Study highlights global decline

[Holy Smoke]

Ripped this off another forum.

The most comprehensive survey ever into the state of the planet concludes that human activities threaten the Earth's ability to sustain future generations.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4391835.stm

Post your thoughts (or bias, where applicable).

[sytaylor]

The two greatest challenges for the next decade are stopping global warmming then reversing it, and stopping the spread of poverty and reversing it.

We need to bring China and India into Kyoto ASAP, which would in turn bring the USA in (IMO), and set about the serious business of reducing carbon emissions to the lowest feasible value. We can't do any of that without a strong economy however, and our economies are driven by oil.

Sweet irony. Humanity needs some ingenius solutions of the scale of the industrial revolution. The talent is out there... I hope...

[UDawg]

The two greatest challenges for the next decade are stopping global warmming then reversing it, and stopping the spread of poverty and reversing it.


AHAHAHAHAH!!! this is a hoot. As if we can stop or reverse it. The arrogance of man.

First off there isn't any proof that we are causing global warming. Secondly the earth is to big and to complex to reverse it or to even cause it.

[Ninjaman09]

Actually the evidence that has been collected for this report was done so very carefully and reviewed by many scientists. It is very possible for us to alter the atmosphere enough to make the planet uninhabitable for ourselves. This is something we should be concerned about.

[sytaylor]

AHAHAHAHAH!!! this is a hoot. As if we can stop or reverse it. The arrogance of man.

First off there isn't any proof that we are causing global warming. Secondly the earth is to big and to complex to reverse it or to even cause it.

Correction, there isn't any absolute proof that disprooves for the "yeah well it could just be happening anyway" theory. There is a massive body of evidence however that the globe has warmed up, and it has done more so in years where carbon emmisions have been higher. The threats of climate change are real regardless. If this doesn't solve it, and we were totally wrong, at least we tried, and life will be far beter for athsma sufferers. Oh and we wouldn't rely on oil anymore either. I really do believe that could be the gateway to humanities greatest era.

[UDawg]

Correction, there isn't any absolute proof that disprooves for the "yeah well it could just be happening anyway" theory. There is a massive body of evidence however that the globe has warmed up, and it has done more so in years where carbon emmisions have been higher. The threats of climate change are real regardless. If this doesn't solve it, and we were totally wrong, at least we tried, and life will be far beter for athsma sufferers. Oh and we wouldn't rely on oil anymore either. I really do believe that could be the gateway to humanities greatest era.
You made a dishonsest argument. You are trying to link the fact that the globe is warming up by saying "massive body of evidence" with it being man made in recient years. The fact is the scientific community is split on it. It is the political community that are fanatics on this issue that say it is man made. Nice try but we are still where we were at the beginning and that is that all the climate models used in past years were wrong and the fact is that no one knows why the earth is warming up. Again you are trying to link the fact that the world is warming up with unproven theories of why.

I am open to the fact that it might be man made but from what I know about the environmentalist and from what I have learned about the environment from what scientists think, it is most likely a natural occurance and it is the normal ebb and flow of the earth.

Yet another scame people are willing to cling to.

[DiscipleDOC]

You made a dishonsest argument. You are trying to link the fact that the globe is warming up by saying "massive body of evidence" with it being man made in recient years. The fact is the scientific community is split on it. It is the political community that are fanatics on this issue that say it is man made. Nice try but we are still where we were at the beginning and that is that all the climate models used in past years were wrong and the fact is that no one knows why the earth is warming up. Again you are trying to link the fact that the world is warming up with unproven theories of why.

I am open to the fact that it might be man made but from what I know about the environmentalist and from what I have learned about the environment from what scientists think, it is most likely a natural occurance and it is the normal ebb and flow of the earth.

Yet another scame people are willing to cling to.

QFT (whatever that means...)

[Holy Smoke]

Snip.You need to read the article, 'cause it's not even about global warming.

Also, it's "the most comprehensive survey ever into the state of the planet" so just brushing it off like that is quite arrogant. Not to be offensive, but are you sure it's not your political bias speaking? 'Cause an assessment drawn up by 1.300 researchers from 95 nations over a period of four years makes for a damn strong case.

[Harnagel]

We can't do any of that without a strong economy however, and our economies are driven by oil.

Sweet irony. Humanity needs some ingenius solutions of the scale of the industrial revolution. The talent is out there... I hope...

I think you hit the nail on the head. But I would say our economies and any future economy will be driven on energy production instead of oil. The only renewable source of energy out there is solar (well not really renewable but it should be ok for a billion years or so). This recent hype about hydrogen is pretty bogus in my view. Hydrogen is not a new source of energy, it's only a way to transport it. We would still use oil, coal, nuclear, solar power, etc. to produce the Hydrogen.

[UDawg]

You need to read the article, 'cause it's not even about global warming.

Also, it's "the most comprehensive survey ever into the state of the planet" so just brushing it off like that is quite arrogant. Not to be offensive, but are you sure it's not your political bias speaking? 'Cause an assessment drawn up by 1.300 researchers from 95 nations over a period of four years makes for a damn strong case.
To suggest it is my politics is silly and dodges the issue. The isn't any "Global warming is natural" political group out there. There are hunders of evironmenatlist groups who are anit-captialist groups saying global warming is man made. Come on bro.

I did say I am open to the possibility that it is man made but don't think it is. That is unlike the other side of this argument that is not open at all to anything other than their anti-capitalist agendas.

[Holy Smoke]

To suggest it is my politics is silly and dodges the issue. The isn't any "Global warming is natural" political group out there. There are hunders of evironmenatlist groups who are anit-captialist groups saying global warming is man made. Come on bro.

I did say I am open to the possibility that it is man made but don't think it is. That is unlike the other side of this argument that is not open at all to anything other than their anti-capitalist agendas.No offense intended, it's just something I've come to expect from people. Call me jaded.

Then again, it's irrelevant to the topic, 'cause the study isn't about global warming.

[saturnotaku]

Then again, it's irrelevant to the topic, 'cause the study isn't about global warming.

Then talk to sytaylor about it - he's the one who brought it up.

[UDawg]

I wasn't offended. I just went on a tangent. ;)

[robrr2000]

Global warming is the Global cooling of the 1970's

"The Cooling World" - by Peter Gwynne
April 28, 1975 Newsweek
There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now.

The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth's climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,� warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.�

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average.

Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age� conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,� concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.�

Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies. “The world’s food-producing system,� warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.� Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

[CybrSage]

Did you know that all global warming studies have concentrated on the Earth? While this seams logical at first, consider the following:

The Sun is now leaving an 11 year high of sun spots. Sun spots are caused when a localized area of the sun is considerably hotter than the surrounding areas. This causes intense solar radiation to be emitted.

Of couse, we all know the temperature of the Sun has nothing to do with the temperature of the Earth, so it should be ignored, right? Right?

Oh wait, the temperature of the Earth is almost entirely derived by the temperature of the Sun.....hmmmm...

So, if I were to to do a study of the trends of the Earth's temperature, and ignore the Sun entirely, I would be VERY negligent, yes?

OK, so, this says that most (if not all) Global Warming studies (yes, especially the "hockey stick" study) are flawed from the start.

Kyoto is even worse, seeing how, if it is 100% successful, will only reduce the global temperature by 0.1 degree Celcius over 50 years!!!!

In my opion, since much of the Earth is too cold during much of the year, a little warming will do us good.

[Holy Smoke]

Well, since this thread has been thoroughly hijacked, there's no point in beating a dead horse.

This, however, does deserve an honorary mention...In my opion, since much of the Earth is too cold during much of the year, a little warming will do us good.

[CybrSage]

Heh, sorry, I fell into the trap of following what others wrote, posting, then reading the original post!

:o

[sytaylor]

You made a dishonsest argument. You are trying to link the fact that the globe is warming up by saying "massive body of evidence" with it being man made in recient years. The fact is the scientific community is split on it. It is the political community that are fanatics on this issue that say it is man made. Nice try but we are still where we were at the beginning and that is that all the climate models used in past years were wrong and the fact is that no one knows why the earth is warming up. Again you are trying to link the fact that the world is warming up with unproven theories of why.

I am open to the fact that it might be man made but from what I know about the environmentalist and from what I have learned about the environment from what scientists think, it is most likely a natural occurance and it is the normal ebb and flow of the earth.

Yet another scame people are willing to cling to.

You have to admit they are hardly split 50/50 down the middle on this, or anything near close to that. Three scientists and a sheep does not a split make.

[evilchris]

The Earth's climate cools and heats. I suppose man was responsible for the Ice Age too?

[evilchris]

Well, since this thread has been thoroughly hijacked, there's no point in beating a dead horse.

This, however, does deserve an honorary mention...

He ripped that straight from Dennis Miller.

[sytaylor]

The Earth's climate cools and heats. I suppose man was responsible for the Ice Age too?

Every year since the industrial revolution the earth has had more CO2 in its atmosphere and has continued a steady increase in temperatures. There is a direct correlation. To say simply that "it might not be true!" is a cop out. Even if it wasn't the cause, cutting emissions and our reliance on oil is something we have to do. Sooner the better, I don't want higher and higher gas prices. I want a fuel pod that lasts 6 months and costs me £30 a time...

[evilchris]

I don't, I'll fill up my supercharcged V8 Mustang with premium and drive it thousands of miles a year no matter what the price of gas. I also run no cats and only put them on for my biannual smog test. I'll waste some gas this weekend and spew into the atmosphere in your honor.

[sytaylor]

More fool you, it doesn't bother me one bit. Hell if you happened to drive into a tree whilst driving a car with such crappy handling fantastic! I don't give a rats ass. Society at large, and the world we live in, I do give a sh*t about. Do as you please, but you look feeble when you try to "attack the bleeding heart liberal by being all gung ho", when I'm anything but that. Try harder...

[evilchris]

More fool you, it doesn't bother me one bit. Hell if you happened to drive into a tree whilst driving a car with such crappy handling fantastic! I don't give a rats ass. Society at large, and the world we live in, I do give a sh*t about. Do as you please, but you look feeble when you try to "attack the bleeding heart liberal by being all gung ho", when I'm anything but that. Try harder...

Crappy handling? ROFL! My car pulls 1.1G on the skidpad moron. It isn't a stock Mustang. It's a 2005 Steeda Q. I take it out to Sears Point about once a month if you're in the area and you can see how "crappy" it handles.

[Riptide]

I'd really like to see some proof that the majority of scientists lean one way or another.

My initial assumption is that the majority do support that our activities are probably a negative influence, particularly w/regard to CO2 emission. It makes sense. This is something new that the planet hasn't seen before (human CO2 production on the current scale). It would be best to err on the side of caution IMO and do what we can to reduce our possible impact on the atmosphere.