Comment on this entry
Climate Change Explained
Predictions of melting ice caps, receding glaciers, thawing permafrost, rising sea levels, longer and more frequent droughts, hyper-powerful storm systems, species depletion, refugee migration, disease outbreaks, economic disruption, and other catastrophic results are becoming more plausible with each passing year. Unless something changes very fast, the future does not look very bright.
...
Complete entry
COMMENTS
Posted by robin fairweather on 07/12 at 09:52 PM
Well, forgive me for mentioning that I understand tempertures have fallen over the last decade. Hav'nt they? AND,
Again, if I remember correctly, NASA has predicted that the Atlantic currents may turn off in 2010. It would be caused, they said, by too much fresh water pushing the current down. AND, if this happened, it is said, then a new ice age completely blanketing North America and Europe would occur.
Is anything being done about these outcomes because they sound more onerous than what you have written above. What I mean is all the opposites occuring that you have predicted. Falling sea levels, no sustainable life in the northern reaches of earth due to ice... yes, a completely different picture with one major difference, 2010 not 2100.
Posted by pranav desai on 07/13 at 05:16 AM
its great effort of yours putting all the facts together about climate change, global warming and possible solutions. I would like to address one important issue concerning USA. We all are aware that from 90s UN has shown the concern over climate change and subsequently it launched kyoto protocol which states compulsory GHG emission reduction for many developed countries.
In this context, what is the forthcoming steps which USA would take to support this comprehansive movement to combat climate change. Would Obama govt ratify and accept the mandate to reduce GHG emission from USA.?
Posted by Mike Treder on 07/13 at 08:29 AM
@Robin: Temperatures have not fallen during the last decade; on the contrary, they have continued a steady trend upwards. But note the phrase "steady trend" -- in any trend, there will be outlying data points. It's when those points are averaged together that a trend can be observed. In the case of global warming, the year 1998 was an unusually warm one. But a single year anomaly does not overturn a trend. Please consult this page for a thorough explanation -
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/global-warming-stopped
Posted by Mike Treder on 07/13 at 08:43 AM
@Robin: You're right that disruption from global warming to the Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC) -- also known as the "Great Ocean Conveyor Belt" -- is a serious concern because that event could drastically affect weather patterns around the world.
It's true that Europe and North America would then experience far colder and more severe winters, but at the same time average temperatures in many areas of the Southern Hemisphere would warm as much as 4° F very quickly. Although the overall effect would not be a "new ice age" (at least not everywhere), the impacts could be dramatic and devastating for hundreds of millions of people.
Melting of the Greenland ice sheet is the most likely trigger for MOC disruption, and while that melting is occurring faster than expected, it probably will not affect the currents in the way you're describing until later in this century.
For more, see - http://www.wunderground.com/education/abruptclimate.asp
Posted by Mike Treder on 07/13 at 08:56 AM
@pranav: It's not yet certain exactly how much President Obama is willing to do in this area, nor how much support his efforts will receive from Congress. However, we can say a couple of things for sure. First, the Obama administration is actually taking the science of global warming seriously, unlike the Bush administration, and second, progress is being made toward passing the most far-reaching and comprehensive climate legislation ever considered in America.
The U.S. House of Representatives has approved a landmark bill, known as ACES (also called "Waxman-Markey" for its key supporters), and now it's up to the Senate to see if they will also vote in favor of it. The bill itself is not perfect, and ultimately the U.S. will have to go much farther, but it's an excellent beginning, in my opinion. This is one of those cases where doing something is about a million times better than doing nothing.
Posted by Phil Zulli on 07/14 at 05:09 PM
This is the most concise, accurate and informed explanation of Climate Change I've seen.
I will use it wisely. 
Thanks.
Posted by Brad Arnold on 07/17 at 03:08 AM
In the July issue of the International Journal of Global Warming, Bo Nordell and Bruno Gervet of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the Lulea University of Technology in Sweden have come up with a remarkable finding that completely changes the way we understand global warming.
The scientist's calculations show that three fourths of accumulated heat is from heat emissions. In other words, most of the global warming is from heat humans have generated, not from increased levels of greenhouse gas in the air.
Among the startling implications of this change of paradigm is nuclear power, although it has a small carbon footprint, will not slow down global warming because it produces heat emissions equivalent to three times the energy of the electricity it generates.
By the way, the above article cited is peer reviewed, not an unsubstantiated opinion (like virtually all global warming denier articles). There is already problems with current climate models, for instance the IPCC underestimated current ocean level rise by 1.6 times, and predicted Arctic ocean ice would remain well past mid-century. Furthermore, current climate models don't fully explain the PETM. Once the heat emissions from volcanic activity are included, our understanding of the last Great Extinction should be more complete.
Today, the heat our power plants, motors, and furnaces put into the environment are at least as significant as the greenhouse gas they emit into the air. Now we know, and knowing is half the battle.
Posted by postfuturist on 04/21 at 08:20 AM
"(NOTE: If you're planning to regurgitate flimsy arguments or cherry-picked stats from denialist groups in the comments, don't bother because they won't be approved. We're here to talk about solutions.)" Not merely that; I heard a Christian-radio broadcaster, a James Dobson-type, saying 'why should we worry about melting icebergs when we have our teenagers mores to concern ourselves with?'
Posted by CygnusX1 on 08/05 at 04:13 PM
Great article, and well worth a resurface.
Now that messrs Bill Gates, (already a proponent of geoengineering) and George Lucas and co. have stepped forward to give their monies to good causes, what better cause or legacy than to invest in renewable energies and the future protection of our ecosystem and in humanity. And these guys should be networked and wise enough not to be distracted by any less than successful speculative ventures that may stray from real progress?
And what's more, these guys already have the powers of political sway and the potential to change minds and policies at the very top?
There's hope for this planet yet! These wealthy elite must band together to share their ideas and options and promote positive world change. And who knows, if potentially large investments do prove successful, the oil magnates and perhaps even the sheiks will follow suite?
The time for a new outlook and possibilities is on offer, let's work to help change minds and make it happen?
Posted by postfuturist on 08/06 at 07:43 PM
This is funny: a route-guy (who sells gas and propane to stations) told me "you should see a big tank of gas sometime, it is so golden and beautiful". I replied that looking into a commode can be beautiful too; so he shouts, "you ride in cars, don't you??". It IS hopeless, in that you can't communicate with rednecks, they are too headstrong-- we'll have to wait until they die off.
Posted by postfuturist on 08/06 at 10:27 PM
...oil executives & owners don't spend a substantial portion of their lives in their niches merely to give up the game, They figure they will die several decades on so they don't care much that posterity inherits the mess: it is the exception rather than the rule that someone voluntarily abdicates their power-- esp. oilmen, they are extremely tenacious. Four or so decades since the alarm was raised they have a death-grip on the energy industry. And what are you going to do about that? hold guns to their heads? what is the percentage invested in wind and solar: less than one percent; whereas there are trillions invested in fossil energy. Not too good, eh?
Page 1 of 1 pages
Add your comment here:
|
IEET Blog