Global warming: the final warning

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

Global warming: the final warning
According to yesterday's UN report, the world will be a much hotter place by 2100. This will be the impact ...
Published: 03 February 2007
+2.4°: Coral reefs almost extinct

In North America, a new dust-bowl brings deserts to life in the high plains states, centred on Nebraska, but also wipes out agriculture and
cattle ranching as sand dunes appear across five US states, from Texas in the south to Montana in the north.

Rising sea levels accelerate as the Greenland ice sheet tips into irreversible melt, submerging atoll nations and low-lying deltas. In Peru, disappearing Andean glaciers mean 10 million people face water shortages. Warming seas wipe out the Great Barrier Reef and make coral reefs virtually extinct throughout the tropics. Worldwide, a third of all species on the planet face extinction

+3.4°: Rainforest turns to desert

The Amazonian rainforest burns in a firestorm of catastrophic ferocity, covering South America with ash and smoke. Once the smoke clears, the interior of Brazil has become desert, and huge amounts of extra carbon have entered the atmosphere, further boosting global warming. The entire Arctic ice-cap disappears in the summer months, leaving the North Pole ice-free for the first time in 3 million years. Polar bears, walruses and ringed seals all go extinct. Water supplies run short in California as the Sierra Nevada snowpack melts away. Tens of millions are displaced as the Kalahari desert expands across southern Africa

+4.4°: Melting ice caps displace millions

Rapidly-rising temperatures in the Arctic put Siberian permafrost in the melt zone, releasing vast quantities of methane and CO2. Global temperatures keep on rising rapidly in consequence. Melting ice-caps and sea level rises displace more than 100 million people, particularly in Bangladesh, the Nile Delta and Shanghai. Heatwaves and drought make much of the sub-tropics uninhabitable: large-scale migration even takes place within Europe, where deserts are growing in southern Spain, Italy and Greece. More than half of wild species are wiped out, in the worst mass extinction since the end of the dinosaurs. Agriculture collapses in Australia

+5.4°: Sea levels rise by five metres

The West Antarctic ice sheet breaks up, eventually adding another five metres to global sea levels. If these temperatures are sustained, the entire planet will become ice-free, and sea levels will be 70 metres higher than today. South Asian society collapses due to the disappearance of glaciers in the Himalayas, drying up the Indus river, while in east India and Bangladesh, monsoon floods threaten millions. Super-El Niños spark global weather chaos. Most of humanity begins to seek refuge away from higher temperatures closer to the poles. Tens of millions of refugees force their way into Scandanavia and the British Isles. World food supplies run out

+6.4°: Most of life is exterminated

Warming seas lead to the possible release of methane hydrates trapped in sub-oceanic sediments: methane fireballs tear across the sky, causing further warming. The oceans lose their oxygen and turn stagnant, releasing poisonous hydrogen sulphide gas and destroying the ozone layer. Deserts extend almost to the Arctic. "Hypercanes" (hurricanes of unimaginable ferocity) circumnavigate the globe, causing flash floods which strip the land of soil. Humanity reduced to a few survivors eking out a living in polar refuges. Most of life on Earth has been snuffed out, as temperatures rise higher than for hundreds of millions of years.

Mark Lynas
http://news.independent.co.uk/environme ... 211566.ece


,,,,
Hey this guy should write a book, he would make millions on this. The United states so far this year has start out much much colder then any of the last 5 years. I think it has went down a little more from even last year. Yeah some area's area hot or warmer...But overall I think the global warming or the solar warming event is turning around. who went to bet that this year doe's not get 7th warmest. I also highly doubt humans will come even close to dieing out, even if this was true. We would get off this planet...Unless fools keep us on it. Also we can work on other ways to life.

[Yarrah]

The United states so far this year has start out much much colder then any of the last 5 years. I think it has went down a little more from even last year. Yeah some area's area hot or warmer...

Uhm, the weather in the US isn't global weather. Temperatures in Western Europe have been 5°C or more warmer then normal, but that's not enough to conclude that the rest of the world is also warmer then normal.

But overall I think the global warming or the solar warming event is turning around.

Just because some areas in the US have seen some cold weather?

I also highly doubt humans will come even close to dieing out, even if this was true. We would get off this planet...Unless fools keep us on it. Also we can work on other ways to life.

There have been some major extinctions in our planets history and most of them were caused because some sort of major event changed the global climate rapidly.

[Janie2006]

Methane fireballs??

[x-y-no]

What is this crap?

Apparently some weak attempt at humor.

[Regit]

Hey this guy should write a book, he would make millions on this. The United states so far this year has start out much much colder then any of the last 5 years.

Spoken like someone who's never attempted to learn a single thing about GW.

I think it has went down a little more from even last year. Yeah some area's area hot or warmer...But overall I think the global warming or the solar warming event is turning around.

Evidence?

who went to bet that this year doe's not get 7th warmest.

I'd take the bet that it's not seventh warmest. Will probably be 1, 2, or 3.

I also highly doubt humans will come even close to dieing out, even if this was true. We would get off this planet...Unless fools keep us on it. Also we can work on other ways to life.

I'm not saying humans are going to die out, but you think we can relocate 15 billion people to another planet in 93 years?

And work on other ways to live? Water, air, and temperate climate. I don't think humans will figure out a way to live without any one of those three.

[Hybridstorm_November2001]

What bother me most in this whole discussion are the extremists. People who know little about the actual science, but still will declare that the World is coming to and end any time now for their own benefit. Al Gore in my mind fit rather neatly into this category.

People often fear what they don't understand; be that natural, man made, or even different ethnic, religious, and racial groups. Over the millennia sadly this has been used by opportunistic persons too cause terrible bouts of mass panic, and in certain cases even worse (i.e. the Holocaust of WW II, the Killing Fields of Cambodia, and the more recent Rwanda Genocide).

[x-y-no]

What bother me most in this whole discussion are the extremists. People who know little about the actual science, but still will declare that the World is coming to and end any time now for their own benefit. Al Gore in my mind fit rather neatly into this category.

One may quarrel (and I do) with some choices he makes in terms of how to present the science, but it's manifestly false to say that Gore knows little about the actual science. I've watched his movie twice and there's really very little in it that I could call "wrong."

Sure there are ignorant people on any side of any argument, but in my experience there's far more ignorance and outright falsehood on the skeptics' side of this one.

[wxman57]

There appears to be a large group of scientists who have made up their minds that not only does global warming exist, but that humans are the main culprit. They use only the data that support their extremist arguments and censor the data that contradict the AGW argument (anthropogenic global warming). If you disagree with them, you should be put on trial and/or stripped of your AMS membership.

Other scientists who actually want to consider all the data, even though it may not support the AGW argument, have resigned from the IPCC panel in disgust at the strong political bias.

In any case, take some time to read the following articles. I read through the first one (PDF) and the author makes some very good points about climate change. The 2nd article is much shorter, but more good points. Finally, a link to a presentation made by Chris Landsea at a recent AMS meeting relating climate change to TC activity. Chris Landsea, I believe, was one of the scientists who resigned from the IPCC panel recently.

http://myweb.cableone.net/nolasue/gw.pdf

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/glo ... 020507.htm

ftp://ftp.nhc.noaa.gov/pub/users/landse ... limate.ppt

[conestogo_flood]

Look at it this way...

Temperatures are rising, you can't hide that fact.

If you live here, in the summer you are used to 25C to near 30C temps on a summer day. Some days throughout the year (usually no more than 3, 2006 had almost 40) the temperature can reach 35C and it is very hot and you don't feel like doing anything.

In 100 years, if the temps keep rising like they are, what if here we are used to 30C to 34C days, and some days it reaches 50C or above. Imagine how you'd feel and how the world would work. More air conditioning needed, more water needed, droughts are already appearing all over so there would problably be less food grown. Animals and humans would die of heat exhaustion.

Thats global warming. High temperatures aren't just going to up and disappear by tomorrow. We're stuck with them, always have been, always will be and even though it may or may not be human caused, it's still going to rise.

[wxman57]

Look at it this way...

Temperatures are rising, you can't hide that fact.

If you live here, in the summer you are used to 25C to near 30C temps on a summer day. Some days throughout the year (usually no more than 3, 2006 had almost 40) the temperature can reach 35C and it is very hot and you don't feel like doing anything.

In 100 years, if the temps keep rising like they are, what if here we are used to 30C to 34C days, and some days it reaches 50C or above. Imagine how you'd feel and how the world would work. More air conditioning needed, more water needed, droughts are already appearing all over so there would problably be less food grown. Animals and humans would die of heat exhaustion.

Thats global warming. High temperatures aren't just going to up and disappear by tomorrow. We're stuck with them, always have been, always will be and even though it may or may not be human caused, it's still going to rise.

It's quite possible that global temperatures are rising. Data so suggest that, though there are significant questions as to the amount of warming being observed. But the earth has always gone through periods of warming and cooling. It's perfectly natural. The Mediaeval warm period (950AD to 1450AD) was considerably warmer than it is now. During that period Greenland had some good summer farmlands. If you read the .PDF link above, you'd see that the earth goes through regular cycles of warm and cool periods.

What has everyone upset is the suggestsion as to the cause of the warming. Some believe that the warming is caused by human generation of carbon dioxide. Others disagree and say the warming is natural. It's unlikely that humans had any impact on warming/cooling cycles in the past, that's for sure. But can we actually have an impact on the global climate today? Many prominent scientists claim that there just is no evidence to support that theory. You may be too young to remember that in the 1970s, some of the same scientists were shouting about global cooling and how the next ice age was just around the corner if we don't curb our C02 emissions. Beware scientists with agendas!

Read the .PDF article above, please. I don't think the scientist who wrote it has any agenda other than to learn the truth.

[x-y-no]

It's quite possible that global temperatures are rising. Data so suggest that, though there are significant questions as to the amount of warming being observed. But the earth has always gone through periods of warming and cooling. It's perfectly natural.

Yes, the Earth has warmed and cooled many times. I'm not sure why skeptics find that some sort of evidence that the current warming (and the current warming is unequivocal) is not primarily induced by human activity. As I keep asking those who make this argument, forest fires have occurred naturally throughout the ages - does that imply that humans cannot cause forest fires?

The Mediaeval warm period (950AD to 1450AD) was considerably warmer than it is now.

Globally - no, it wasn't.

During that period Greenland had some good summer farmlands. If you read the .PDF link above, you'd see that the earth goes through regular cycles of warm and cool periods.

Local or regional does not equal global. Also, at least some of the description of Greenland at that time was marketing - Erikson wanted to attract settlers to his colony.

What has everyone upset is the suggestsion as to the cause of the warming. Some believe that the warming is caused by human generation of carbon dioxide. Others disagree and say the warming is natural. It's unlikely that humans had any impact on warming/cooling cycles in the past, that's for sure. But can we actually have an impact on the global climate today? Many prominent scientists claim that there just is no evidence to support that theory.

"Many?" I beg to differ.

You may be too young to remember that in the 1970s, some of the same scientists were shouting about global cooling and how the next ice age was just around the corner if we don't curb our C02 emissions.

I am definitely not too young to remember and the notion that there was any consensus regarding near-term (i.e. less than several millenia away) global cooling is absolutely false. I challenge you to produce even a handful of research papers in the peer-reviewed literature which made any such claim. You won't find them because they don't exist. This myth has been built upon a couple of articles in the popular press. That's all. There was no body of research indicating imminent global cooling in any reasonably short timeframe (i.e. centuries rather than millenia). None. Furthermore, even to the extent that there was some consideration of the idea, there was in fact substantially more consideration of the idea of man-made warming, even at that time. I know. I was there listening to the arguments as they took place between my father and others in the field at that time. And keep in mind that the earliest numerical models were still only gleams in their creators' eyes at that time. Climate science has advanced enormously in the last three decades.

Beware scientists with agendas!

Why is it that skeptics never seem to heed this caveat themselves? Do a little digging on the net regarding Dr. Tim Ball (the author of your second linked article,) who pays his bills and how truthful his representations of his own qualifications are ... there's a lot of interesting reading on that topic.

Read the .PDF article above, please. I don't think the scientist who wrote it has any agenda other than to learn the truth.

And why, pray tell, is Viscount Monckton of Brenchley so certain to be agenda-free? He certainly has written a piece which is riddled with errors and distortions. There must be some reason for that. Surely it might be that he has an agenda.

A discussion of some of his most glaring errors can be read here.

[Jim Hughes]

What bother me most in this whole discussion are the extremists. People who know little about the actual science, but still will declare that the World is coming to and end any time now for their own benefit. Al Gore in my mind fit rather neatly into this category.

One may quarrel (and I do) with some choices he makes in terms of how to present the science, but it's manifestly false to say that Gore knows little about the actual science. I've watched his movie twice and there's really very little in it that I could call "wrong."

Sure there are ignorant people on any side of any argument, but in my experience there's far more ignorance and outright falsehood on the skeptics' side of this one.

Come on. There are people on both sides of the debate that are ignorant. It just depends upon the subject maters they talk about. BTW whatever happened to bringing my discussion over here?

[Extremeweatherguy]

It just amazes me that after living on this earth for only a few thousands of years (and even less than that in civilized societies), humans think they know everything. I simply do not think we have enough modern experience to know for sure what is really going to happen in the future. Yes, warming has happened already, but will it continue until we reach the death of society? We cannot be so sure. Anyone who tries to say this WILL happen for sure is being foolish IMO. I do not think anyone on this planet can safely say, with accuracy, what WILL happen 10, 20, 50 or 100 years from now. I mean, heck! We can't even get the forecast right at 3-days out most of the time, so why should I (or anyone for that matter) trust such a long-range prediction? There are just way too many variables that can change over time.

[jasons2k]

I disagree that the skeptics' POV is more biased. That makes no sense. Most of the so-called "skeptics" are trying to inject a little sanity and "not-so-fast" into what has become a we're-all-gonna-roast frenzy of the last couple of years.

Why would a proponent of AGW NOT diminish the problem? It's no secret that there is indeed an agenda being advanced by the global warming's proponents. A problem, a scare, equals research funding and salaries. If the fear dries up, so does the money.

I can already predict that each sentence here will be painstakenly retorted with some citation. Whatever. If I had the time I could find an equally respectable scientist or quote or research study saying just as emphatically and convincingly stating the opposite. Most people who actually have an opinion of this issue have already made up their minds for now and no amount of posting back-and-forth is going to make a difference until we have something conclusive.

And most skeptics, including myself, hardly consider the "almost entirely certain" or whatever individual words were chosen in Paris as conclusive, no matter how strongly worded they chose to present their agenda. It seems like everyone forgot they still said ALMOST certain.

[bvigal]

Maybe everyone's see this, but I just got it this morning. In case someone hasn't seen. It's posted on US Senate Committe on Environment blog at
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? ... =&Issue_id
(I put the entire URL there on purpose) If you don't get it first try, wait a bit. It seems their server is being overloaded!

The Weather Channel Mess
January 18, 2007 | James Spann | Op/Ed

Well, well. Some “climate expert” on “The Weather Channel” wants to take away AMS certification from those of us who believe the recent “global warming” is a natural process. So much for “tolerance”, huh?

I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. Our big job: look at a large volume of raw data and come up with a public weather forecast for the next seven days. I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can’t find them. Here are the basic facts you need to know:

*Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story. Even the lady at “The Weather Channel” probably gets paid good money for a prime time show on climate change. No man-made global warming, no show, and no salary. Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab.

*The climate of this planet has been changing since God put the planet here. It will always change, and the warming in the last 10 years is not much difference than the warming we saw in the 1930s and other decades. And, lets not forget we are at the end of the ice age in which ice covered most of North America and Northern Europe.

If you don’t like to listen to me, find another meteorologist with no tie to grant money for research on the subject. I would not listen to anyone that is a politician, a journalist, or someone in science who is generating revenue from this issue.

In fact, I encourage you to listen to WeatherBrains episode number 12, featuring Alabama State Climatologist John Christy, and WeatherBrains episode number 17, featuring Dr. William Gray of Colorado State University, one of the most brilliant minds in our science.

WeatherBrains, by the way, is our weekly 30 minute netcast.

I have nothing against “The Weather Channel”, but they have crossed the line into a political and cultural region where I simply won’t go.

[Yarrah]

*The climate of this planet has been changing since God put the planet here.

He lost me...

This guy's a professional meteorologist?

[Aslkahuna]

The important thing to note in the GW argument and that is that the current levels of CO2 are some 35% or so above the upper natural limit of variability know to exist over the past 650000 years as determined by ice core samples. This increase above the upper limit has been occurring at an ever increasing rate over the past 100 years and is quite likely anthropogenic in origin. This would then mean that although anthropogenic causes are not the only cause of the current warming, they are certainly important ones and are growing more important with time. As far as the non human factors are concerned, some do need more study. A recent article in Weatherwise noted that effects of large thunderstorm complexes-especially tropical ones have been observed to affect the ionization of the F1 and F2 layers of the ionosphere up to 400 km (it's well known that Summertime MCS's are major contributor to Sporadic E in the lower E layer of the ionosphere over the US). So this brings up the question that if tropospheric events can affect the Ionosphere then why can't ionospheric electrical activity (particularly during Gemag events) affect the troposphere? This is where a Space Weather connection may fit it. There's been some discussion as to the role Cosmic Rays play in cloud formation and it's important to note that CR flux is lower during periods of elevated Solar activity because the Heliosphere is more strongly magnetic then which deflects most Cosmic Ray flux from the Solar System.

Steve

[Javlin]

Well I just got done watching the latest clip from out of the BBC on AGW and it was very informative I thought.I saw Jim Hughs where they were using your concept of space weather in there and how it could actually be quite accurate.Well I just thought I drop the video link for an opposing view.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU

[P.K.]

The BBC would never make anything like that, even Channel 4 seem to be distancing themselves from it from what I've read. Think you'll find there are several problems with it (Such as important data on the temp graph being cut off at 1980 yet the axis goes to 2006). http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece

[Javlin]

I did not catch that PK but is Channel 4 doing it for PC reasons?Some of the arguments sound as good as any that I have heard for GW,so who is to say and what is right?While I do not disagree that temps. have risen some over the long haul is it really because of mankind?and I will look at your link.