FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Extreme global warming seen further away than previously tho





nickfyoung
Are we having global warming or not. Scientists seem to be unsure what is going on now. It seems that warming is now slowing even with increased emissions in the atmosphere. "The rate of global warming has slowed after strong rises in the 1980s and 1990s, even though all the 10 warmest years since reliable records began in the 1850s have been since 1998." http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/extreme-global-warming-seen-further-away-than-previously-thought-368960
Do they really know what is going on.
Ankhanu
"They" have a pretty good idea what's happening, yeah.
Increased ocean absorption of heat is a really worrying component of the article... I really wish the author had actually cited some sources or something to make checking up on the info easier than a witch hunt Razz. science reporting often gets science quite wrong; it's unfortunate most science writers aren't actually scientifically literate.
sark
This is confusing... They need to get it together. Is the earth warming or not?
Ankhanu
sark wrote:
This is confusing... They need to get it together. Is the earth warming or not?

It is. Nothing in that article suggests otherwise.
deanhills
I'd say with all of the emissions from factories, smog from traffic, huge industrial output, less trees around to absorb all of those, it would be logical for the world to be warming. When I look at a fiction movie like "The day after tomorrow", then I can't help wonder at what stage the earth will decide to correct itself, and what the consequences of it will be for all species on earth.
bukaida
deanhills wrote:
I can't help wonder at what stage the earth will decide to correct itself, and what the consequences of it will be for all species on earth.


With 3/4 portion as water content along with the ice at the poles, it will be a matter of hours to drown everything.
coolclay
When we are talking about averages what we are seeing is normal. Some years may be colder than historical averages, some may be hotter. However if one looks at the trend lines of both atmospheric CO2 and average yearly temperatures there is a direct correlation between the two. As most people in science know correlation doesn't equate to causation. I do agree, there are many other greenhouse gases that can cause warming. Methane, water vapor, nitrous oxide, and even ozone, however none of these have increased anywhere near the same extent that CO2 has. That leaves only one hypothesis.
coolclay
Global climate change aside. I believe ocean acidification is an even larger and more looming threat to the world then a changing climate. Imagine every organism that relies on calcium carbonate or aragonite to form their body structure. If the ocean continues to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere (good for the climate BTW) the levels of carbonic acid will create a higher pH stopping calcifiers from forming their shells, and tests.

Entire ecosystems, reefs, food webs will go extinct. The most basic bottom of the food web item, collectively called plankton will die off functionally driving all the rest of that food web to go extinct.

For me this is a much sooner, much more likely, and much more terrifying scenario. And we are already witnessing it.

Now toss in the slowing and/or stopping of the thermo-haline circulations around the globe, and you have a perfect marine disaster on our hands and the time to do something about it is long gone.
deanhills
coolclay wrote:
Now toss in the slowing and/or stopping of the thermo-haline circulations around the globe, and you have a perfect marine disaster on our hands and the time to do something about it is long gone.
Thanks for a kickass post coolclay. I remember when I was in Koh Samui, an island of Thailand, and I could barely walk on the beach without having to worry about debris and slivers of glass. Not to mention actually going into the water and stepping on that stuff. I'd say a combo of an awesome over population, all that plastic and debris from mass consumption and lack of doing anything about it have put us in that situation of not being able to stop this any longer. I wonder how long it's going to be before someone says no more salmon available for canning. This party can't last forever.
Ankhanu
At first I was all like, "uh oh, gonna have to explain CO2/carbonate/carbonic acid equilibrium" and the immediate connection to high atmospheric CO2, but, I kept reading and you know what you're saying Wink
You're definitely right that acidification is a major problem... and it will be interesting to see what the impacts on the ecosystems it will actually have. I wonder how the plankton communities in particular will shift. It's quite unfortunate that the whole deal is a double-whammy for marine systems; acidification along with changing temperatures and associated changes in salinity and likely changes in currents and therefore nutrient flow... Things will be changing.
ocalhoun
bukaida wrote:
it will be a matter of hours to drown everything.

This is why we can't have nice things.
(Such as climate science.)

Sea level rises would be measured in centimeters per decade -- Not meters per hour.
(Well, for that matter, to 'drown everything' within hours, you need sea level rises of kilometers per hour. Drowning that life on mountaintops ain't gonna be easy.)



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My opinion on the whole business in the (unlikely) event that anyone is interested:

-While anthropogenic causes are a contributor, I doubt that they are the sole contributor, and it's difficult to separate the natural vs. man-made components with only one experiment to work with.
(And as far as anthropogenic causes go... I've wondered how much direct heating has an effect. Every time we use stored energy, to heat homes, move cars, or light up streets, all that energy eventually becomes heat radiated into the environment. (except the light that escapes into space) If you add up all the fossil fuel (and a good bit of the woodburning fuel) mankind has used over the last century or two, I wonder how much heating that would produce.)

-Man-made or not, I think we've passed the point of no return (realistically speaking). Instead of focusing on stopping climate change, we should focus on slowing it and coping with it. I suspect it's already to the point of being inevitable, and there's still insufficient will from governments and people alike to make a significant reduction in emissions.
(ie, rather than spending political and economic capital trying to stop it, instead use it to set up massive disaster relief funds (for aiding the victims of storms or flooding), stock up huge food storage depots (for aiding those affected by crop failure), and ecological relief funds (for saving what biodiversity we can -- maybe even keeping at-risk species in captivity with the goal of releasing them again if the earth ever returns to normal). If we started building those things up now, they might actually be big enough to be a significant help when the bad effects of climate change begin rolling in.)

-We have more urgent and troubling environmental problems, such as overfishing running rampant, likely to result in the extinction or endangerment of previously common food species.

-It's not necessarily all doom and gloom... I think there may actually be some good effects, too, in the long run. Huge tracts of land in Canada and Russia, for example, that would become more habitable and more fertile over time.

-I think -- even at this accelerated rate -- life may just surprise us with its ability to adapt. A crisis like this might just spur the processes of evolution to maximum speed, and especially for shorter life cycle species, evolution could work quite quickly. Some species would become extinct, but we might be surprised to see new species filling the gaps before long.
nickfyoung
Nice to see a positive response to all the doom and gloom predictions. I have to agree. Adaption and man's sense of coping will produce positives.
standready
@coolclay: two very clear and informative post Exclamation The trash we dump into the waterways does not help either.
The Earth has always had temperature cycles however we humans may be accelerating the process.
Ankhanu
ocalhoun wrote:
My opinion on the whole business in the (unlikely) event that anyone is interested:

-While anthropogenic causes are a contributor, I doubt that they are the sole contributor, and it's difficult to separate the natural vs. man-made components with only one experiment to work with.
(And as far as anthropogenic causes go... I've wondered how much direct heating has an effect. Every time we use stored energy, to heat homes, move cars, or light up streets, all that energy eventually becomes heat radiated into the environment. (except the light that escapes into space) If you add up all the fossil fuel (and a good bit of the woodburning fuel) mankind has used over the last century or two, I wonder how much heating that would produce.)

No one (who knows what they're talking about) suggests that anthropogenic sources are the sole contributor to the current climate trends... but, yes, it is a strong component to the rapid rate of change.
The interesting thing is, yeah, the actual energy release from our various burning efforts are real, though often somewhat local in effect. Ultimately, the small local changes do add into the overall global effect, though. It's not just burning and energy release that are a problem, other parts of our activities are also contributors, from increased black surface area (cities are phenomenal solar energy stores and radiators, for example, getting much hotter than surrounding habitats) to reduced reflective and absorbing surfaces (ice, forests, etc.) and increased desertification. Each part on its own isn't necessarily much of the problem, but when taken in totality, we've had a huge impact.

ocalhoun wrote:
-Man-made or not, I think we've passed the point of no return (realistically speaking). Instead of focusing on stopping climate change, we should focus on slowing it and coping with it. I suspect it's already to the point of being inevitable, and there's still insufficient will from governments and people alike to make a significant reduction in emissions.
(ie, rather than spending political and economic capital trying to stop it, instead use it to set up massive disaster relief funds (for aiding the victims of storms or flooding), stock up huge food storage depots (for aiding those affected by crop failure), and ecological relief funds (for saving what biodiversity we can -- maybe even keeping at-risk species in captivity with the goal of releasing them again if the earth ever returns to normal). If we started building those things up now, they might actually be big enough to be a significant help when the bad effects of climate change begin rolling in.)

I tend to agree; we're beyond the "stop" point and in the reduction of impact point. We can't reverse what we've done, but we can work to make it not as extreme. Unfortunately, politics don't tend to allow for long term plans or preparation... change only comes once the emergency has struck and it's too late. Spending money preparing for something that may not come (in their political career) is a waste of resources.

ocalhoun wrote:
-We have more urgent and troubling environmental problems, such as overfishing running rampant, likely to result in the extinction or endangerment of previously common food species.

These aren't independent issues Wink That said, yes, there are certainly non-climate issues at play in these problems... though the suffer from much the same problem as political preparation for climate related emergencies. My government has been very busy in the past two years slashing funding to any kind of environmental or ecological department/agency in order to make way for increased production and natural resource exploitation (particularly in oil)... it'll work out nicely (financially) for them when they leave office, but it's going to completely ****** over our environment as a result.

ocalhoun wrote:
-It's not necessarily all doom and gloom... I think there may actually be some good effects, too, in the long run. Huge tracts of land in Canada and Russia, for example, that would become more habitable and more fertile over time.

More habitable, perhaps. More fertile? That takes a LOT of ecological work and time. Arctic soils are generally quite poor and are shallow, with very little soil. They haven't had the time or proper conditions for plants, lichens, etc. to actually create a good soil since the last glaciation. Even where I am, around 46N there's not a tonne of soil that's been created since it was last scraped away, and as you go further north, it gets worse.
Both of these also mean that those habitats/ecosystems must be destroyed to make way for the new one... and they're already in danger. Not really a silver lining in my books.

ocalhoun wrote:
-I think -- even at this accelerated rate -- life may just surprise us with its ability to adapt. A crisis like this might just spur the processes of evolution to maximum speed, and especially for shorter life cycle species, evolution could work quite quickly. Some species would become extinct, but we might be surprised to see new species filling the gaps before long.

Aye, some species will certainly adapt... some will even thrive. However, we won't see a plethora of new species appearing to fill the niches left by those that will be killed. They WILL radiate, just like they have following all the other mass extinctions, but it will take millennia. We might see a handful of new species appear, but not many (and they'll likely be near indistinguishable from their parent populations).

nickfyoung wrote:
Nice to see a positive response to all the doom and gloom predictions. I have to agree. Adaption and man's sense of coping will produce positives.


Makes me think of frogurt:
grofet
Global colding is happening right now!
So what we have to do is panic like what we do on global warming.
LOL
Don't take is seriously. What you have to do is become a good person and obey your god.
Insanity
I'd say that the 10 years that the article speaks of is not enough of a reference to determine whether or not the earth is cooling or not. We do know that these last few years have been some of the warmest on record, even if they haven't risen significantly in the past decade.
Related topics
"global warming" questions... please share your an
Cow-Made Global Warming
Global Warming Source..
Global Warming
US media finally aknowledge Global Warming
Apocalypse Now? Global Warming Hotspots
great global warming swindle?
Founder of Weather Channel Opposes Global Warming
A global warming cure?
Global Warming article - critique and pointers
Mumbai braces for highest tide in 100 years
Global Warming
GLOBAL WARMING
What's your role in global warming?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> General -> General Chat

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.