppm; the increase in 2003 was 2.30 ppm. In other words, more than two additional carbon-dioxide molecules were added to each million molecules of air each year during that period. The annual increase was higher than the long-term average annual CO2 increase of approximately 1.5 ppm."
(source:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2412.htm
)
Less than three additional carbon dioxide molecules were added for each molecule of air during that time, 2001 to 2003. Who does that scare? Al Gore, apparently. Not me and, hopefully, not you.
I had read that it would be ten, twenty or maybe at best thirty years BUT WITHIN MY LIFETIME that we would have clear observational proof that global warming alarmists were - well - alarmists who are in fact totally out of touch with reality. It looks like that proof may be coming early though. Compare and contrast this with the horror stories from the IPCC.
As for north polar ice - they talk of the "Northwest Passage" as if it had never existed before. Are they going to claim that the last time it opened, just like this time IF IT EVEN DOES, it did because of something man was doing? Or will they admit that last time, as this time, it is essentially a natural event that man has little if anything to do with?
Meanwhile as the amazing shrinking north polar ice cap continues to be big news they conveniently "forget" to tell you that it also refroze at a record rate. They also forget to mention that down at the south pole ice apparently set records too - greatest extent ever witnessed since modern measuring methods were available. Since these FACTS don't contribute to global warming hysteria they conveniently avoid sharing them with you.
One more thing - did you notice they're shifting from talking about "warming". Now it's "change" we're supposed to be afraid of. They realize that the worm is turning - we are looking at cooling sooner rather than later and they know they have to prepare us for the coming about face when they magically find a way to blame global cooling on man as well.
As another comment said - who said warming was bad? We're still technically in the tail end of the last ice age. Earth has been warmer. It has warmed faster. There is nothing unusual about what we saw over the last 30 years or so and certainly nothing to be afraid of.
--
Edited by Greg001 at 01/27/2008 12:07 AM Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
The teaser for this article also says "The hard part: trying to stop [anthropogenic climate change]. This of course requires you accept the lie that climate would be static if not for man and that there is something unusual or unnatural about the miniscule changes we have witnessed over the last 20-30 years. There is NOT. Climate change is inevitable. Change is what climate does. Trying to stop it is sort of like trying to stop the tides, trying to stop the sunrise. Those who believe we can overwhelm the forces of nature think that man is a god, more powerful than nature.
The Earth has been warming for 10,000 years. Why is it suddenly all the fault of man in the last 30? Seriously, why is warming bad? Shall we go back to the days where much of North America, Europe and Asia were covered with ice and snow and call that good? Who voted and said that 1970 (or whenever) was the perfect temperature anyway? Reports from all over this winter suggest a lot of places, places identified by the IPCC of having "suffered" unusual and even potentially catstrophic warming over the last 20-30 years are badly in need of some global warming! At this rate they will be praying for all the global warming that man can cause!
I got news for you. Suppose for a second I am wrong. Suppose man is monkeying with climate due to CO2 and other GHGs. Guess what - the only way to really "stop it" is to immediately start culling the human population. There, I said it. Genocide. Any volunteers? Or should we leave the choices up to Al Gore and his ilk? I for one say NO! I got a suggestion for all you "carbon neutral" demanders, starting with Al Gore, who clearly does NOT believe in practicing what he preaches. STOP BREATHING. Give the rest of us a chance to try to fill YOUR carbon footprint as we insist that YOU cut back in a way that is certain to have a positive, if small, impact on the "big picture". That's right, Al, STOP BREATHING and maybe all that hot air you are spewing will stop polluting our world, which will do just fine if you would just sit down and shut up for a change.
--
Edited by Greg001 at 01/27/2008 12:11 AM Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
What to make of the article: Environmental Effects of Increase Atmospheric CO2 by A. B Robinson and N.E. Robinson, published in Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons(2007) 12,79-90?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs it propaganda or science?
In a poll released March 5, 2008, 68 per cent disagree with the popular statement that "the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled." The divisions showed up in a canvass of more than 51,000 specialists licensed to practice the highly educated occupations by the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta. Just Words???
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGlobal temperatures peaked during Clinton's 1998, since then it has been cooling, while CO2 may have been rising. The winter of 2007-8 was downright cold. Face it, climate changes - adapt.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article is silly. Instead of repeating the global warming dogma Scientific American should be presenting real data. The monster IPCC report should be carefully examined, and its fundamental flaws exposed. Doing that would make a real contribution to the scientific community.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the News.Global Warming, truth or consequences.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.quazen.com/News/Opinions/Al-Gores-Decree-on-Global-Warming-is-Not-Our-Only-Crisis.51904
Al Gore's Decree on Global Warming is Not Our Only Crisis
What about Global Pollution? Are we forgetting something?
http://www.quazen.com/Science/Environment/Is-Global-Warming-or-Global-Pollution-the-Issue--.17376
Is Global Warming, or Global Pollution the Issue?
We should tackle world pollution first
the only way to save humanity is to kill ourselves so off you all go i will pass on your noble deeds to future generations
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, i have for years contended the human population needs to curtailed and managed on this planet. It is ultimately the only way to control our enviroment. I propose we develope a chemical spray that effects humans ability to reproduce. Since caucasions .Russia,and Japan are growth neutral it would be designed to only effect other races and geogrphical areas of population growth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis only shows what I have long held to be the final solution. Let's control human population before we have nature do it for us.I suggest we spray a DNA encoded pesticide that sterilizes those who cannot control there own population. Since Caucasions,Russians and the Japanese are growth neutral it would designed not to effect those populations. Everyone else gets sprayed and can no longer reproduce. Such chemicals in use today for termite colony eliminations are 90 percent effective in one application. This would be a very economical method and of climate control.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is legitimate controversy and argument in many areas of science, including in the field of measuring and predicting climate change. But it is important to realise that the label of 'scientist' does not, in itself, make someone a credible source. The range in quality of individual scientists is vast.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome scientists, even now, deny evolution. This does not mean there is legitimate controversy about the fact of evolution. All it means is that some scientists are poor at what they do. An argument to authority citing an individual source has no weight, but a reference to a consensus among the overwhelming majority of scientists does have weight.
There is an overwhelming majority of scientists that accept evolution, and there is an overwhelming majority that accepts the basic facts about climate change. What's disturbing is that the consensus about plausible scenarios has been steadily shifting toward worst case scenarios. Given the catastrophic consequences of worst case scenarios, to not take note of this is to be on the wrong side of history.
what would be the worst case senario for climate change. Could we really enter another ice age?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"worst case senario" for climate change. Could we really enter another ice age?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet's see, Michael Crichton has been awarded how many Nobel prizes? Sorry folks, the party is over, natural or man-made, the rate that the earth is warming will lead to catastrophe if nothing is done to alleviate it. I doubt the people of Canada or Siberia will be looking forward to sharing their scant resources with billions of displaced humans as the equatorial earth becomes uninhabitable. Stop denying and start acting responsibly, you immature imbeciles.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, the plausible scenarios are moving towards worst case because the ice caps and glaciers are melting and the world is warming at a rate far faster than predicted in the models used to predict the scenarios thus far. If we don't act now to mitigate the effects of this impending super-warm climate event, we will face a global catastrophe. Whether you want to believe that this incredibly rapid warming of our planet has nothing to do with human activity or not it is time to admit that acting now to prepare for the worst possible scenario is the only prudent, mature thing to do. I know it's a bummer when the party has to end, but we have to grow up sometime.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think that the earth, and it's climate is a complex, intricate system. It is far too complex for anyone to be able to predict with any kind of certainty exactly what will happen. Assuming that global warming is a real phenomenon, and that it is not natural, but indeed caused by man, still, how can we predict the reaction of the earth to global warming? In order to do that we would have to be aware of all variables, and we would have to know the consequences of each change in action. How can we possibly claim to know whether global warming will have a huge affect or not? We do not posses the information needed to determine what will happen in such an uncertain future. But of course thinking this way only promotes a feeling of helplessness. The best we can do is to try to evaluate the information we have and take action...but it honestly seems to me that there is way too much room for error.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have been waiting so long to spring this joke on somebody, whose discussing global warming. "Buy land in Nebraska, while it's still cheap!" -- it's smack dab in the middle of the country, it will be one of the safest places. Well, it's not glamorous, or good weather, but it's pretty far away from any coast. Nebraska is going to get very very popular. If you can stand living there, that is. But we're not going to have a whole lot of choice about where we live anymore, or we? I'm sure glad I didn't have any kids; now I can stop feeling guilty about it. Now they don't have to go through all the horrors of falling civilization, nor do their grandchildren, etc. etc. not unless I clone myself, which I'm not inclined to do. I would hate to be around somebody like me!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere is your sense of humor about all this?as for me, I'm going to make up a whole bunch of global warming jokes, and spring them on twitter. Come on, guys, this is a wonderful subject for black humor. Dark humor. Satire and irony. "The end of civilization! The end of mankind! The end of Wall Street! The end of banks, money, the United States of America government, and the end of TAXES!" Who says this is a bad thing? No taxes, and plenty of death, the only two sure things in the universe.NO MORE PANTYHOSE! Karl Lagerfeld will be gone finally! No more Chanel! Thank God, maybe nature knows what it's doing after all.can you believe, but Karl Lagerfeld will finally be gone? Man, I thought that guy was going to hang on forever! I mean, he looks like he's dead already. And, the clothes look like that too. Don't talk about the end of civilization as if it were a bad thing. Just think about the fact that there won't be any WAL-MART or TARGET, or FREEWAYS! I am really looking forward to this now. Okay, okay, I know you guys can't live without your freeways and your cars, but you're going to anyway. Try riding a goat, or a burro, or a donkey, it's quite an adventure.NO MORE CARS! This is really going to be worth it after all; hey, when is done next iceberg due to arrive?
Dealing w this situation is not something that nessesarily equates w living in mud huts. While prudent conservation should play a part, I think more substantial solutions will come from advancments in science rather than ludism. More eficient solar cells or some form of fusion would make monumental changes in how much CO2 we put out. And neither are at all imposible even w/in a decades time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the world warms even at a pace faster than normal or expected the end result will be the beginning of another Ice Age at some point. This cycle will continue over and over as it has in the past few million years... I agree the rapid effects are going to create a lot of loss and mass confusion but emergencies and life and death situations are the mother of all motivations for change... The bigger the problem the bigger the solution. If the crap hits the fan and that is how we get away from fossil fuels then... Okay.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf we forget how much CO2 the volcanos and other such natural events cause, forget the methane gases and roll with the SUV culprits we will still miss the mark. We are killing the earth's lungs (trees) and the Carbon Sinks are not being replenished after losses so it is ultimately up to the two choices... Either we make bigger efforst or Mother Nature will. She will kick our collective arses and reduce population by millions and give the earth back habitat, and more than likely polish off a few more million with a massive ice age.
Problem is we as a species are too stupid to do anything more that chat about it and hope it happens after we are too old to care... I love this world and its all we have but we treat it as if we can do like we do with everything else... Toss it when we are done. Problem is we may be what gets tossed...
Clearly the hateful primate who wrote all those "facts" should have never been born. We already had one Hitler.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe extreme right wing just does not get it: THERE IS ONLY ONE PLANET...STOP BUYING Ford Excursion to go to work or college. Smart people drive small cars because they want to leave a planet to their grandchildren...Oops!, I forgot, the Right Winders are also loving Christian and God will forgive them!
It's interesting what difference a couple of years make. Lately(2007-2009) the arctic ice is again refreezing. Did any of the climate change models predict this? I don't think so. However, the geoclimatologists studying the sun have developed models that accurately track the solar output over the historical period and predict another major cooling cycle over the next few decades. Maybe it's time to start growing some firewood.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy opinion is that the summer Arctic Ice meltback (particularly in the Bering Sea and around the northern coast of Alaska) never was a good climate indicator, for the reason that this ice is affected too much by dust and soot brought by prevailing winds from China, Mongolia, and the Gobi Desert.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnything that dirties the surface of ice and snow increases the absorption of solar energy (particularly when the sun never really sets) and thus becomes a very potent melter of ice and snow. In fact, ordinary air pollution from China may be a major reason for all North American glaciers having receeded for many decades.
All the same, my best guess is that we are on the cusp of a new Little Ice Age and it will come on quickly. Whatever humans do about CO2 is inconsequential, because even though CO2 is certainly a greenhouse gas it is only a trace component of the atmosphere and doubling or even tripling it will neither destroy us nor help save us from the ice age breathing down our necks.
Why is this new cold spell coming on? I don't know, but to me the latest Baffin Island study emphatically concludes that for no reason at all nature just lays a new little ice age on us from time to time. Of course the Baffin Island researchers have put out a PC claim that Baffin Island really would clearly be getting colder at present, but that anthropogenic global warming has stymied this cyclical cold spell.
No it hasn't. All of Canada and the USA will be cooler this winter and for at least the next several decades. The permafrost is not going to melt, polar bears will do fine, and no commercial ocean traffic not escorted by powerful Russian nuclear icebreakers is going though the Northern passage from Alaska direct to Murmansk.
Wake up and smell the icicles.
It is no coincidence that the same conservatives who do not believe in evolution don't believe in climate change. Conservatives a fundamentalists and as fundamentalists they cannot accept anything that does not fit in their little box of dogma. To do so would be to admit that their entire world view is wrong. We should not scorn their self-induced ignorance, we should pity it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnce a rapid cool down begins,which I hope doesn't happen any time soon. It will funny to see how fast the people who want reductions in Co2's will change their minds,and then try to blame Co2's for the cool down.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would like to share my interest as one of the principals of Royal Wind, we have designed an Ocean Temperature Regulatory System using our revolutionary turbines to power cold water pumps. Our system is designed to pump large amounts of cold water to the surface of the ocean to create cold water thermoclines. We believe that widespread use of our system worldwide would result in a much desired global temperature regulation and reduction. The health of our oceans and the increased carbon sequestration are linked to global sustainability. We feel that without intervention the oceans are in danger of collapse. The health of our oceans is crucial to the maintenance of oxygen levels in the atmosphere. If the oceans die, we will struggle to survive. It’s all connected: ocean health, carbon sequestration, and global temperatures. Here’s the plan:
To install our ocean-current powered cold water pumps in strategic locations worldwide, creating cold water thermoclines, increasing the sequestration of anthropogenic carbon dioxide. Our system will also be used to build the polar icecap back to a more acceptable year-round base level which will also ensure the continued function of the thermohaline and of the North Atlantic drift. Our system will also be used to create cold water barriers to hurricanes. We can solve the Earth's problems with the right effort. We must if we plan to continue living on this Earth.
"We should not scorn their self-induced ignorance, we should pity it."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI disagree. We should perhaps pity, but the ignorance is self-indulgent, and as such deserves all the scorn we can muster. Their self-serving ignorance is a roadblock to the corrective measures that 99% of knowledgeable people insist is needed now.
It will be funny to see how fast jack123 eats his words.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHello BuzzLight,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with you on all the points.
Regarding Methane,down here in New Zealand , a couple of years ago our Politicians proposed a law to tax our numerous cows a fart tax for emitting Methane.
After the rest of the world laughed themselves silly , our Politicians realised how stupid they were and gave up on that.
You start out this article with 'Climate change is "unequivocal" and it is 90 percent certain that...etc' . Right out of the starting gate, you are wrong. It is zero percent certain because what you say conflicts with observed temperature measurements in the real world. Temperature curves from NASA, NOAA and the Met Office do indeed show that global temperature began to rise in the late seventies. But these curves are all cooked. I have analyzed how it was done and you can get the details from "What Warming?" available on Amazon.com. Accurate temperature measurements from satellites exist for the last thirty years but satellites do not see any of this alleged warming. What they do see is a multi-year global temperature oscillation, up and down by half a degree, for twenty years until 1998 showed up. This is not the steady rise shown by NASA, NOAA, and HadCRUT3 from the Met Office. But right in the middle of this imagined "late twentieth century warming" Hansen gets up in front of a Senate committee and testifies that a warming trend has started and that its cause is greenhouse effect from carbon dioxide in the air. Since we had an oscillating climate system, not globally rising temperatures, his testimony is false and any conclusions drawn from it are false. The oscillating temperatures of the eighties and nineties were followed by the super El Nino of 1998. It did not belong to the ENSO system but was caused by Indian Ocean overflow. The next regular El Nino in 2001 rose 0.2 degrees higher than previous ones did because of the left-over heat from the super El Nino and temperatures stayed warm for six years. I call it the twenty-first century high. It included two El Ninos and an abortive La Nina in between. Those are the years that ended up in top ten. La Nina cooling finally started in 2007 and bottomed out in 2008. That is because the oscillating climate of the eighties and nineties is back with us. We can expect an El Nino in 2010, to be followed by a La Nina like the one in 2008 and so on and on until the end of the century and beyond. This is the normal way our climate operates and has been operating since the Isthmus of Panama rose from the sea. Too bad for all the money spent on supercomputers to produce worthless climate predictions that are based on a non-existent greenhouse effect. Modelers like Kevin Trenberth who really believe in it must be going nuts when climate refuses to cooperate and is not interested in their imagined warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSummer arctic ice meltback around Bering Sea and the Chuckchi Sea just north of the Bering strait is caused by warm water entering the strait from the south. This can be variable and was particularly strong in 2007. It has been attributed to carbon dioxide greenhouse effect which it is not. On the opposite side, near Skandinavia and the Russian Arctic, summer meltback is caused by warm water of the Gulf Stream which has a far larger volume than what can pass through the Bering strait. The two sources are not coordinated so that if you look at the 2007 ice cover you notice a huge expansion of free water on the Bering strait side while the Gulf Stream side changes only a little. Nevertheless, Gulf Stream is far more important to arctic warming than the Bering Strait is, having started the warming process at the turn of the twentieth century when a rearrangement of the North Atlantic circulation took place. This means more than century of arctic warming by now. And the Arctic is the only part of the globe that is still warming - the rest of the globe is not. Temperature curves that show a global warming trend starting in the late seventies are all cooked. For details, read "What Warming?" available from Amazon.com.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh, and one more thing about the possibility of a coming ice age. I hate to disappoint you but the cooling that started in 2007 and b0ttomed out in 2008 is a regular La Nina cooling, part of the ENSO system of climate oscillations. ENSO is an alternation of warm El Nino and cool La Nina periods. One such cycle takes about four-five years but oceanic conditions can change that. This is because it is a Pacific Ocean phenomenon that has a global temperature influence. They were blotted out of the climate record when that phony warming trend I referred to was manufactured. These late twentieth century ENSO oscillations were interrupted by the super El Nino of 1998 and by the twenty-first century high from 2001 to 2007 but they are back. We are past the 2008 La Nina and are now approaching the regular 2010 El Nino. It will be followed by another La Nina like the one we had in 2008 and from then on they will just keep alternating till the end of the century and beyond. That is because this is the normal way our climate operates and has been operating since the Isthmus of Panama rose from the sea. These oscillations are visible in all historical temperature records that have not been doctored by using a running average so as to get rid of the annoying "noise" these "climate scientists" just don't like. Expect some ups and downs of climate but don't hold your breath for carbonaceous heat or glacier attacks anytime soon. And make "What Warming?" your climate bible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have read Sci Am for over 40 years. There are few things that have been so consistently rewarding. Sci Am introduced me to my life long hero Kepler, and I thank them. Now for the political garbage, in 1979 I worked as an insulation salesman for a couple of months and also was studdying solar systems (mostly solar heating systems) at San Jacinto JC in S. Cal. Anyway, At that time, The gas co would pay up front for insulation installation and spread the cost over 12 months , interest free, on the monthly gas bill. That was a good deal if someone had no atic insulation and saved gas. Also, at that time the government used to report how much crude oil the US was importing every month. In 1981 when a new President came in, all that stuff whent out the window-or so it seemed to me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPersonally, I don't think mankind was designed to deal with problems like global warming. Clearly, the comments reflect that. James Lovelock the author of the Gaia books is also one of my heroes. If you love the planet, he is a good person to read and a firm believer that the place is in trouble.
Hallo!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is feared is of course the cumulative effect of releasing all this
carbon-dioxide into the athmospher.
This graph reveals an approximate 20 per cent increase in CO2 since
1950.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CO2_data_mlo.svg
The problem is of course what will come in the future, with the current
developement. A big fear is of course that we will find that the optimistic
wiew, that the earth's weather will in some-way be able to self-regulate
will be completely false, instead we could get big releases of i.e. the other presently frozen in the tundra and the Bering's see (evidently warming...) green-house gas methane causing an accelerated green house effect.
Anyway the ecological and other implications are huge even for small changes, since the main part of the globes population lives in river deltas and
low-lying huge towns at the sea and since even small changes in temperature
completely changes the eco-systems, moving species out and in of habitats...
Look every one you are all just worried about politics democrats republicans afganistan haiti the earth quakes
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisand all that bunch of crap.Why in the world you all don't start worring more when this climate completely change when we don't have more water and no more food when everyone start catching diseases due to all these weather changes.I'm willing to stand up for this and start making changes like no more factories there is a million of those no more petrolium that causes global warming stop harming this world everyone it sounds like they don't give a damn for anything not even new born babies no one cares come on say the truth everyone you all don't give a shit about nothing and what is really going on with this matter.Hope is just a word right please do not hope if you don't belive in nothing may be just the devil it self.
By today, July 10th, 2010 we already know how wrong and misleading was AR4 2007 report, full of inaccuracies and references to abut 5600 non peer-reviewed sources. Al those "Gates" that have been uncovered should make people start to give another look at the so called "man made" climate change.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAfter Climategate and the shamefull whitwashing process that tried to cope with and revert the irreparable damage done to alarmist scientists' credibility, it is time to stop thinking the "science is settletd", or about an unexistent "consensus".
After three consecutive years of ever colder winters and the astounding solar minimum we are witnessing (and suffering) there is no other choice that acknowledge that it is the Sun who governs climatic changes -something older scientists allways knew until there came the "global warming" hoax and ensuing hysteria pushed by the eugenicists among the World Population reducers.
Fact: Carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere have risen drastically since the industrial age began, especially after World War 2. Many believe this is the main cause of global warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFact 2: Carbon-dioxide is a waste product of human, and other animal, bodies.
Even if we do manage to cool the Earth by geoengineering, we would still have increasing levels of carbon-dioxide if we continue burning fossil fuels as we do now.
Increasing the levels of this waste gas cannot be good for our health. We can't keep increasing the levels of this poison forever. We have to stop sometime, the sooner the better. Has nobody else considered this?
I don´t see the point. Most people agree on global warming but many don´t share the view of CO2 as the main cause. This reflects in some degree the view scientists have, also the effects are widely known - so why make this "news"? Give me 1 reason!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat we could and should do is dependant on if CO2 is the main factor or not, this should be discussed in the very name of science. 2.500 is not enough if the task has not been discussed. Here 800 having other views http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=gulf-oil-eating-microbes-slide-show&sc=WR_20100824
Yes we are on the only planet around that humans can live on. Even more reason to be certain what the hell we are doing. Rather then making assumptions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisToo bad we started out referring to this phenomenon in terms of "climate change" and "global warming". Apparently, these descriptors lack the requisite urgency to overcome social inertia and political obfuscation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI propose that all future publications on this topic employ the phrase "increased crazy-ass weather".
This is a concept even the densest of our citizenry can appreciate.
So far, the only person who seems to "get it" is the author who said,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would agree that global warming is induced by humankind. But rather than co2, I think the huge increase in world population is the culprit.
Since birth control doesn't work (China), accelerate the finding and reproduction of homosexuality. If 2/3rd's or more of the population were homosexual, the entire community of people would have a much better chance at stopping and reversing future human-induced global warming, in a much smaller habitable world.
This might appear extreme, but I've read some scientist who have concluded that homosexuality is an evolutionary adaptation capable of dealing with the issues discussed in this article.
None of this is going to happen for many many reasons.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNone of this is going to happen for many many reasons.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is nothing mankind can do to slow, stop,let alone reverse the causes of global changes. Only a small part of climate change is human induced. There are many events continuously occurring that explain the direction the earth is going. Milkanovich's cycles, polar vortices damaged by extraterrestrial (mainly, solar) events and the resulting rossby waves, locked high pressure areas, cyclical desertification of the s.w.,numerous other cyclical solar events, .... There have been 5 (known) great extinctions. We're now in the 6th.
In the 19th and 20th century mankind assumed that the world as it was then, was the way it would be for the long term.
But a more realistic understanding of both the nearer term and longer term....somewhat nihilistic, chaos-based,entropic view would explain that given the human condition (remember that term), people, governments, societies - even at their best - can do nothing to change the nature of positive feedback's and cyclical/non cyclical (e.g.asteroid impact) events. However we can learn from the following: As St Thomas Aquinas purportedly responded when asked what he would do if the world was going to end today....lets see, what day is it....Wednesday?....oh this is the day I need to tend to the garden.
But we build great cell phones, computers, information
disseminating inventions such as the internet.
But these events are on a scale far beyond our control.
There have been 5 known great extinctions. This is the 6th.
None of this is going to happen for many many reasons.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is nothing mankind can do to slow, stop,let alone reverse the causes of global changes. Only a small part of climate change is human induced. There are many events continuously occurring that explain the direction the earth is going. Milkanovich's cycles, polar vortices damaged by extraterrestrial (mainly, solar) events and the resulting rossby waves, locked high pressure areas, cyclical desertification of the s.w.,numerous other cyclical solar events, .... There have been 5 (known) great extinctions. We're now in the 6th.
In the 19th and 20th century mankind assumed that the world as it was then, was the way it would be for the long term.
But a more realistic understanding of both the nearer term and longer term....somewhat nihilistic, chaos-based,entropic view would explain that given the human condition (remember that term), people, governments, societies - even at their best - can do nothing to change the nature of positive feedback's and cyclical/non cyclical (e.g.asteroid impact) events. However we can learn from the following: As St Thomas Aquinas purportedly responded when asked what he would do if the world was going to end today....lets see, what day is it....Wednesday?....oh this is the day I need to tend to the garden.
But we build great cell phones, computers, information
disseminating inventions such as the internet.
But these events are on a scale far beyond our control.
There have been 5 known great extinctions. We are well into the 6th and like the others, there is nothing that can stop this one.
None of this is going to happen for many many reasons.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is nothing mankind can do to slow, stop,let alone reverse the causes of global changes. Only a small part of climate change is human induced. There are many events continuously occurring that explain the direction the earth is going. Milkanovich's cycles, polar vortices damaged by extraterrestrial (mainly, solar) events and the resulting rossby waves, locked high pressure areas, cyclical desertification of the s.w.,numerous other cyclical solar events, .... There have been 5 (known) great extinctions. We're now in the 6th.
In the 19th and 20th century mankind assumed that the world as it was then, was the way it would be for the long term.
But a more realistic understanding of both the nearer term and longer term....somewhat nihilistic, chaos-based,entropic view would explain that given the human condition (remember that term), people, governments, societies - even at their best - can do nothing to change the nature of positive feedback's and cyclical/non cyclical (e.g.asteroid impact) events. However we can learn from the following: As St Thomas Aquinas purportedly responded when asked what he would do if the world was going to end today....lets see, what day is it....Wednesday?....oh this is the day I need to tend to the garden.
But we build great cell phones, computers, information
disseminating inventions such as the internet.
But these events are on a scale far beyond our control.
There have been 5 known great extinctions.We are well into the 6th and there's nothing to stop it from continuing until the end and a new beginning occurs.
None of this is going to happen for many many reasons.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is nothing mankind can do to slow, stop,let alone reverse the causes of global changes. Only a small part of climate change is human induced. There are many events continuously occurring that explain the direction the earth is going. Milkanovich's cycles, polar vortices damaged by extraterrestrial (mainly, solar) events and the resulting rossby waves, locked high pressure areas, cyclical desertification of the s.w.,numerous other cyclical solar events, .... There have been 5 (known) great extinctions. We're now in the 6th.
In the 19th and 20th century mankind assumed that the world as it was then, was the way it would be for the long term.
But a more realistic understanding of both the nearer term and longer term....somewhat nihilistic, chaos-based,entropic view would explain that given the human condition (remember that term), people, governments, societies - even at their best - can do nothing to change the nature of positive feedback's and cyclical/non cyclical (e.g.asteroid impact) events. However we can learn from the following: As St Thomas Aquinas purportedly responded when asked what he would do if the world was going to end today....lets see, what day is it....Wednesday?....oh this is the day I need to tend to the garden.
But we build great cell phones, computers, information
disseminating inventions such as the internet.
But these events are on a scale far beyond our control.
There have been 5 known great extinctions.We are well into the 6th!
There's nothing that is going to change the global, planetary, solar events that are at the heart of this extinction and many of the issues written about in many of the other comments.
Sorry if this posting was duplicated. I've had problems with my connection.
2500 scientists cant all be wrong can they? I think it is time for modern science to get a swift kick in the neutron. Can somebody please brew these people some coffee. Human stupidity is the cause of global warming not C02. A lot of people are buying into the fear of global warming literally. Even if we stop being dorks today there is no way around it, there is nothing to stop it. Sorry don't want to be a 'doomsayer' or an 'I told you so.' But the fact of the matter is that THE INSIDE OF THE PLANET IS HEATING UP. We have only the government to blame for this one. Lucky for them they have an out, an evacuation plan so to speak. Not so lucky for us. Think of the Earth as a human body what happens when you get a fever? The body temperature raises, if it raises a few more degrees you die. Well that's what is happening to the earth, if its core temperature increases a few more degrees it to will die. There is nothing that we can do about it. Be aware of some of the warning signs, increased volcanic activity along the 'ring of fire' as well as other volcano's. (I don't think I will be visiting Yellowstone National Park any time soon.) I am currently working on solving the problem of accumulative effects, but as of late there is not way to reverse the process. (save a massive drilling operation) What were our ancestors thinking? (I will be dead, what do I have to worry about? Not my problem) Well my problem now, so wake up people. I have an idea, how about we stop complaining about it and start doing something about it? Get yourself a environmentally conscious President, and start from there. Am I concerned about the 'global warming' situation? No, but I would like to have kids some day, and I would them to be able to run and play.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo what is the cause you ask?
Your answer....
...
....
.....
I'll give you a few clues.
1) What causes the body to die?
2) What causes the organs in the body to heat up?
We are getting 'warmer'
The reason why I will not tell you straight out is because I know that if you are reading this you are NOT intellectually challenged.
The IPCC SCIENCE DATA WAS SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN FLAWED,THE SCIENTIST WERE PROVEN TO BE HAVE BEEN IN COHOOTS WITH THEIR FELLOW SCIENTIST AND THAT THE "Hockey Stick" graft was myth.The Polar bears are doing so well that their population is at all time high's.The shore lines have yet to rise.In the 1970's it was global cooling then when that did not work out it became global warming now to cover the climate warming or the climate cooling we have climate change.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this