Study: Warming is stronger, happening sooner

RolandTD20Kdrummer

mammasan wrote:

I personally don't believe that the Global Climate change is completely man made. There is edivence to prove that the arth has gone through these cycles about every 11,000 years or so. I do think that we have caused significant damage to our environment and this may be affecting the cycle.

As I stated before even if the cycle is nothing more that a natural climate cycle we need to strat preparing for the inevitable changes that are going to occur.

There is no disputing the cyclical patterns of warming/cooling however there has never been cars, such extensive populations, or factories as far as the eye can see. This time around we're certainly giving it a nice sweet push.

mammasan

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

There is no disputing the cyclical patterns of warming/cooling however there has never been cars, such extensive populations, or factories as far as the eye can see. This time around we're certainly giving it a nice sweet push.

We definitely have had an impact on the cycle but I don't think there is anything we can do to reverse what has already been done. We definitely need to take better care of our environment but at this point we need to start focusing more on how to adapt to the inevitable change instead of how to fix the damage done.

surferdude

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Due to extensive population densities, the extremes in weather are far more consequential to mankind now than at any moment in history.

Do you moonlight as a writer for Bush? Sounds good, sounds important but meaningless.

When you work for industry do you just spin it as "Due to extensive technological advances, mankind is better able to adapt to and capitalize on the extremes in weather than at any moment in history."

RolandTD20Kdrummer

surferdude wrote:

Do you moonlight as a writer for Bush? Sounds good, sounds important but meaningless.

When you work for industry do you just spin it as "Due to extensive technological advances, mankind is better able to adapt to and capitalize on the extremes in weather than at any moment in history."

Wee differnce in populations and land development now than during last ice age wouldn't you say? Hardly meaningless.

Not so easy to pick up and move large blocks of Manhattan and several other cities worldwide regardless of incoming technological advancements.

I have yet to see one single technological advancement that man has produced that rules mother nature.

Cosmo

bubbamackdaddy69 wrote:

I guess I'm still one of the few that don't believe in the Global Warming stuff..
I believe it is one of the many upon many cycles earth has been though and will go through over it's 5 billion year existence

...
So... since man has no effect on climate change... then, China can do whatever it wants... as long as it recycles it's Pepsi cans... because it has no effect on the Earth.

decides2dream

jlew24asu wrote:

no one is debating this.

thanks for pointing that out. :rolleyes:

way to remove a statement from a complete thought/post. sorry for elaborating on my 'whys'......hahaha. none the less, nor did i ever imply global warming was completely man-made, and/or not a part of the globe's cycle, etc. imo, humanity DOES play a role, and an important one...but with or without that the warming trend DOES exist, even if one disagrees with the label of 'global warming' and whatever inference they take with that.

mammasan wrote:

personally don't believe that the Global Climate change is completely man made. There is edivence to prove that the arth has gone through these cycles about every 11,000 years or so. I do think that we have caused significant damage to our environment and this may be affecting the cycle.

As I stated before even if the cycle is nothing more that a natural climate cycle we need to strat preparing for the inevitable changes that are going to occur.

exactly. part of preparing for inevitable changes should be...reduce/remove our dependence on fossil fuels.....to not inflict further damage in general....and apparently buy a helluva lot more sunblock....;)

azwyldcats

Suzanne, is Bill a scientist? Didn't thinks so. Do not believe everything you hear from a celebrity.

chromiam

global climate change has been occurring for billions of years... why is it so "dire" now??? The amount of people on the this plant has increased, whether industrialized or not, and this has let to a strain on natural resources which normally would help curb or limit climate change (green spaces, open fields, agriculture and naturally growing vegatation). Is industrialization to blame?? not wholly, could play a part but its the whole population boom which is to blame and the stress it has put on natural resources.

And how do you control population boom??? Quick answer: You don't... just look at China.

jlew24asu

SuzannePjam wrote:

It was very upsetting watching Bill Maher the other night when he talked about how 23% of the Arctic melted in two years. It's so sad we have lost 8 years in being pro-active on this situation due to the current administration.

this is where it becomes fucking stupid to even talk about this. people like you love to use bush and the current administration and republicans as a scape goat to the out of control global warming issue. its not a political issue.

lost 8 years in being pro-active? how so?

Cosmo

Manhattan in January
Jill Sobule
--
Strolling along in Central Park, Everyone's out today.
The daisies and dogwoods are all in bloom... Oh, what a glorious day!
For picnics, and Frisbees, and roller skaters... Friends and lovers and lonely sunbathers... Everyone is out and merry...
Manhattan in January.

I brought ice tea, did you bring the bug spray? The flies are the size of my head.
Next to the palm tree, did you see the gator? He looks happy and very well fed.
Everyone's out and Merry...
Manhattan in January!

My preacher said, "Now don't you worry, The scientists have it all wrong".
And so who cares, it's Winter here And I have my halter top on.

The surfers on Park Avenue Avoid the old street signs,
They're glad that they survived the plague.
And how the sun does shine.

onelongsong

SuzannePjam wrote:

It was very upsetting watching Bill Maher the other night when he talked about how 23% of the Arctic melted in two years. It's so sad we have lost 8 years in being pro-active on this situation due to the current administration.


Study: Warming is stronger, happening sooner
Higher C02 emissions from fossil fuels, and weaker Earth, cited as reasons

MSNBC staff and news service reports

Just a days after the Nobel prize was awarded for global warming work, an alarming new study finds that warming signals are stronger, and happening sooner than expected, due to increased human emissions of carbon dioxide and an Earth less able to absorb them.
Carbon dioxide emissions were 35 percent higher in 2006 than in 1990, a much faster growth rate than anticipated, researchers reported in Tuesday’s edition of the peer-reviewed Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Increased industrial use of fossil fuels coupled with a decline in the ability of land and oceans to absorb CO2 were listed as causes of the increase.
The changes “characterize a carbon cycle that is generating stronger-than-expected and sooner-than-expected climate forcing,” the researchers wrote.
“The new twist here is the demonstration that weakening land and ocean sinks are contributing to the accelerating growth of atmospheric CO2,” said co-author Chris Field, director of the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Ecology at Stanford University.
The researchers said that human-induced warming had caused changes in wind patterns over the Southern Ocean that brought carbon-rich water toward the surface, reducing the ocean’s ability to absorb excess CO2 from the atmosphere.
On land, where plant growth is the major mechanism for soaking up CO2, droughts have curbed that ability, they stated.
Ocean sink 'really shocking'
Two climate researchers not involved with the study called it significant.
The “paper raises some very important issues that the public should be aware of," said Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. "Namely that concentrations of CO2 are increasing at much higher rates than previously expected and this is in spite of the Kyoto Protocol that is designed to hold them down in western countries.”
Alan Robock, associate director of the Center for Environmental Prediction at Rutgers University, added that “what is really shocking is the reduction of the oceanic CO2 sink” —meaning the ability of the ocean to absorb carbon dioxide, removing it from the atmosphere.
The researchers blamed that reduction on changes in wind circulation, but Robock said he also thinks rising ocean temperatures reduce the ability to take in carbon dioxide.
“Think that a warm Coke has less fizz than a cold Coke,” he said.
Carbon dioxide is the leading “greenhouse gas,” so named because their accumulation in the atmosphere can help trap heat from the sun, causing potentially dangerous warming of the planet.
While most atmospheric scientists accept the idea, finding ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions has been a political problem because of potential effects on the economy. Earlier this month, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and former Vice President Al Gore for their work in calling attention to global warming.
“It turns out that global warming critics were right when they said that global climate models did not do a good job at predicting climate change,” Robock said. “But what has been wrong recently is that the climate is changing even faster than the models said. In fact, Arctic sea ice is melting much faster than any models predicted, and sea level is rising much faster than IPCC previously predicted.”
Will future repeat recent past?
According to the new study, carbon released from burning fossil fuel and making cement rose from 7.0 billion metric tons per year in 2000 to 8.4 billion metric tons in 2006. A metric ton is 2,205 pounds.
The growth rate increased from 1.3 percent per year in 1990-1999 to 3.3 percent per year in 2000-2006, the researchers added.
Trenberth noted that carbon dioxide is not the whole story — methane emissions have declined, so total greenhouse gases are not increasing as much as carbon dioxide alone. Also, he added, other pollution plays a role by cooling.
There are changes from year to year in the fraction of the atmosphere made up of carbon dioxide and the question is whether this increase is transient or will be sustained, he said.
“The theory suggests increases in (the atmospheric fraction), as is claimed here, but the evidence is not strong,” Trenberth said.
The paper looks at a rather short time to measure a trend, Robock added, “but the results they get certainly look reasonable, and much of the paper is looking at much longer trends.”
The research was supported by Australian, European and other international agencies.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

you're right suzy; as i have been saying for years; the melting is much quicker than predicted. anyone that's ever put ice in a cooler knows that once melting has started; it melts faster and faster. it's mostly because a mass of ice cools the other ice. remove that; and melting is faster. last year i predicted that evacuations would start by 2011 but a few monthss ago someone posted a thread about the indian islands needing to be evacuated. if we look at the earths' history over the past few thousand years; we see CO2 spikes and the chart looks like a heartbeat on an ekg. at least until now. the line showing CO2 in the atmosphere has steadily risen. this breaks the natural cycle of the earth; proving man is the cause. just as the spike in lead in artic ice proved man was putting lead into the atmosphere. when leaded gas was banned; the lead in the artic slowly dropped and the artic ice no longer shows high levels of lead. again proving man was the source. but man fails to take any responsability so just like the last of the ice in the cooler; the water; now above freezing will cause the ice to melt much faster.

what really pisses me off is how you can blame the current administration. global warming was first "discovered" in the early 1990's. that was clinton's watch. in 2000 you were told that the ice cover was then the size of the us; in 2003 nasa reported that 1250 square miles of artic ice dissapeared under the water within a few days. in 2005 you were told that the earths ice cover was then the size of the us WEST OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER.
i went 100% solar; what did you do to help? the administration not only pushed alternative energy (and you can now see wind "farms" accross the country. especially the west); but set a plan in motion to harvest helium3 from the moon. the first rockets are set to be launched sometime in 2008. again i ask: what did you do? the administration could have stopped you from driving so much. a tax raising the price of gas to $20.00 a gallon would have done that. would that make you feel better? are people so ignorant that the government must FORCE the population to conserve? does the government need to control everything you do? would that make you happy? wasn't the tax credits for solar enough? the tax credits and lack of utility bill paid for my solar unit in a year. where were you when the administration was trying to help without infringing on your rights?
if you live near a large body of water; you will be evacuating in a few years. for those who say the earth didn't have ice cover in the past; remember what happened; the permian extinction. that was the result of not having ice cover. you were informed when there was time to make a difference. now everyone go look in the mirror and see who's really responsable.

jlew24asu

decides2dream wrote:

thanks for pointing that out. :rolleyes:

way to remove a statement from a complete thought/post. sorry for elaborating on my 'whys'......hahaha. none the less, nor did i ever imply global warming was completely man-made, and/or not a part of the globe's cycle, etc. imo, humanity DOES play a role, and an important one...but with or without that the warming trend DOES exist, even if one disagrees with the label of 'global warming' and whatever inference they take with that.

no one is debating this either. its when people like suzi starts blaming bush or republicans for this problem. its laughable.

decides2dream

jlew24asu wrote:

no one is debating this either. its when people like suzi starts blaming bush or republicans for this problem. its laughable.

are you reading all the posts, or simply commenting on posts out of context?

there was at least ONE post - the first one i directly responded to that you first quoted from me, that specifically said they didn't believe in global warming, and said it is simply a global cycle...to which i was saying that still IS global warming, and then took it further to how much, if any, human contribution etc...which actually has been mentioned in a few of the posts....and i felt like elaborating my own thoughts.


therefore, i am at a bit of a loss why you instead, 2x now, bother to point out to me, that people aren't debating the issues i mention. thanks, but my reading comprehension is just fine. how i choose to address this issue, what other related points i'd like to make...i believe is up to me. if you want to actually ADD to or DISAGREE with anything i say, i'm all for it....but yea...i don't need anyone to tell me what the thread or posts are about, thank you.

i get it.

jlew24asu

decides2dream wrote:

are you reading all the posts, or simply commenting on posts out of context?

there was at least ONE post - the first one i directly responded to that you first quoted from me, that specifically said they didn't believe in global warming, and said it is simply a global cycle...to which i was saying that still IS global warming, and then took it further to how much, if any, human contribution etc...which actually has been mentioned in a few of the posts....and i felt like elaborating my own thoughts.


therefore, i am at a bit of a loss why you instead, 2x now, bother to point out to me, that people aren't debating the issues i mention. thanks, but my reading comprehension is just fine. how i choose to address this issue, what other related points i'd like to make...i believe is up to me. if you want to actually ADD to or DISAGREE with anything i say, i'm all for it....but yea...i don't need anyone to tell me what the thread or posts are about, thank you.

i get it.

touchy touchy

onelongsong

mammasan wrote:

I personally don't believe that the Global Climate change is completely man made. There is edivence to prove that the arth has gone through these cycles about every 11,000 years or so. I do think that we have caused significant damage to our environment and this may be affecting the cycle.

As I stated before even if the cycle is nothing more that a natural climate cycle we need to strat preparing for the inevitable changes that are going to occur.

mammasan; i'm shocked. you always research a subject and give us intelligent answers or opinions and that's why your statement upsets me. we study the earths history through the ice cores. we know what normal cycles are; but the graph no longer follows normal cycles. the CO2 has steadily risen. that's our fault. one thing you're right about. this does fit into a natural cycle. look back i believe 25 million years. the siberian flats spewed CO2 into the atmosphere. that raised the earths temperature. the polar ice melted. as the earth warmed the frozen methane melted and added to the gasses in the atmosphere. the extra water covered the coastline but the weight of the water caused earthquakes emitting more gasses. the UK was like the sahara desert and it got hotter as you moved towards the equator. this was the permian extinction. luckily all the dead vegetation burned and dust from volcanos blocked the sun causing what most of us call a nuclear winter. without the sun the earth cooled; the ice began to form again; the methane froze again; and that small percentage of life that remained evolved into present day life.

you're right mammasan. this is a cycle. it mirrors what happened 25 million years ago. except this time the CO2 didn't come from the earth. we put it there. look back 25 million years and read what is going to happen to the earth.

decides2dream

jlew24asu wrote:

touchy touchy

i don't click links at work, so whatever that is is lost on me.
and no, not touchy...it was a genuine question. i often wonder why so many address individual posters that in no way contributes to the thread topic. if it's so important, PM...or yea, address the points/issues of the post is all. and yes, i realize i am contributing to it right now.....:p what can i say, i find it odd? when someone offers me tips ...as to what a thread is about, hahaha. i get it.

yes, i didn't focus on bush or any of that....i focused on the real topic, simply...global warming...and sure, related topics/issues that stem from such. for ME, it's all related/important....thus why i posted about it.

btw - quoting an article hardly constitues as 'agreement' with it's content. i would at most consider it information-sharing. for such an important topic, i am all for reading about it from various sources, so i appreciate it when anyone posts articles about topics of interest/concern to me - and thank you suzanne for so often being a source of such threads. i think it is up to the reader to discern the relevance or agreement....and sure for here, to discuss it as one sees fit. or am i off-topic and no one is debating that either? anyhoo...have fun!

chromiam

onelongsong wrote:

except this time the CO2 didn't come from the earth. we put it there. look back 25 million years and read what is going to happen to the earth.

hmmm millions (maybe billions) more people on the earth exhaling CO2, doesn't that come from earth???

onelongsong

jlew24asu wrote:

no one is debating this either. its when people like suzi starts blaming bush or republicans for this problem. its laughable.

the "blame bush for everything" crowd here really takes the bisquit. i laid out the facts including the "cycle" even though i know it will be ignored and lost when the thread moves to another page. i don't know why i bother. bush caused global warming so facts and evidence don't mean a bloody thing around here. talk about pearls before the swine.

jlew24asu

onelongsong wrote:

the "blame bush for everything" crowd here really takes the bisquit. i laid out the facts including the "cycle" even though i know it will be ignored and lost when the thread moves to another page. i don't know why i bother. bush caused global warming so facts and evidence don't mean a bloody thing around here. talk about pearls before the swine.

you do post great information on this topic and seem to know what your talking about. hopefully we can stop pointing fingers and do what we can to protect the earth and its resources.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Did someone say Bush actually caused it, or he has done little to nothing about it for the past 8 years?