Global warming 'past the point of no return'

This does not make very good reading

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...icle312997.ece

Wish I hadn't seen the film "day after tommorow" now

Originally Posted by yesman

This does not make very good reading

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...icle312997.ece

But just think how exciting it must be for all those crackpots with the sanwich boards!

Sounds like the end is now really nigh!

[Martin]

We're all doomed! Everyone could make a difference but sadly people won't even cut down on the amout of electric or gas they use.

I find it very strange this global warming thing.

For billions of years this planet has gone through periods of warming and cooling.

Why should it now be the fault of "greenhouse" gases?
Several years ago they didnt even know about Il nino, these days they still dont understand it.
The plane thas been warming since the last ice age, why should this be anyhting other than natural? Think of volcanic explosions years ago, think of the forest fires when there were millions more miles of forests, think of all the years man has been using fire, and yet its only NOW that we have to be carefull.

I find most of this stuff scaremongering, yes we need to look after our planet, yes we should be conscious of what we are using, but we certainly do not need to panic.

[BBKing]

Why should it now be the fault of "greenhouse" gases?

The difference is the speed with which human activity can alter the balance of gases and ice and water around the Earth. This leads to those natural processes happening considerably faster than they occur naturally, in human timescales (tens of years) rather than geological ones (thousands of years). It's this speed difference that is the difference between climate change predictions and the science of historical temperature fluctuations.

Against that, we've only been able to monitor sea ice for under 30 years - having a satellite up there about 800 years ago might have been interesting.

Remember that melting the Arctic doesn't do that much harm (sea levels stay the same, polar bears starve and Eskimos fall through the ice, but otherwise it's not too problematic) - it's the reduction in solar reflection and the consequence for land ice which is particularly dangerous.

My plan - add 5p to petrol and put the lot into research into solar energy - there are only two raw energy sources on Earth, solar and nuclear, and solar is much nicer Come up with a GM bacteria that turns carbon dioxide and sunlight into diesel oil and the circle is closed.

[Angua]

Originally Posted by BBKing

The difference is the speed with which human activity can alter the balance of gases and ice and water around the Earth. This leads to those natural processes happening considerably faster than they occur naturally, in human timescales (tens of years) rather than geological ones (thousands of years). It's this speed difference that is the difference between climate change predictions and the science of historical temperature fluctuations.

Against that, we've only been able to monitor sea ice for under 30 years - having a satellite up there about 800 years ago might have been interesting.

Remember that melting the Arctic doesn't do that much harm (sea levels stay the same, polar bears starve and Eskimos fall through the ice, but otherwise it's not too problematic) - it's the reduction in solar reflection and the consequence for land ice which is particularly dangerous.

My plan - add 5p to petrol and put the lot into research into solar energy - there are only two raw energy sources on Earth, solar and nuclear, and solar is much nicer Come up with a GM bacteria that turns carbon dioxide and sunlight into diesel oil and the circle is closed.

Great idea

[AndrewJ]

In full reason though this planet is overdue

1) Massive meteor impact

2) super volcanic eruption

3) Space dust covering the planet blacing out sunlight

4) Super earthquakes causing huge tsunami's

list goes on... just add this to it.

[BBKing]

I think you can cross 4 off the list.

Space dust? Rare, I'd have thought. Meteors and super volcanoes are certainly genuine risks, but their arrival (unless you belong to an Armageddon cult) is not brought forward by human activity.

[punky]

Originally Posted by BBKing

The difference is the speed with which human activity can alter the balance of gases and ice and water around the Earth.

The article isn't talking about speed though, its about distance: "point of no return".

As TW2001 correctly pointed out this planet has gone through phases of heating and cooling far, far more extreme than now - our temperature and climate is extremely mild considering how it used to be. If global warming has now gone so far in a mild climatic state, that it will never cool again, then how exactly did it cool before?

Anyway, AFAIK, scientists still can't make up their minds wether we are going to melt to death, or freeze to death in an ice age, so at least until then, I m not going to go paranoid about what "may", "might" and "could" happen. Almost anything could happen, should we be paranoid about all those senarios too?

Once again, more guess work, supposition being masqueraded as a serious scientific report. Anyone can make random guesses without any conviction they will be fulfilled.

[Angua]

I would be more alarmed by Antarctica melting to the same degree and at the same speed!

[BBKing]

The article isn't talking about speed though, its about distance: "point of no return".

I was making a general point about climate change, which is that human activity has made natural processes occur quicker than our ability to adapt to them. London going under six metres of water over 20000 years, fine (that's 0.3mm per year), 20 years, not so fine (that's a foot per year).

I do detect that you're (hopefully unconsciously) adopting the US administration's faith-based 'scientists can't agree therefore it isn't happening' argument, which is nonsensical. It's happening, but predicting what happens when you change a relatively steady state this quickly is extremely hard for a proper scientist let alone a science-shy administration with a vested interest in the status quo and a habit of ignoring obvious facts.

I trust scientists with access to the facts on this one, and will be reading the September 2005 report when it comes out to make my own mind up. If you wait for every scientist to agree before you trust something you wouldn't get on an aeroplane for one thing (since there's still a lot of debate about exactly why a plane can fly).

Originally Posted by Saxodriver

In full reason though this planet is overdue

1) Massive meteor impact

2) super volcanic eruption

3) Space dust covering the planet blacing out sunlight

4) Super earthquakes causing huge tsunami's

list goes on... just add this to it.

you missed one out - the magnetic field polarity 'flipping' so north will become south, as it were.

the cyclic nature of the climate has much in the way of 'evidence' such as tree rings, ice core samples, etc

- Arctic ice melting may stop the 'atlantic conveyor/gulf stream', so there may be the beginning of an ice age in progress, as well ....

[AndrewJ]

If all this ice in the regions are such a threat why not blast the lot into space and store it on the moon?

Oh right would cost too much rather spend cash on cruise missiles and 4x4's

[punky]

Originally Posted by BBKing

I do detect that you're (hopefully unconsciously) adopting the US administration's faith-based 'scientists can't agree therefore it isn't happening' argument, which is nonsensical.

That's not my stance. Its not that scientists don't agree, its just that they are guessing. They might be right, they might be wrong, but either way they are still only guessing, they can't prove or disprove anything. We are only in the observation and hypothesis stages atm. We are observing we are putting CO2 into the air, we are observing that the planet is warming. Scientists are guessing as a hypothesis, that they are directly related. There is no evidence for this, hence why everyone keeps saying "might", and "could" If there is a direct link between the two, then it wouldn't be that hard to prove. The planet may just be warming anyway, or because of some other cause. However what is harder to prove is that this warming, will cause the conditions they say it will. Its hard to prove, but the burden is on them to prove it, and until someone proves or disproves something, I won't get whipped up in a paranoid frenzy until something gets proven. Until "might"s get replaced with "will"s

If you wait for every scientist to agree before you trust something you wouldn't get on an aeroplane for one thing (since there's still a lot of debate about exactly why a plane can fly).

News to me, I thought everyone knew that it is because of the aerofoil shape wings. That's easily proven, planes with them tend to get up and stay up in the air better than planes without it. Plus you can prove it with string, a straw and a piece of paper. That's proof incontrovertible, and something we don't have with global warming, the science is too young.