- 04 Mar 2004 14:52
#117909
Sorry guys, but I'm leaving this thread.
IPCC report due 2006
I couldn't be bothered wasting anymore time on fossil fool advocates.
http://www.roberthildebrand.com/theright/warming.html
Global Warming does not end in a question mark
A new study by the General Accounting Office on greenhouse gases predicts marked increases in emissions of greenhouse gases as well as the deadly pollutant mercury. The study, commissioned by the Senate, blamed the increases on the growing use of fossil fuels and the paucity of federal or state emission standards for power plants. Because an increase of greenhouse gases will increase global warming this is political matter of serious concern. President Bush seems inclined to do little and has backed out of the landmark Kyoto agreements, presumably to help his corporate backers. Furthermore, recent letters to the Tribune make light of global warming, even suggesting that global warming might be a good thing. Despite overwhelming evidence and general agreement among the scientific community, significant numbers of citizens and politicians do not take global warming seriously.
In large part, the lack of public seriousness was manufactured by special interest groups as part of a concerted effort by the polluting industries. Even though the topic of global warming had been seriously discussed among scientists since the middle 1950's, it wasn't until the testimony of Dr. James Hansen of NASA before a congressional committee in 1988 that it came to the public's attention. Soon afterwards, the Burson-Marsteller PR firm founded the Global Climate Coalition with the sole purpose of battling reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The coalition received funding over the years from the likes of the American Petroleum Institute, Dow Chemical, Exxon, Union Carbide, most auto manufacturers, and many other industrial concerns. Estimates of the amount spent by the coalition exceed $100 million. They even bought the services of E. Bruce Harrison, who as a lobbyist for the pesticide industry in the 1960's, attacked Rachel Carson and her classic book, Silent Spring.
Other industry-funded lobby groups soon joined the fray and included the Information Council for the Environment, the American Energy Alliance, the Climate Council, the Global Climate Information Council, the Coalition for Vehicle Choice, the National Center for Public Policy Research, the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition and the American Policy Center. They pulled out all stops to convince the public that global warming is a controversial and disputed theory. In addition to publishing glossy pamphlets authored by pseudo-scientists, they allied themselves with property rights groups of the Wise Use movement, industry trade associations, and extremist groups that believe global warming is a UN plot to enslave the world. All in all, they were successful in creating a cloud of doubt among the public about global warming. In spite of industry PR, serious scientists are convinced by real data that the recent increases in temperature are related to greenhouse gases: it is only the general public that remains confused.
In order to ascertain whether the climate is warming, we need to understand past climates, called paleoclimates. Scientists use a wide variety of methods to understand ancient climates. These include tree-ring thickness, isotopic composition of ice as well as included bubbles and dust grains, Cd/Ca ratios and isotopic composition of shells, species assemblages, pollen analysis, and many others. From these sources scientists have created a pretty accurate picture of global climate going back at least as far as 100,000 years. In other words, we have an excellent basis upon which to evaluate recent climatic changes, and we know that the global climate is warming.
Although there is general agreement among the scientific community that global warming is real and especially strong during the past 20 years, opponents use previous climatic variations to suggest that we cannot tell that greenhouse gases are responsible for it. However, after years of intensive study, we do not know of any combination of natural mechanisms that can explain the phenomenon: it simply doesn't relate to natural factors. Instead, there is a clear relationship between the increase in greenhouse gases and global warming. The 2001 report of the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change stated, "[t]here is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities".
A common misconception is that global warming will be a good thing, not only because people don't like being cold, but because we will be able to grow crops farther north. In part this might be true, but along with warmer weather come all kinds of other things -- often ignored -- like diseases and drought.
As northern areas and their surface waters warm there will be unwelcome invasions of new or exotic diseases and pests that will affect both humans and animals. Water-borne diseases such as cholera and schistosomiatris, as well as vector-borne diseases, such as malaria, yellow fever, dengue fever, and leishmaniasis, are likely to move northward. Additionally, existing data indicate that as extreme weather events become more common, outbreaks of diseases such as hantavirus will become more extensive and have greater impact. Introduced diseases are costly not only to humans, but also to livestock and crops, with current estimates at $41 billion per year. This figure will only increase as climate change-driven diseases emerge.
The effect on wildlife will also be severe. Scientists have recently suggested that diseases, such as a fungal disease that is responsible for die-offs of amphibians on a global scale, distempter virus in dogs, ferrets, and marine mammals, and brucellocis in bison, are all related to global warming.
The public is also confused about rainfall for they often believe that the increased precipitation forecast by models of global warming will be a good thing. It is important to note that predictions for increased rainfall over continents are only average predictions and they refer to entire continents. On a smaller scale, some areas will experience catastrophic floods, whereas others will suffer extreme drought. Some areas might get increased precipitation but won't be able to utilize it, because the proper infrastructure might not be in place. Yet another problem is that as soil moisture increases, there is an increase in microbes, which as they breathe leads to greater production of greenhouse gases.
While local precipitation changes are difficult to predict with certainty, global climate models predict that arid and semi-arid areas like the US west and midwest are likely to become more arid, with longer and more intense droughts. The implications for US agriculture, which dominates the midwest, are obvious, and one only need recall the dust bowl years to understand the potential challenges. Furthermore, as the Rocky Mountain states are the fastest growing region of the US, any decrease in precipitation will be devastating, not only in terms of agriculture, ranching and general livability, but also in terms of recreation -- a large component of the region's economy.
Devastating storms and other extreme weather events may increase due to global warming. Although we don't have a lengthy database for comparison, it makes good sense in terms of what we know about atmospheric circulation. Because the atmosphere convects, much like a pot of water heated on the stove, increasing its temperature causes more convection, which leads to more chaotic behavior, greater variation, and less predictability in the track of the jet stream. Large loops and bends in the jet streams appear to have been more common in recent years. For example, unseasonably cold temperatures dip into the agricultural areas of Florida with increased frequency as the jet stream takes huge southward dips across the continent. As these large loops in the jet stream move across the continent they spawn large outbreaks of tornadoes and other severe weather events. Many experts predict that such storms will become more common and be more intense as global warming increases. Because atmospheric convection occurs in 3-dimensions, it is possible, perhaps even likely, that the jet stream with its winds of 200+ mph, will no longer be constrained to higher levels of the atmosphere, but occasionally dip to earth to create extensive areas of "clear air" devastation.
Another potential result of global warming, unappreciated by the general public and politicians alike, is the possibility of large, abrupt and widespread climate change. Scientists studying past climate changes have discovered unequivocal geological evidence that Earth's climate has suddenly changed by up to 16û C (61ûF) over a decade or even fewer years. Apparently, climate is pushed over a threshold, such that changes are no longer gradual but abrupt, and global climate reaches an entirely new state. A recent study by the National Research Council concludes that global warming related to human activities could trigger abrupt climate changes that would shock ecosystems and societies.
Just as climate is forced past a threshold, societies and ecosystems can also be pushed past thresholds. Consider that much of our infrastructure, such as dams and levees, is based on past experience. A small increase in precipitation, say 10 per cent, could easily create enough water to top dams and levees, leading to increased frequency of devastating floods such as occured in the upper midwest during 1997. If Glen Canyon dam were breached as it almost was in 1983, the resulting flood would take out all downstream dams on the Colorado river -- an event that would starve a large part of California's agribusiness and millions of people throughout the southwest of water.
Abrupt climate change can have serious impact on long-lived capital stocks, especially houses or other infrastructure with lifetimes of 50-100 years or more. Coastal structures, for example, could suffer exceptionally high losses through abrupt sea level rise or increased storm frequency and higher waves. The better we anticipate the effects of climate changes, the better we are able to minimize our losses through relocating structures, etc. In other words, if we have enough warning we can adapt. On the other hand, the losses to ecosystems, such as forests, which migrate slowly, could be devastating.
Denying the relevance of past events, or the reality and causes of current global warming, will be costly, for it poses real risks. Already the South Pacific islands of Tebua Tarawa and Abunuea have vanished beneath the rising seas; super outbreaks of tornadoes are arriving in the US much later in the year than normal; and torrential rains and droughts are becoming commonplace. Some societies faced climate change in the past and learned to adapt; whereas others such as the Anasazi and Mayans were unable to do so and vanished forever. It is time for citizens to pay attention to respectable scientists, stop listening to industry front groups, and begin to take steps to face the potential difficulties. We can no longer afford to ignore them. The notion that the costs are too high is nonsense, for companies such as DuPont, Shell and BP Amoco are already proving they can reduce global warming pollution and still make a profit.
IPCC report due 2006
I couldn't be bothered wasting anymore time on fossil fool advocates.
http://www.roberthildebrand.com/theright/warming.html
Global Warming does not end in a question mark
A new study by the General Accounting Office on greenhouse gases predicts marked increases in emissions of greenhouse gases as well as the deadly pollutant mercury. The study, commissioned by the Senate, blamed the increases on the growing use of fossil fuels and the paucity of federal or state emission standards for power plants. Because an increase of greenhouse gases will increase global warming this is political matter of serious concern. President Bush seems inclined to do little and has backed out of the landmark Kyoto agreements, presumably to help his corporate backers. Furthermore, recent letters to the Tribune make light of global warming, even suggesting that global warming might be a good thing. Despite overwhelming evidence and general agreement among the scientific community, significant numbers of citizens and politicians do not take global warming seriously.
In large part, the lack of public seriousness was manufactured by special interest groups as part of a concerted effort by the polluting industries. Even though the topic of global warming had been seriously discussed among scientists since the middle 1950's, it wasn't until the testimony of Dr. James Hansen of NASA before a congressional committee in 1988 that it came to the public's attention. Soon afterwards, the Burson-Marsteller PR firm founded the Global Climate Coalition with the sole purpose of battling reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The coalition received funding over the years from the likes of the American Petroleum Institute, Dow Chemical, Exxon, Union Carbide, most auto manufacturers, and many other industrial concerns. Estimates of the amount spent by the coalition exceed $100 million. They even bought the services of E. Bruce Harrison, who as a lobbyist for the pesticide industry in the 1960's, attacked Rachel Carson and her classic book, Silent Spring.
Other industry-funded lobby groups soon joined the fray and included the Information Council for the Environment, the American Energy Alliance, the Climate Council, the Global Climate Information Council, the Coalition for Vehicle Choice, the National Center for Public Policy Research, the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition and the American Policy Center. They pulled out all stops to convince the public that global warming is a controversial and disputed theory. In addition to publishing glossy pamphlets authored by pseudo-scientists, they allied themselves with property rights groups of the Wise Use movement, industry trade associations, and extremist groups that believe global warming is a UN plot to enslave the world. All in all, they were successful in creating a cloud of doubt among the public about global warming. In spite of industry PR, serious scientists are convinced by real data that the recent increases in temperature are related to greenhouse gases: it is only the general public that remains confused.
In order to ascertain whether the climate is warming, we need to understand past climates, called paleoclimates. Scientists use a wide variety of methods to understand ancient climates. These include tree-ring thickness, isotopic composition of ice as well as included bubbles and dust grains, Cd/Ca ratios and isotopic composition of shells, species assemblages, pollen analysis, and many others. From these sources scientists have created a pretty accurate picture of global climate going back at least as far as 100,000 years. In other words, we have an excellent basis upon which to evaluate recent climatic changes, and we know that the global climate is warming.
Although there is general agreement among the scientific community that global warming is real and especially strong during the past 20 years, opponents use previous climatic variations to suggest that we cannot tell that greenhouse gases are responsible for it. However, after years of intensive study, we do not know of any combination of natural mechanisms that can explain the phenomenon: it simply doesn't relate to natural factors. Instead, there is a clear relationship between the increase in greenhouse gases and global warming. The 2001 report of the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change stated, "[t]here is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities".
A common misconception is that global warming will be a good thing, not only because people don't like being cold, but because we will be able to grow crops farther north. In part this might be true, but along with warmer weather come all kinds of other things -- often ignored -- like diseases and drought.
As northern areas and their surface waters warm there will be unwelcome invasions of new or exotic diseases and pests that will affect both humans and animals. Water-borne diseases such as cholera and schistosomiatris, as well as vector-borne diseases, such as malaria, yellow fever, dengue fever, and leishmaniasis, are likely to move northward. Additionally, existing data indicate that as extreme weather events become more common, outbreaks of diseases such as hantavirus will become more extensive and have greater impact. Introduced diseases are costly not only to humans, but also to livestock and crops, with current estimates at $41 billion per year. This figure will only increase as climate change-driven diseases emerge.
The effect on wildlife will also be severe. Scientists have recently suggested that diseases, such as a fungal disease that is responsible for die-offs of amphibians on a global scale, distempter virus in dogs, ferrets, and marine mammals, and brucellocis in bison, are all related to global warming.
The public is also confused about rainfall for they often believe that the increased precipitation forecast by models of global warming will be a good thing. It is important to note that predictions for increased rainfall over continents are only average predictions and they refer to entire continents. On a smaller scale, some areas will experience catastrophic floods, whereas others will suffer extreme drought. Some areas might get increased precipitation but won't be able to utilize it, because the proper infrastructure might not be in place. Yet another problem is that as soil moisture increases, there is an increase in microbes, which as they breathe leads to greater production of greenhouse gases.
While local precipitation changes are difficult to predict with certainty, global climate models predict that arid and semi-arid areas like the US west and midwest are likely to become more arid, with longer and more intense droughts. The implications for US agriculture, which dominates the midwest, are obvious, and one only need recall the dust bowl years to understand the potential challenges. Furthermore, as the Rocky Mountain states are the fastest growing region of the US, any decrease in precipitation will be devastating, not only in terms of agriculture, ranching and general livability, but also in terms of recreation -- a large component of the region's economy.
Devastating storms and other extreme weather events may increase due to global warming. Although we don't have a lengthy database for comparison, it makes good sense in terms of what we know about atmospheric circulation. Because the atmosphere convects, much like a pot of water heated on the stove, increasing its temperature causes more convection, which leads to more chaotic behavior, greater variation, and less predictability in the track of the jet stream. Large loops and bends in the jet streams appear to have been more common in recent years. For example, unseasonably cold temperatures dip into the agricultural areas of Florida with increased frequency as the jet stream takes huge southward dips across the continent. As these large loops in the jet stream move across the continent they spawn large outbreaks of tornadoes and other severe weather events. Many experts predict that such storms will become more common and be more intense as global warming increases. Because atmospheric convection occurs in 3-dimensions, it is possible, perhaps even likely, that the jet stream with its winds of 200+ mph, will no longer be constrained to higher levels of the atmosphere, but occasionally dip to earth to create extensive areas of "clear air" devastation.
Another potential result of global warming, unappreciated by the general public and politicians alike, is the possibility of large, abrupt and widespread climate change. Scientists studying past climate changes have discovered unequivocal geological evidence that Earth's climate has suddenly changed by up to 16û C (61ûF) over a decade or even fewer years. Apparently, climate is pushed over a threshold, such that changes are no longer gradual but abrupt, and global climate reaches an entirely new state. A recent study by the National Research Council concludes that global warming related to human activities could trigger abrupt climate changes that would shock ecosystems and societies.
Just as climate is forced past a threshold, societies and ecosystems can also be pushed past thresholds. Consider that much of our infrastructure, such as dams and levees, is based on past experience. A small increase in precipitation, say 10 per cent, could easily create enough water to top dams and levees, leading to increased frequency of devastating floods such as occured in the upper midwest during 1997. If Glen Canyon dam were breached as it almost was in 1983, the resulting flood would take out all downstream dams on the Colorado river -- an event that would starve a large part of California's agribusiness and millions of people throughout the southwest of water.
Abrupt climate change can have serious impact on long-lived capital stocks, especially houses or other infrastructure with lifetimes of 50-100 years or more. Coastal structures, for example, could suffer exceptionally high losses through abrupt sea level rise or increased storm frequency and higher waves. The better we anticipate the effects of climate changes, the better we are able to minimize our losses through relocating structures, etc. In other words, if we have enough warning we can adapt. On the other hand, the losses to ecosystems, such as forests, which migrate slowly, could be devastating.
Denying the relevance of past events, or the reality and causes of current global warming, will be costly, for it poses real risks. Already the South Pacific islands of Tebua Tarawa and Abunuea have vanished beneath the rising seas; super outbreaks of tornadoes are arriving in the US much later in the year than normal; and torrential rains and droughts are becoming commonplace. Some societies faced climate change in the past and learned to adapt; whereas others such as the Anasazi and Mayans were unable to do so and vanished forever. It is time for citizens to pay attention to respectable scientists, stop listening to industry front groups, and begin to take steps to face the potential difficulties. We can no longer afford to ignore them. The notion that the costs are too high is nonsense, for companies such as DuPont, Shell and BP Amoco are already proving they can reduce global warming pollution and still make a profit.
.gif)
- By FiveofSwords
- By Potemkin
- By wat0n