Global Warming

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

AGW is fact.

The question is what it means. What does science tell us what will happen? Peer reviewed stuff, not political rhetoric. Anyone know?

[_DrW]

AGW is fact.
The question is what it means. What does science tell us what will happen? Peer reviewed stuff, not political rhetoric. Anyone know?

It is clear that global warming is a fact. All one need do for some dramatic evidence (that even right wing religionist science denying conservatives can understand) is to look at images of the polar ice cap today as compared to just 20 years ago.


or see:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/1023esuice.html

The question (which is becoming less of an unknown each year) is to what extent GW is due to anthropogenic release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

As to what this means in practical terms if the trend continues, climate modelers are working on this problem. The deeper we go into this warming cycle, the more data are available for confirmation of the various models and (IMHO) the worse the overall outlook becomes.

Warming oceans can mean more intense tropical storm activity and rising sea levels over the long haul. The resulting shift in patterns of precipitation could also mean more droughts and more floods.

I doubt that the world can get its act together to do much about this problem in time to avoid some pretty horrendous consequences.

And here is the real problem: the biggest GHG generators are not the ones who will be most affected by these changes. In many cases, the effects will fall to those who can least afford them.

Here is an example of a practical effect that my company is facing right now:

We are engaged in a project in Bangladesh to design, finance, build and operate a power plant. With our banks, we have determined his project will need be financed and operated so as to pay for itself in 10-12 years instead of the normal 15-20 years as in the US and in other parts of the world.

This is because we fully expect that the plant could be taken down for an extended period of time (or even taken out) due to severe tropical storm activity in the region, combined with rising sea levels, prior to the end of its normal 30 year design life and have chosen to reduce the financial risk as much as possible.

This accelerated pay down of the debt and the increased insurance costs will result in higher power costs for our customers in Bangladesh.

[_jon]

DrW, I'm not a scientist and I do not pretend to understand all aspects of this discussion. However, I will ask a question that may be appropriate.

Is 'Global Warming' and the resultant reduction in polar ice a cyclical thing? I mean is it the kind of thing that has happened before and will happen again across the centuries/millenia?

(use small words!)

[_DrW]

DrW, I'm not a scientist and I do not pretend to understand all aspects of this discussion. However, I will ask a question that may be appropriate.

Is 'Global Warming' and the resultant reduction in polar ice a cyclical thing? I mean is it the kind of thing that has happened before and will happen again across the centuries/millenia?

(use small words!)

The short answer is "yes". In the far past the planet has been much warmer and much cooler than it is today.

In the more recent past, however, say from the mid 19th century to the mid 20th century, the global average temperature was fairly stable with short lived cooling and warming cycles. Since the end of the WWII however, there has been a general increase in average global temperatures and this trend is still going strong.

Here is an article from CNN that I believe is a balanced presentation and explanation of the science on the issue as it now stands (without the technical jargon).

http://articles.cnn.com/2007-07-11/tech/globalwarming.overview_1_average-surface-temperature-warming-united-nations-intergovernmental-panel/2?_s=PM:TECH

Hope this answers your question.

[_jon]

Thanks DrW.

Would you say that expanding population numbers has a direct impact on GW, or perhaps the pace of GW?

[Guest]

Thanks DrW.

Would you say that expanding population numbers has a direct impact on GW, or perhaps the pace of GW?

No doubt. As does the associated increased use of fossil fuels, agriculture of ruminants, etc.

One thing that has not been mentioned on this thread is the potential for at least two doomsday scenarios related to the warming of the oceans.

The first is the slow down or stopping of the warm water conveyor that helps transport heat from the tropics to the temperate zones. This ocean conveyor depends on the relative salinity of water in the northern oceans and could be shut down by increased arctic snow melt and the resulting reduction in arctic ocean salinity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation
http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/545.html


Then there is potential for massive release of methane (a gas that is more that 20 times as effective as a GHG compared carbon dioxide) from methane hydrates that are stabilized by the temperature and pressures at the ocean depths where they are found. Release of methane from these hydrates could be another bad news side effect of warming oceans.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051107083255.htm

The chance of us reaching some kind of tipping point where climate change is rapidly accelerated by shut down of the ocean conveyor, for example, is slight - but very real nonetheless.

When it comes to climate change, it is pretty clear that humankind is rolling the dice in a high stakes game for which nature's rules are not well understood.

[_jon]

So,

Would that make the Apostalistic call for Mormon's to marry as soon as possible and have more kids a tad reckless in terms of the survival of humankind?

Should the message have been - listen folks, this little planet is already overcapacity so if you can just keep your families down to 1 child (I believe China actually enforces this to protect its natural resources) that'd extend the life expectancy of humanity.

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

I used to be an AGW denier, but now it fascinates me. It seems to be happening, but I am unsure about what it will mean.

Can we theoretically stop or reverse it?
Can we realistically stop or reverse it?
Can we keep our self ownership and reverse it?
Is it worth it to reverse it?
Is it a real threat to our species?
Are governments the right groups to fix it?
Etc.

I ask because my thesis dealt with modern whaling and I became familiar with the rise of the anti-whaling movement and the perfection of various management schemes. I HAVE seen science misused in the international political arena, and nearly all government sanctions have worsened conservation efforts. I see parallels aplenty.

[_EAllusion]

Muller wasn't right to be skeptical and he seemed to be going in it with a denialist agenda given that he was doing a speaking tour where he used false/misleading information that comes from the global warming skeptic community. That said, when preliminary results were confirming the standard view in climate science, he admirably acknowledged that which indicated that this was inevitable.

[_EAllusion]

There are varying levels of global warming skepticism. In increasing order of respectability they are:

1) Denying global warming is occurring
2) Denying that the increase in global warming is a continuing trend in significant part forced by human activity
3) Denying that the continuing trend of global warming will have a deleterious impact on the world
4) Denying anything can be done about it

You'll see people like Droopy and BCSpace adopt arguments that come from all levels, even when they are not mutually compatible. But for someone who knows what's going on and has a modicum of intellectual integrity, it helps to know what exactly it is they are arguing. #1 nearly dropped off the map in the early 2000's only to make a vicious comeback recently.