INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: Teejay on December 11, 2006, 11:23:12 PM
-
Here is my $0.02 cents on global warming. While my estimates are on the conservative side (mean warming of 1.5-2C in the next 100 years), however the rises in temperatures will not be gradual but rather sudden. I think in 1998 we went through one, as a result much needed winter rainfall in Southern Australia has decreased by 20%, which is a factor behind the worst drought in recorded history we are experiencing here.
This 4T coming up will have this as a major issues.
Humans have had an impact on the global greenhouse emissions since the beginnings of agriculture, the clearing of forests for grazing, the planting of crops and the methane coming from livestock. Probably resulted in temperatures in the last few thousand years being a little higher than they have should be.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...732281706.html
Since the industral revolution Co2 levels have risen from 280 parts per million to 370-380 parts per million, a more than 35% increase. Given the rise in Co2 levels in the amosphere the warming should have been more than 0.6C mean recorded globally since 1850. There is a thing called global dimming, which is caused by aerosols being poured into the amosphere as a result of industry, which reflected sunlight and limited the extent of warming caused by rising Co2 levels. The level of aerosols have decreased in the developed world, could be rising in the fast industralising countries like China and India although.
If we contiude business as usual in regard to greenhouse emissions, globally temperatures will warm to levels which were seen 120,000 years ago during the last intergalacial. When temperatures globally were 1-2C warmer than today. Back then sea levels were 5-8 meters higher than today, forests grew as far north as North Cape, Norway which is now Tundra, trees like Oak and Hazel grew as far north as Oulu in Finland which is at 65N. Also the forest-priare boundary was where Fort Lubbock, Texas is today, instead of Dallas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian_interglacial
I dunno if the climate modern similar to the Pilocene period around 5-2 million years ago would be apporiate because back then the straits of panama, allowed the gulf stream to go into the arctic ocean because the ocean salinity levels were lower. That would have resulted in huge temperature increases in North America, Northern Eurasia, plus a stronger monsoon in Africa and Eurasia, meaning the Arctic ocean was ice free in summer, Greenland was tundra and boreal forest, the sahara and arabian deserts were grasslands and trees grew right up to the arctic ocean.
Overall I think global greenhouse levels will reach to around 560 parts per million, literally a doubling since the beginning of the industral age. That is given a business as usual approach, greenhouse emissions will peak once the all the countries of the world become economically developed as western countries are now.
For example a Co2 level some 100 parts per million lower than pre-industral levels, maybe resulted in temperatures globally 5C cooler than present, however the milankovitch cycle where the earth's axis shifts, which is linked to glacial and interglacial contributed greatly to those lower temperatures.
My rough estimate is as co2 levels in the amosphere reach levels double pre-industral levels, mean global temperatures will rise by 1.5 to 2C. But the effects will be not evenly distrubted in North America temperatures will rise by 3-4C on average. Boston would have a climate like Baltimore, some places will get wetter, some places will get drier.
A sudden warming of the earth's climate would be a disaster, because global agriculture depends on a stable climate and if the climate patterns were to suddenly shift, some places will face ruin and until the agricultural zones of the world shift, agricultural yeilds will crash.
This is quite potentially scary stuff, greenhouse emissions must be reduced post haste to avoid these things from happening, however we have to develop ways of reducing greenhouse emissions which do not reduce living standards or economic growth.
I'm in favor of widespread use of nuclear power (replacing fossil fuels), diverting of subsides for fossil to subsides for cleaner forms of energy like solar, nuclear fission and fusion, wind and compressed air engines (which run on electricity).
-
Nuclear plants actually are the safest and most effective energy sources that exist. With fusion energy all problems with meltdowns will be gone. Otherwise fossile fuels will fuck up this planet for good.
-
You care about the environment? Live in a fucking mud house, devoid of electricity, gas, and other modern appliances to your home.
That's all it boils down to.
However, saying that, what's the point in human existence if we can't use Earth minerals and shit for our whims? We're thinkers, curious-extrodinaires, that's what we fucking do.
-
My 2 cents on global warming is that it is real and happening but I personally have little power to stop it. I have to wait around for significant events to happen before I could even make a difference. Basically we have to wait around for politicians running at least partially on an anti-global warming ticket. And that will likely only happen if a fucking coastal city gets flooded(not caused by shitty levies).
And, the majority of the shit which hits the fan will be deflected onto generations which follow me. And fuck 'em in my opinion.
-
My 2 cents on global warming is that it is real and happening but I personally have little power to stop it. I have to wait around for significant events to happen before I could even make a difference. Basically we have to wait around for politicians running at least partially on an anti-global warming ticket. And that will likely only happen if a fucking coastal city gets flooded(not caused by shitty levies).
And, the majority of the shit which hits the fan will be deflected onto generations which follow me. And fuck 'em in my opinion.
I see that someone has a shit mommy and daddy.
-
or an imige to cultivate.
-
It is Globally warm in My apartment. 8)
-
I would respect parents who were honest and weren't all like, "We tried to provide the very best for you." I plan to give my kids(if i have them) what they need to grow up right, and be conservative how much more I give out so that when I do it actually is valued as extra rather than taken for granted.
-
I would respect parents who were honest and weren't all like, "We tried to provide the very best for you." I plan to give my kids(if i have them) what they need to grow up right, and be conservative how much more I give out so that when I do it actually is valued as extra rather than taken for granted.
I have a similar idea, but I would only give them just enough because I am an evil little man and have a guitar/anime/computer buying addiction, also when I see a chipotle, my wallet screams.
On the global warming bit, I think it's pretty funny that most of the people who are really worrying about global warming live in warm places. I haven't heard serious local discussion on global warming since moving to new england. That said, assuming it is not just political hype...meh.
-
I often feel like I am too ignorant to make an informed judgement on global warming.
-
global warming is boring. just get some beer and smile. fuck the global warming it was gonna happen anyway. :P
-
i heard that it was due to cow farts. if we could only invent a remedy.
-
global warming is boring. just get some beer and smile. fuck the global warming it was gonna happen anyway. :P
Like you in a body bag by the infamous work of Dr. Jones, the cyber-lurver.
-
After Global Warming We will have a new Ice Age. ;)
-
After Global Warming We will have a new Ice Age. ;)
Well, actually it's a possible consequence of global warming, yes. Melt some of Greenland and you'll stop the Golf Stream, and you'll have a new ice age in no time.
-
So why all this whining about it? I'd also like to buy gas for $0.50/litre. And drive as fast as I wanted, of course. 8)
-
So why all this whining about it? I'd also like to buy gas for $0.50/litre. And drive as fast as I wanted, of course. 8)
I wouldn't say no to those prices either. OTOH, maybe I should get a car that's a bit cheaper to drive than the one I have now.
-
I wonder, though: Does my *insert an infinite amount of great* "grandmother" (Earth) have feelings? Does she feel pain like my mom does when I argue with her? Why do we care so much about some insignificant rock circling around the Sun? We think we're better than nature, so why don't we invest in building space colonies to search for a new home to abuse to our content? Steven Hawking's being smug about the idea, the arrogant spaz.
-
Only wimps are environmentalists. 8)
-
Only wimps are environmentalists. 8)
Why are they wimps because they're in a different world to yours? It doesn't matter how humans try to be above everything, you lot fall flat in your face when nature rips up another arsehole in mankind through the form of a hurricane or a huge swarm of locusts or killer bees.
I feel like some prophet of doom when I sprout out stuff like this. Who cares about facts when you can use rhetoric? Nothing wrong with lying now and again to spice things up a little.
-
Only wimps are environmentalists. 8)
I disagree with this. There are some environmentalists who are warrior types. There are some who drive spikes in trees so that they will be more dangerous for loggers to cut down, for example.
-
Only wimps are environmentalists. 8)
I disagree with this. There are some environmentalists who are warrior types. There are some who drive spikes in trees so that they will be more dangerous for loggers to cut down, for example.
That's kind of brave. It'd be even braver to put booby traps or something in them, though. 8)
-
Only wimps are environmentalists. 8)
I disagree with this. There are some environmentalists who are warrior types. There are some who drive spikes in trees so that they will be more dangerous for loggers to cut down, for example.
That's kind of brave. It'd be even braver to put booby traps or something in them, though. 8)
My Lord says that death shall come to thee!
-
Oh, yes, in 50 years or something. 8)
-
Oh, yes, in 50 years or something. 8)
Behold, the Power of God!
-
For a while, I thought this was the last word thread... ::)
-
Only wimps are environmentalists. 8)
I disagree with this. There are some environmentalists who are warrior types. There are some who drive spikes in trees so that they will be more dangerous for loggers to cut down, for example.
That's kind of brave. It'd be even braver to put booby traps or something in them, though. 8)
Tig, have you ever picked up or even seen a twelve horsepower chainsaw or bigger? It's not something the average "dude" can operate. They are enormous and a couple of spikes driven into a tree at waist level on an angle is one hell of a booby trap.
I would like us all to recognize that John Muir was nobody's wimp!
-
After Global Warming We will have a new Ice Age. ;)
Well, actually it's a possible consequence of global warming, yes. Melt some of Greenland and you'll stop the Golf Stream, and you'll have a new ice age in no time.
Greenland is melting.
-
... as is Antarctica. Google B15 iceberg, for instance.
-
I have actually used a chainsaw several times but not a 12 horsepower one, at least not that I know of. I was kind of provoking. Of course it might be a deadly trap to hit spikes with a chainsaw of any kind. They're not toys.
-
I would like us all to recognize that John Muir was nobody's wimp!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Muir
-
I would like us all to recognize that John Muir was nobody's wimp!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Muir
Our Internet Librarian strikes, again! Thanks, Callaway.
... but doesn't everyone know who John Muir was?
-
Not until I read this thread, I didn't.
-
I would like us all to recognize that John Muir was nobody's wimp!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Muir
Our Internet Librarian strikes, again! Thanks, Callaway.
... but doesn't everyone know who John Muir was?
I knew because I used to live in California, but I thought some others might not know him.
-
After Global Warming We will have a new Ice Age. ;)
Well, actually it's a possible consequence of global warming, yes. Melt some of Greenland and you'll stop the Golf Stream, and you'll have a new ice age in no time.
Greenland is melting.
Yes. We should all be scared.
-
I knew because I used to live in California, but I thought some others might not know him.
Well, I grew up in Canada, where everyone knows people live in igloos with no electricity or running water, let alone mass media... :P
-
I knew because I used to live in California, but I thought some others might not know him.
Well, I grew up in Canada, where everyone knows people live in igloos with no electricity or running water, let alone mass media... :P
Where in Canada did you grow up, Pyraxis?
-
Winnipeg. And I only lived in an igloo 6 months of the year...
-
... as is Antarctica. Google B15 iceberg, for instance.
How about a picture? Seventy six miles long by seventeen miles wide, broken free from the Ross Ice Shelf, but that's just the big one. There are many more giant ones than normal, in the last few years.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5e/Big_iceberg_on_the_loose.jpg/300px-Big_iceberg_on_the_loose.jpg) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B15A)
-
Winnipeg. And I only lived in an igloo 6 months of the year...
Have you ever really spent even one night in an igloo, Pyraxis? We built one in our back yard once, but we only played it it in the daytime. The snow we have now is not good for igloo building.
-
I would like us all to recognize that John Muir was nobody's wimp!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Muir
Our Internet Librarian strikes, again! Thanks, Callaway.
... but doesn't everyone know who John Muir was?
I did.
-
I would like us all to recognize that John Muir was nobody's wimp!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Muir
Our Internet Librarian strikes, again! Thanks, Callaway.
... but doesn't everyone know who John Muir was?
I did.
I guess I am expecting too much, for non-Americans to know of him and his work. I place the blame, for allowing his contributions as a Great American to tumble into historical obscurity, directly on the shoulders of every American.
... except mine of course.
His work was much more important to all our futures than many can even comprehend. Ignoring his foresight is another example of the swaggering hubris, all too common in modern western culture, which may prove to be a conductive path to our undoing or, at least, our misery.
-
His work was much more important to all our futures than many can even comprehend.
How so?
-
Have you ever really spent even one night in an igloo, Pyraxis? We built one in our back yard once, but we only played it it in the daytime. The snow we have now is not good for igloo building.
No. I was just making fun of the fact that one time when I visited California when I was 12, and said I was from Canada, I was asked by other kids whether I lived in an igloo. They honestly seemed to think I might.
The closest I've come is to carve snow forts out from the huge piles of snow that the plows leave, or build tunnels.
-
I knew because I used to live in California, but I thought some others might not know him.
Where in California did you live ??
-
what is global warming?
-
I knew because I used to live in California, but I thought some others might not know him.
Where in California did you live ??
San Jose.
-
what is global warming?
Someone of your reported intelligence really needs to learn how to use an internet search engine, Nomaken.
I usually use Yahoo (http://www.yahoo.com/), but Google (http://www.google.com/) also works.
You just type the subject which in this case is Global Warming, into the box and then click on search.
For a topic like this one, you can also use Wikipedia's search. Here are instructions on how to use it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Searching
So searching for Global Warming on Wikipedia yields:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=global+warming&fulltext=Search
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
Global warming is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near surface air and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation. Models referenced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predict that global temperatures are likely to increase by 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) between 1990 and 2100.[1] The uncertainty in this range results from two factors: differing future greenhouse gas emission scenarios, and uncertainties regarding climate sensitivity.
For more information, please read the full article and then conduct your own search.
-
Why mightn't global warning be natural? The dinosaurs died out due to changed clima, and that certainly was not because of human activities.
More cars and gas to the people. 8)
-
I knew because I used to live in California, but I thought some others might not know him.
Where in California did you live ??
my guess would be Orinda
-
I knew because I used to live in California, but I thought some others might not know him.
Where in California did you live ??
my guess would be Orinda
Orinda looks like a beautiful place, but I lived in San Jose.
-
I knew because I used to live in California, but I thought some others might not know him.
Where in California did you live ??
my guess would be Orinda
also beautiful.
Orinda looks like a beautiful place, but I lived in San Jose.
-
Why mightn't global warning be natural? The dinosaurs died out due to changed clima, and that certainly was not because of human activities.
More cars and gas to the people. 8)
Without the carbon dioxide produced by cars, etc, it wouldn't happen at the rate it happens. Or are you among the few who think that our last few winters (and summers) have been normal?
The dinosaurs probably died because of a catastrophic change in Earth's climate, yes, as in caused by a rock from outer space. Think of it as global warming on steroids.
-
I honestly think this whining about global warming is just silly and human-centered as usual. This planet doesn't give a damn about if we live or die. Enviromentalism is in fact just another form of human ego-centrism. How bad if this illustrious specie mankind were wiped out from the face of Earth! ::) Other species will take our place. That's the way it has always been.
-
Don't you think people have the right to worry about the survival of the species? ???
-
Of course they can worry, it's just that I honestly don't bother very much about it.
-
Why mightn't global warning be natural? The dinosaurs died out due to changed clima, and that certainly was not because of human activities.
More cars and gas to the people. 8)
Without the carbon dioxide produced by cars, etc, it wouldn't happen at the rate it happens. Or are you among the few who think that our last few winters (and summers) have been normal?
The dinosaurs probably died because of a catastrophic change in Earth's climate, yes, as in caused by a rock from outer space. Think of it as global warming on steroids.
The global warming is speculative and if it happened, it happened only after a sort of "nuclear winter" caused by all the dust and smoke in the atmosphere that the six miles across meteor caused.
-
Which was my point. The whole global warming thing is about stuff that should, but can't, escape the atmosphere.
There's nothing speculative about it.
-
I knew because I used to live in California, but I thought some others might not know him.
Where in California did you live ??
San Jose.
I'm sorry. :'(
Makes perfect sense why you moved to Colorado!! ;) :laugh:
-
I knew because I used to live in California, but I thought some others might not know him.
Where in California did you live ??
San Jose.
I'm sorry. :'(
Makes perfect sense why you moved to Colorado!! ;) :laugh:
I did not move straight here after leaving California. I lived in three other states first.
I thought that San Jose, California was a nice place to live, but very expensive. I was struck by how polite the other drivers were. They would make a gap and let you merge. Also, the weather was very nice, if you did not mind semi-arid conditions.
-
San Jose IS very expensive and has a lot of problems with gangs these days. Of course it depends on exactly where you live. San Jose is probably alot like O.C. except the drivers are more rutheless out here. :vader:
-
I knew because I used to live in California, but I thought some others might not know him.
Where in California did you live ??
San Jose.
I'm sorry. :'(
Makes perfect sense why you moved to Colorado!! ;) :laugh:
I did not move straight here after leaving California. I lived in three other states first.
I thought that San Jose, California was a nice place to live, but very expensive. I was struck by how polite the other drivers were. They would make a gap and let you merge. Also, the weather was very nice, if you did not mind semi-arid conditions.
instinct for survival made this so.
remember all the freeway shootings?
the term roadrage came from California as well. Litigious only perfected the concept recently when he blew up the traffic sign.
-
San Jose IS very expensive and has a lot of problems with gangs these days. Of course it depends on exactly where you live. San Jose is probably alot like O.C. except the drivers are more rutheless out here. :vader:
It was over ten years ago when I lived there. I noticed that the drivers were less polite in the Los Angeles area than they were further north.
-
People drive more ruthless in Sweden nowadays than they did when I got my license. They drive pretty bad, though. The Germans drive even more ruthless, but most of them drive very good. Do you know that the German word for "driver license" is "Führerschein", by the way? ;D
-
Many drive around here they need to get there first.
-
I'm King in my car. Sunday drivers better beware of me. :angel:
-
Which could easily make you as bad a driver as the ones you're accusing. ;)
-
I've driven thousands of miles -- Swedish miles -- and I've only been in accidents twice; the first time I drove off the road shortly after I got my license, but I wasn't hurt and the car wasn't badly damaged. The second time was a couple of years ago, when I was involved in an accident with a MC driver. It was at least half his fault, since he drove too fast. I was found "guilty", though, since I made a left turn, and had to pay 600 SEK in fines. :(
-
what is a MC driver?
-
Motor Cycle. ;)
-
A Swedish mile is 10 km, by the way. It's more than 6 English miles.
-
I've driven thousands of miles -- Swedish miles -- and I've only been in accidents twice; the first time I drove off the road shortly after I got my license, but I wasn't hurt and the car wasn't badly damaged. The second time was a couple of years ago, when I was involved in an accident with a MC driver. It was at least half his fault, since he drove too fast. I was found "guilty", though, since I made a left turn, and had to pay 600 SEK in fines. :(
I have driven over 100,000 U. S. miles and I was the driver in only one accident. I was waiting in a line of cars for a car that was about three or four cars ahead of me to turn left and a seventeen year old boy who had not had his license for very long rear-ended me and clipped another car. The accident was not my fault and there was no way that I could have avoided it.
-
I've driven thousands of miles -- Swedish miles -- and I've only been in accidents twice; the first time I drove off the road shortly after I got my license, but I wasn't hurt and the car wasn't badly damaged. The second time was a couple of years ago, when I was involved in an accident with a MC driver. It was at least half his fault, since he drove too fast. I was found "guilty", though, since I made a left turn, and had to pay 600 SEK in fines. :(
I have driven over 100,000 U. S. miles and I was the driver in only one accident. I was waiting in a line of cars for a car that was about three or four cars ahead of me to turn left and a seventeen year old boy who had not had his license for very long rear-ended me and clipped another car. The accident was not my fault and there was no way that I could have avoided it.
Where did this accident happen ??
-
The accident happened in Baton Rouge, Louisiana when I lived there. I have lived in several different states in the US.
-
The accident happened in Baton Rouge, Louisiana when I lived there. I have lived in several different states in the US.
Whew!!! I thought you were talking about me for a second!!! I did that when I was in my late teens. :emb:
-
Were you in Baton Rouge then? :green:
-
:laugh: Just send him a bill.
-
His parent's insurance paid to fix my car, but he also broke my waterproof flashlight that I had in my trunk. :(
-
My Volvo was destroyed in that accident with the motorcycle. :(
-
I'm sorry that your car was hurt, but you made a left turn into his path without seeing him, so even if he was speeding, the accident was more your fault than his.
-
That's what the cops told me too. :(
-
I blew a front tyre on a Ford Taunus once. That trip (and the car) ended with a close encounter with a tree. I was lucky as hell to have no-one cross my path when the car rolled across the road.
I loved that car. :'(
-
I had a blow out one time on a deserted country road, but I was really lucky not to have an accident. I managed to gently drive the car onto the shoulder where there was just dirt and no pavement, so I didn't even ruin the rim. I changed the tire, even though it was night and hard to see how to change it. After that happened, I bought new tires for the car. I had already put it off too long and I did not want to have another blow-out.
-
It's scary when it happens. I have a very vivid recollection of the car's stereo hanging in mid-air (I had it loose in the glove department, with its various cables to loudspeakers and mains power as the only means of keeping it in place).
-
My Volvo was destroyed in that accident with the motorcycle. :(
Your whiny bitch act needs some work.
-
I blew a front tyre on a Ford Taunus once. That trip (and the car) ended with a close encounter with a tree. I was lucky as hell to have no-one cross my path when the car rolled across the road.
I loved that car. :'(
Sounds like you were lucky.
Do I understand correctly? You blew a tire on a Taurus and it flipped over? I leased a Taurus for a couple of years, for work, and had three blow outs, but never lost control of the vehicle. I always thought the Taurus was one of the better handling cars I had ever had, including my '70 Mach I muscle car.
-
Were you in Baton Rouge then? :green:
No, this was in Santa Maria. :ninja:
-
I blew a front tyre on a Ford Taunus once. That trip (and the car) ended with a close encounter with a tree. I was lucky as hell to have no-one cross my path when the car rolled across the road.
I loved that car. :'(
Sounds like you were lucky.
Do I understand correctly? You blew a tire on a Taurus and it flipped over? I leased a Taurus for a couple of years, for work, and had three blow outs, but never lost control of the vehicle. I always thought the Taurus was one of the better handling cars I had ever had, including my '70 Mach I muscle car.
It was a TauNus. Early 70s model. It didn't flip over... I lost control, immediately, and it went spinning (rotating along the vertical axis). I was thinking in Swedish for a while there... :P
I was incredibly lucky, for several reasons. First of all, as I said, there was no traffic crossing my path. Second, the back of the car hit the tree, not the front. Half a turn later and I'd have hit the front, with neck damage and more. As things turned out, the Taunus no longer had a trunk but the neck support of my seat kept me whole.
I was traveling about 80 km/h when the tyre blew.
-
Taunus? Never heard of it. I thought it was a typo. Sorry.
You are lucky! My hotrod Mustang took a bad one in the rear, too. I wasn't spinning and I did not have a blowout, in fact it was my fancy new, extremely good gripping tires, that messed me up. It was wet and I had become quite accostomed to having extra grip on the road, even in rain. I lost traction, flipped around and ass-ended a McDonalds sign. Total loss and one of the coolest cars, ever, was fucked up. I should have gotten Tig to work that sign over, but it was strictly my own fault.
::)
-
Taunus is a pretty average sedan "family" car, which was very popular in Europe 20-30 years ago. Here is one that looks like Odeon's might have looked like.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
looks like a peace mobile to me.
-
looks like a peace mobile to me.
;D
Here is a much better car, Volvo 850, from the mid 90s. 8)
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
i like this puppy:
(http://yesserver.space.swri.edu/yes2003/personal/corvette.jpg)
-
That's a really hot one. :agreed:
-
That's a really hot one. :agreed:
if you had nothing else going for you, that car would help you pull girls.
-
Taunus is a pretty average sedan "family" car, which was very popular in Europe 20-30 years ago. Here is one that looks like Odeon's might have looked like.
I know what a Cortina is and apparently they are quite similar.
An old boss of mine had a Cortina enginge in a little racer, not much bigger than a kid's Go-Kart. I used to tease him "Some of you guys would race ANYTHING!"
-
That's a really hot one. :agreed:
if you had nothing else going for you, that car would help you pull girls.
I have actually picked up girls in my old Volvo 142, which really isn't a pussy magnet, but of course that sort of a car would help a lot. ;)
-
Taunus is a pretty average sedan "family" car, which was very popular in Europe 20-30 years ago. Here is one that looks like Odeon's might have looked like.
I know what a Cortina is and apparently they are quite similar.
An old boss of mine had a Cortina enginge in a little racer, not much bigger than a kid's Go-Kart. I used to tease him "Some of you guys would race ANYTHING!"
In fact, the car manufacturers sell about the same cars worldwide and just change the names, so that they'll appeal to the public of the country they're selling it in. Taunus is the name of a mountain range in northern Germany, so I guess Cortina was a more appropriate name in the US.
-
Not really, but I'm a little more familiar with Brit versions. We had the Ford Falcon, usually a six cylinder engine, as one of the smallest American cars in the sixties and they were a little bigger than a Cortina. We could have benefitted from a four cylinder Cortina/Taunus type car, I believe, but they were not marketed here.
-
We had different types of Volvo 140s, when I was a child. They have 4 cylinder, 2 litre engines and were the most popular car in the 70s here. More than every fourth Swede owned one. Not very fancy but pretty reliable and cheap in mileage.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Taunus is a pretty average sedan "family" car, which was very popular in Europe 20-30 years ago. Here is one that looks like Odeon's might have looked like.
I know what a Cortina is and apparently they are quite similar.
An old boss of mine had a Cortina enginge in a little racer, not much bigger than a kid's Go-Kart. I used to tease him "Some of you guys would race ANYTHING!"
Yeah, that was a Cortina in the UK too.
-
I have been in five car accidents. Two times I have been rear ended in parkinking lots. I have rear end once. Two times I have had accidents caused by ice. An I am still here. ;D
-
I was a passenger in another accident where a car rear-ended the car I was in, but I did not count that one because I was just a child in the back seat and not the driver.
I did nearly have an accident one time when I tried to avoid hitting a cat that darted across the road in front of me. I fish-tailed the car, but all the oncoming cars pulled over to the side of the road until my car stopped moving. I didn't hit the cat, but I was very lucky not to have had a serious accident, because I had absolutely no control of the car until it stopped moving. When I told my mother about what had happened, she said, "Next time, hit the cat."
-
Twice with My Mother was driving too.
-
This one's a lot like the one I had...
(http://images.motoso.de/upload/blog/ford_taunus_hamburg_motoso.jpg)
-
This one's a lot like the one I had...
(http://images.motoso.de/upload/blog/ford_taunus_hamburg_motoso.jpg)
Nice car odeon. ;)
-
My car is a Volvo 850 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo_850). 8)
-
It's a good car. A little thirsty but all Volvos are thirsty.
-
I have the 10 valve model. It only drinks 0.8 litres/km, if I don't drive like a maniac. 8)
-
I mean 0.08 litres/km, of course. :wallbutt:
-
I have the 10 valve model. It only drinks 0.8 litres/km, if I don't drive like a maniac. 8)
too bad you are a maniac.
-
As you see in the post after that, I meant 0.08 litres/km, and it never drank more than 0.1 litres/km, even when I was up to the top speed of 200 km/h. :angel:
-
My car is a Volvo 850 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo_850). 8)
Nice looking car Litigious. :thumbup:
-
Thanks! :)
-
I had a 1980 Chrysler 2 door Lebaron Medallion. Cann't find a good picture though. :grrr:
-
I've found some, but they're pretty small.
-
I had a 1980 Chrysler 2 door Lebaron Medallion. Cann't find a good picture though. :grrr:
Here is a 1978:
(http://mclellansautomotive.com/photos/B26731.jpg)
Here is a 1979:
(http://www.americandreamcars.com/1979lebaron090803.jpg)
I can't find a 1980 either, though. :(
-
Nice cars, anyway. :)
-
If I ever win on lottery, I'll buy some Mercedes in the 600 SLR Klasse:
(http://www.wallpaper.net.au/wallpaper/automotive/Mercedes%20Benz%20Concept%201%20-%20800x600.jpg)
(http://www.seoski-turizam.net/mercedes/mercedes-amg-wallpapers/benz-slr-wallpapers.jpg)
:P
-
Oh, of course I won't choose the 5.5 litre V8, when there is a 6 litre V12, if I ever get my hands on that amount of money. It'll be good for the global warming too, plus I'll get all chicks I ever want. 8) :eyebrows: 8)
-
Or this one; its $200000 cheaper and costs "only" $300000. It has a stronger engine, which can make it go even faster, if you change the "superchip" in the engine's computer. :eyebrows:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/SL65_AMG.jpg)
-
My car two door like this but front like this.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Oh, of course I won't choose the 5.5 litre V8, when there is a 6 litre V12, if I ever get my hands on that amount of money. It'll be good for the global warming too, plus I'll get all chicks I ever want. 8) :eyebrows: 8)
I thought it was a concept car, but you're talking like it is in production. Is that true? ... It is available, now? ... I can have one of these, now? ... It just takes money?
-
Oh, of course I won't choose the 5.5 litre V8, when there is a 6 litre V12, if I ever get my hands on that amount of money. It'll be good for the global warming too, plus I'll get all chicks I ever want. 8) :eyebrows: 8)
I thought it was a concept car, but you're talking like it is in production. Is that true? ... It is available, now? ... I can have one of these, now? ... It just takes money?
It's in production, but you might have to wait 2-3 years for it. They build about 500 cars a year. And they cost about $½ million...
-
(Interesting how the "Global Warming" discussion has morphed into a hot cars droolfest)
:laugh:
-
(Intensity as its best.)
:laugh:
-
Hey, what's a half a million bucks for a car like that, when you have a few more million sitting around, especially if you just have won the lottery.
-
That's true. This one is even faster, though. It's a Bugatti Veyron, 8.0 litres, quadruple(!) turbo W16 engine, 1001 horsepowers(!) and a top speed of over 400 kmph/250mph! The price is about $1.3 millions. :P
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/Bugatti_Veyron.JPG)
-
Just look at the W16 engine. What a beauty! 8)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/Volkswagen_W16.jpg)
-
The lottery is not yet won. ;)
-
I know. But you can always hope. ;)
-
Oh, of course I won't choose the 5.5 litre V8, when there is a 6 litre V12, if I ever get my hands on that amount of money. It'll be good for the global warming too, plus I'll get all chicks I ever want. 8) :eyebrows: 8)
Is the V-12 Supercharged too ??
-
I'd be perfectly happy with one of these...
(http://www.diariomotor.com/imagenes/volvo-c70-heico-sportiv-2.jpg)
-
Oh, of course I won't choose the 5.5 litre V8, when there is a 6 litre V12, if I ever get my hands on that amount of money. It'll be good for the global warming too, plus I'll get all chicks I ever want. 8) :eyebrows: 8)
Is the V-12 Supercharged too ??
Yep. 8)
-
I'd be perfectly happy with one of these...
(http://www.diariomotor.com/imagenes/volvo-c70-heico-sportiv-2.jpg)
By brother has driven that type of car -- it did 260 kmph. 8)
-
I know. -sigh-
-
Find a skilled mechanic -- he can change the chip in your V70. 8)
-
Find a skilled mechanic -- he can change the chip in your V70. 8)
I'm not complaining--I have the 2.5T, which does have enough power to keep me happy.
-
Find a skilled mechanic -- he can change the chip in your V70. 8)
Have'nt Volvos gone to "Flash chips" that can be re-programed with a laptop computer ??
-
Find a skilled mechanic -- he can change the chip in your V70. 8)
Have'nt Volvos gone to "Flash chips" that can be re-programed with a laptop computer ??
That's possible. I've never re-programmed a chip, though. But one of my dad's pals knows how to do. 8)
-
It's a good car. A little thirsty but all Volvos are thirsty.
VOLVOS are thirsty ?? Try my first car. A 1968 Plymouth GTX with a 440 (7.2L) V-8. It got 10 miles to the gallon with a strong tailwind !!!
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Find a skilled mechanic -- he can change the chip in your V70. 8)
Have'nt Volvos gone to "Flash chips" that can be re-programed with a laptop computer ??
That's possible. I've never re-programmed a chip, though. But one of my dad's pals knows how to do. 8)
To do it right, you need a chassis dynomometer to test and verify your results.
-
It's a good car. A little thirsty but all Volvos are thirsty.
VOLVOS are thirsty ?? Try my first car. A 1986 Plymouth GTX with a 440 (7.2L) V-8. It got 10 miles to the gallon with a strong tailwind !!!
Being thirsty is a relative thing, but yes, they are thirsty. Not that thirsty but thirsty enough.
There. I got to write "thirsty" four times.
-
It's a good car. A little thirsty but all Volvos are thirsty.
VOLVOS are thirsty ?? Try my first car. A 1986 Plymouth GTX with a 440 (7.2L) V-8. It got 10 miles to the gallon with a strong tailwind !!!
Being thirsty is a relative thing, but yes, they are thirsty. Not that thirsty but thirsty enough.
There. I got to write "thirsty" four times.
I guess you're right things ARE relative, but the Muscle Cars of the 60's were the thirstiest of all. All the Detroit Auto makes offered engines in the 7.2L-7.5L range. FSM bless them for it too!!POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!!
-
Oh, I agree. But nobody around here can afford to actually drive one of those.
-
Oh, I agree. But nobody around here can afford to actually drive one of those.
No, and why? Because our politicians are cowards that let us pay 88% or something in tax for the gas. :grrr:
-
True. It's a fact, though, and it won't change. Get used to ethanol.
-
Oh, I agree. But nobody around here can afford to actually drive one of those.
No, and why? Because our politicians are cowards that let us pay 88% or something in tax for the gas. :grrr:
So when do you plan a take-over of the Swedish government ?? What title will you assume as the leader of Sweden ?? Will you bang the royal princesses or banish them into exile ?? ;) :laugh:
-
Oh, I agree. But nobody around here can afford to actually drive one of those.
No, and why? Because our politicians are cowards that let us pay 88% or something in tax for the gas. :grrr:
So when do you plan a take-over of the Swedish government ?? What title will you assume as the leader of Sweden ?? Will you bang the royal princesses or banish them into exile ?? ;) :laugh:
Litigious I, His Royal Highness, Duke of Exxon. :green: He'll bang the Princess but throw out the others. :laugh:
-
How did you know? That's almost exactly what I was about to write. :o
-
Oh, I agree. But nobody around here can afford to actually drive one of those.
When I had my hotrod Mustang, gasoline was around thiry five cents per gallon. It got almost the same mileage at one hundred miles per hour as it did at fifty five. I had a van that got six, too, but it had an eighty five gallon tank. My buddy had a Firebird with a 455 HO and it got really bad mileage, if he opened up the back two barrels on that Rochester very often. It made a hell of a sound when he did, though.
-
How did you know? That's almost exactly what I was about to write. :o
Don't you know? Your computer has been telling me things for months now. ;D
-
:explode:
-
Oh, I agree. But nobody around here can afford to actually drive one of those.
My buddy had a Firebird with a 455 HO and it got really bad mileage, if he opened up the back two barrels on that Rochester very often. It made a hell of a sound when he did, though.
The secondaries on a Rottenchester ARE huge!! You have to be carefull not to step on the gas too fast or they bog a little.
-
it's coming!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! hide under the tables!!!!!!!!! here i brought some!!!!!!!!!!!
:bunny: :bunny: :bunny:
-
it's coming!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! hide under the tables!!!!!!!!! here i brought some!!!!!!!!!!!
:bunny: :bunny: :bunny:
Fuck that...... let's have a Luau!! :party: :party: :party: :party:
-
okay heap
:bunny: :dance: :grouphug: :penis: :fart: :belly: :crowd: :worship: :fsm: :party: :asthing: :asthing: :asthing:
-
I have to admit I am a bit of a skeptic on global warming. I do not deny greenhouse gases have been rising because of human activity and greenhouse gas levels are the highest in a very long time. Also temperatures since 1850 have risen by around on average 0.8-0.9C.
However when I look back at climatic history, even in the very stable Holocene period there are been periods when temperatures globally were 1C warmer on average during Holocene Climate Optimum around 6000-3000 BC, as evidenced in the Vostok Ice Core in Antarctica. Also going back further to previous interglacial periods which have seen temperatures up to 2C warmer globally on average than now.
There were also the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age which were global rather then regional events, in the little ice age temperatures globally were around 1C cooler than today, however the medieval warm period was as warm or even warmer than today evidenced by analysis across the world (including tree rings) and the fact that the Norse were farming in Southwestern Greenland where the permafrost still exists today.
This was back when human contribution to greenhouse emissions was tiny. There are factors other than CO2 emissions contributing to Earth's climate, solar cycles, water vapor, Milankovitch cycles (which could be why the earth has gone into glacial and interglacial periods rather than changes in CO2 levels, which some believe occurs after the temperature change).
I am trending on the side of caution on this issue. While I support efforts to get the world off it's dependence on fossil fuels, I believe that the uncertainties and facts, do not justify the potential cost of denying economic development in the third world or decreasing living standards even in the developed world.
-
watch "an inconvenient truth", the al gore film about global warming. i also have a document debunking all the nay-sayers, who insist that the evidence about global warming is overstated.
-
watch "an inconvenient truth", the al gore film about global warming. i also have a document debunking all the nay-sayers, who insist that the evidence about global warming is overstated.
I saw that, but did you see Al Gore's $30,000 utility bills?
http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/GlobalWarming/story?id=2906888&page=1
-
what Al Gore is telling people is that a small change helps if everyone does it. just change something. turn off the lights for the night.
-
watch "an inconvenient truth", the al gore film about global warming. i also have a document debunking all the nay-sayers, who insist that the evidence about global warming is overstated.
I saw that, but did you see Al Gore's $30,000 utility bills?
http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/GlobalWarming/story?id=2906888&page=1
i know - a brilliant film, and then he spoils it by being a hypocrite, to some degree. he claims all the energy he uses is from renewable sources, which goes some way to mitigate it, but you're quite right - he should be reducing his use.
and now a word from our sponsers...
"remember, children:
Reduce
Reuse
Recycle"
-
what Al Gore is telling people is that a small change helps if everyone does it. just change something. turn off the lights for the night.
yay! :plus:
and don't leave things on standby. and turn your heating/air conditioning down or up a degree (delete as applicable).
-
what Al Gore is telling people is that a small change helps if everyone does it. just change something. turn off the lights for the night.
It would help a lot more if he stopped heating his Olympic sized swimming pool so much rather than just put in a few compact fluorescent bulbs in place of incandescent ones.
A large part of his utility bills was for the pool.
-
what Al Gore is telling people is that a small change helps if everyone does it. just change something. turn off the lights for the night.
It would help a lot more if he stopped heating his Olympic sized swimming pool so much rather than just put in a few compact fluorescent bulbs in place of incandescent ones.
A large part of his utility bills was for the pool.
But he needs the pool to relax and rewind and think up more ideas for movies that propel him into hero status.
-
Al Gore reminds me of this woman I know from uni, she praises me for not having a car, not contributing to extra greenhouse gases, however she drives one.
I bet you a lot of these global warming alarmists are lefties disgusted at the ungrateful working class bought McMansions and speedboats; immigrants embraced the values of mainstream Australia with depressing enthusiasm; refugees got out of detention and got jobs; and large parts of the Third World are undergoing economic leaps unimagined a decade ago. If global warming didn't exist, it would have been necessary to invent it
-
he's not perfect. what he's saying is change something you can change even when you're a lazy mofo. like he is. ONE change. he chose not his pool.
i leave everything on standby. my tv, my laptop is always on. i only turn it off when it freezes. and then i turn it on again.
i'm a lazy mofo.
but i don't drive a car or ever go anywhere or do anything. i dunno if that helps but i like to think it does. :P
-
what Al Gore is telling people is that a small change helps if everyone does it. just change something. turn off the lights for the night.
Which is pure BS, if things are as bad as depicted.
The situation is past the tipping point. 'Course,
we are due for an ice age....
-
watch the film before you comment. the brilliant thing about it is how positive it is - i've been talking about global warming etc. for over 30 years, and dreading seeing the damn thing, cos i' don't need any more depressionin my life, but i felt really uplifted by the end of it. didn't learn much i didn't already know, but the message that we can effect change is strong.
and for all you "can't be fucked to do anything about it cos it's inconvenient for me" merchants, most of the talk about the tipping point comes from people just the same as you. it's everyone's responsibility. do you really want to be part of the same group as the fat cats who'll be fine, whatever happens, cos they can buy their way out of it? it's the little people who'll suffer worst of all, as per usual, but everyone will suffer, in some way. of course, a lot of people couldn't give a toss about bangladesh being flooded to fuck, but it was only Katrina that got half the western fucking governments to start taking notice, cos global warming might just affect them and their economies. (and yes, odeon - there is evidence that katrina was part of the whole shebang).
take some responsiility for yourselves and your actions, for fuck's sake.
-
I remember a paper which claimed that
it would require something like a 70%
reduction in fossile fuel usage to turn the
tide.
-
change the record, will you? yep, there are plenty of papers and sponsored research saying just that. thre are even some by real scientists. you might care to find out who sponsors those papers, and to what extent they're doctored - up to governmental level - to keep the profits rolling in.
shame - i didn't have you down as someone who was sucked in by economic propganda. obviously, i was wrong, and you're quite prepared to believe anything you're told.
-
Not at all. I don't waste energy much at all.
But, I suspect that it's hopeless. I rather
respect the person who presented
the paper.
-
i can't buy my way out of global warming. but i can't be assed to do anything useful. recycling isn't an option in ireland other than glass bottles or something. we had bio trash in finland but not here.
i can't even hang my clothes up to dry. they got all dank and weird smelling. i don't care. i don't FUCKING CARE.
-
It's interesting how some people focus on Al Gore setting a bad example rather than doing their part. What kind of argument is that? "If Al Gore doesn't do his part properly, I won't have to either."
Also, Calandale, you really should watch that film.
-
It's interesting how some people focus on Al Gore setting a bad example rather than doing their part. What kind of argument is that? "If Al Gore doesn't do his part properly, I won't have to either."
Also, Calandale, you really should watch that film.
Not saying I don't want to help because he doesn't.
I just think that it is very interesting that he is such a huge hypocrite.
-
It's interesting how some people focus on Al Gore setting a bad example rather than doing their part. What kind of argument is that? "If Al Gore doesn't do his part properly, I won't have to either."
I totally agree. Anyway, before global warming was such a political issue it was part of the dialectic to not be wasteful, common sense. It's easy to negate global warming if that's what's convenient, but that doesn't matter in the case for environmentalism, because we're going to run out of fossil fuels before we're fully prepared anyway. Rush Limbaugh says that there's no reason to give a shit about the environment because science will always be able to fix whatever damage we do. But what about our economy and lifestyle when the hammer falls?
-
I just think that it is very interesting that he is such a huge hypocrite.
What do you expect? He's a politician.
-
It's interesting how some people focus on Al Gore setting a bad example rather than doing their part. What kind of argument is that? "If Al Gore doesn't do his part properly, I won't have to either."
I totally agree. Anyway, before global warming was such a political issue it was part of the dialectic to not be wasteful, common sense. It's easy to negate global warming if that's what's convenient, but that doesn't matter in the case for environmentalism, because we're going to run out of fossil fuels before we're fully prepared anyway. Rush Limbaugh says that there's no reason to give a shit about the environment because science will always be able to fix whatever damage we do. But what about our economy and lifestyle when the hammer falls?
:clap: :plus:
-
It's interesting how some people focus on Al Gore setting a bad example rather than doing their part. What kind of argument is that? "If Al Gore doesn't do his part properly, I won't have to either."
Also, Calandale, you really should watch that film.
Not saying I don't want to help because he doesn't.
I just think that it is very interesting that he is such a huge hypocrite.
I didn't mean you, Callaway, I meant the people that start websites to badmouth Gore while doing nothing themselves.
-
I really wish a lot of intelligent people would look up information of the science related to Global Warming themselves, rather than paying attention to people like Al Gore who dumb it down for the masses. I believe the problem is a pretty big one, but it is easier to be dissuaded if you follow someone who makes it their personal vendetta to use a certain measure of public policy, only to find arguments that contradict their advocacy.
-
I really wish a lot of intelligent people would look up information of the science related to Global Warming themselves, rather than paying attention to people like Al Gore who dumb it down for the masses. I believe the problem is a pretty big one, but it is easier to be dissuaded if you follow someone who makes it their personal vendetta to use a certain measure of public policy, only to find arguments that contradict their advocacy.
The intelligent people do that already. Turns out Gore's right.
-
:laugh: nice one, darlin'. :plus:
-
I know that in Massachusetts at least, we do have the technology available to cut back on global warming pollution from both cars and power plants. According to the new home of Mass PIRGs environmental work, we will have to cut back 20% by 2020, and 80% by 2050 to stave off the worst effects. I tried to take a job canvassing for them, but it ended pretty quickly. Building public support is never easy when half of the people aren't home, are suspicious that global warming even exists (I just want to bash their heads in with a sledge hammer!), or tell me, in no uncertain terms, that they don't care. It's only your planet, guys. :'(
-
i care. it's all our planet. but the aliens are coming.
-
They are here already.
-
Apart from having a video game hobby, which can take up to nearly 5-6 hours of electricity per day, depending on how addicted I am to a particular game, I do me bit for the environment by using those food waste bins (which bring a lot of flies and maggots, mind you), not driving, not leaving my computer on when I'm not using it, recycling bottles, tins and cardboard, and placing unrecyled rubbish in the bin like it's supposed to, not on the pavement like your resident Bristolian seems to do. ::)
No wonder our ol' Vivi wants to live in a cottage out in the countryside. (Shouldn't it be inside a forest or summat?)
-
They are here already.
...but not enough of them. :(
-
i care. it's all our planet. but the aliens are coming.
I am one of them. :bunny:
-
I know that in Massachusetts at least, we do have the technology available to cut back on global warming pollution from both cars and power plants. According to the new home of Mass PIRGs environmental work, we will have to cut back 20% by 2020, and 80% by 2050 to stave off the worst effects. I tried to take a job canvassing for them, but it ended pretty quickly. Building public support is never easy when half of the people aren't home, are suspicious that global warming even exists (I just want to bash their heads in with a sledge hammer!), or tell me, in no uncertain terms, that they don't care. It's only your planet, guys. :'(
there is no global warming....just the heat, the heat between me and you.
-
there is no global warming....just the heat, the heat between me and you.
fuck! what song is that from? it's driving me mad, cos i can't think of it!
-
there is no global warming....just the heat, the heat between me and you.
fuck! what song is that from? it's driving me mad, cos i can't think of it!
Prince. when doves cry??
-
yessssss!
ta, Balders. i can sleep tonight, now. :-*
-
I can't but it's not because of a bloody song.
-
I can't but it's not because of a bloody song.
night wood?
blue ball?
-
Just unable to sleep. :-\
-
They are here already.
i mean coming out. coming out of the closet. in a year or two.
-
Just unable to sleep. :-\
aww. try some warm milk. :P
-
They are here already.
i mean coming out. coming out of the closet. in a year or two.
They're in a closet? :o
-
yehaww :P
-
like, metaphorically.
-
there is no global warming....just the heat, the heat between me and you.
fuck! what song is that from? it's driving me mad, cos i can't think of it!
Prince. when doves cry??
Fact: Black Adder contributes to global warming due to its hefty intake of the planet's resources because the sitcom is SHIT.
-
there is no global warming....just the heat, the heat between me and you.
fuck! what song is that from? it's driving me mad, cos i can't think of it!
Prince. when doves cry??
Fact: Black Adder contributes to global warming due to its hefty intake of the planet's resources because the sitcom is SHIT.
you, child, need brain surgery. :P
-
yeah it's not like it's mr bean. :P now that show is good for compost.
-
there is no global warming....just the heat, the heat between me and you.
fuck! what song is that from? it's driving me mad, cos i can't think of it!
Prince. when doves cry??
Fact: Black Adder contributes to global warming due to its hefty intake of the planet's resources because the sitcom is SHIT.
you, child, need brain surgery. :P
Hey, if anyone wants to waste their time to watch something as mundane as Black Adder, feel free.
But think of the planet, children! Bad telly programmes = waste of electricity = bad for the environment.
-
there is no global warming....just the heat, the heat between me and you.
fuck! what song is that from? it's driving me mad, cos i can't think of it!
Prince. when doves cry??
Fact: Black Adder contributes to global warming due to its hefty intake of the planet's resources because the sitcom is SHIT.
you, child, need brain surgery. :P
Hey, if anyone wants to waste their time to watch something as mundane as Black Adder, feel free.
But think of the planet, children! Bad telly programmes = waste of electricity = bad for the environment.
yeah it's not like it's mr bean. :P now that show is good for compost.
So is the fucking cartoon series.
-
Hey, if anyone wants to waste their time to watch something as mundane as Black Adder, feel free.
But think of the planet, children! Bad telly programmes = waste of electricity = bad for the environment.
i don't, as you well know (having just worked out who you are).
-
TV is most important. :)
-
It is pure EVIL.
-
Good article that puts numbers and layman's terms into perspective, concerning carbon dioxide emissions. Follow some of the references at the site for even more in-depth information, like baking a chicken in a conventional oven releases 7.67 Lbs of CO2 and the typical American automobile releases almost a pound per mile.
:yikes:
I Wanna Go Green… So Show Me The Math! (http://www.scientificblogging.com/science_mom/i_wanna_go_green_so_show_me_the_math)
Submitted by Science Mom on 2 July 2007 - 9:51am. Environment
8
peers
You can’t watch the news, turn on the radio, or open a newspaper these days without hearing about global warming. It seems our future is looking rather warmish, and many of our modern conveniences may be to blame.
I’m not disputing the fact, but at the same time I’ve never had it explained to me precisely and quantitatively how many of the choices I make each day are contributing to global warming. I mean, I understand the link between driving my car and carbon emissions. The family minivan spews carbon dioxide for goodness sake, so I clearly understand how running my daily errands in a gasoline-powered car can contribute to the problem.
But what about the rest of my daily routine… what impact does it have? If I roast a chicken in the crock-pot instead of my electric oven, does is make a difference? What if I grill instead? What is the impact of watering my lawn, or taking a hot shower? How do the decisions I make each and every day impact the environment in terms of energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions? And what does it mean when we’re told that something produces 100 lbs of CO2 each year? Is that a lot?
I went in search of all of the facts and figures needed to quantify how the little things I do each day translate into fossil fuel usage. I love numbers, formulas, and equations… so I gathered as many as I could find. The effort was worthwhile, because it’s helped me to develop a picture of how many of my short-term decisions have long-term impacts.
If you’re interested in determining what many of the things you do each day relate to this global warming issue we’re hearing so much about… read on! Information is never a bad thing – and once you have it, you are at least armed with additional facts to consider as you go about your day.
APPLES TO APPLES
First, let’s talk units. Global warming is all about an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, which are “thickening” our atmosphere and preventing more and more solar heat from escaping. The greenhouse gas we hear the most about is carbon dioxide, because it is what we see the largest quantities of, and is what has been increasing so dramatically over the past 50 years. There are other greenhouse gases that are also on the rise, but initially we’ll concentrate on carbon dioxide.
As we go about our day, we do things that directly contribute to greenhouse gas emissions (like driving our cars), and indirectly contribute (like using electricity that is produced by burning fossil fuels, which generates carbon dioxide). To compare the impact of it all, we will look at everything in terms of the pounds of CO2 that are produced as a result of our activities and energy consumption.
GASOLINE
Let’s start with the most direct contributor first: automobile emissions. According to the EPA, a gallon of gasoline produces 19.4 pounds (or 8.8 kilograms) of CO2. (1) This of course is an average, and takes into account the total number of cars on the road, the average fuel economy of these cars, and the total annual emmissions due to cars. Our personal cars may be a little more or a little less, but this gives us a general idea.
In our family, our minivan gets an average of 20 mpg. So for each individual mile we burn approximately 1/20th or 0.05 gallons. So, using the approximation above, that equates to 0.97 lbs of CO2 per mile… almost one pound per mile.
So those drizzily mornings when I drive my daughter the 5-mile round trip to drop her off at her middle school instead of letting her take the bus, I burn up about a quarter of a gallon of gas, and produce 4.85 pounds of CO2. In actuality, it is probably a little more, because cars are least efficient during the first few miles of the day while the engine is still cold. My car is proably just warming up to it’s peak efficiency just as I’m returning to the garage.
Hmmm… maybe it’s time to invest in an umbrella.
ELECTRICITY
When you receive your electrical bill each month, your usage is most likely presented in terms of kilowatt-hours (kWh). A kilowatt-hour is a unit of energy equivalent to 1000 watts of electricity used for 1 hour. So for example, if you left a 100 watt light bulb on for one hour, you would use (100 watts) x (1 kW/1000 watts) x (1 hour) = 0.10 kWh.
The national average emissions factor for electricity is 1.37 pounds CO2 per kWh. (2) Again, this is an average. Different sources of electricity clearly produce different levels of emissions. Burning coal and natural gas are on the high end, while solar power and wind power are considered to be “green” or renewable sources that do not contribute to greenhouse emissions at all.
If you are interested in discovering specifically what sources are used for electricity in your area, your can contact your utility company and find out. In California, utility companies provide a Power Content Label (3) which gives a breakdown of what percentage of the power they supply comes from various energy resources. But for now, we’ll use the national average above.
So how do you determine how much energy you’re using, and therefore how much CO2 you are emitting, as you putter around your home each day? Well, most appliances come with an Energy Guide label that gives an estimation of what the energy use of that appliance is in terms of kWh per year. But if you really want to know specifically what’s going on in your home, you need to find out what the wattage of the appliances you use, and determine the number of hours per day that you use them.
Unlike lightbulbs, not everything is stamped with its wattage information. If you’re really a hands-on kind of person, you can still estimate it by finding the current draw (in amperes) and multiplying that by the voltage used by the appliance. Most appliances in the United States use 120 volts. Larger appliances, such as clothes dryers and electric stoves, use 240 volts. The amperes might be stamped on the unit in place of the wattage. If not, find a clamp-on ammeter—an electrician's tool that clamps around one of the two wires on the appliance — to measure the current flowing through it. You can obtain this type of ammeter in stores that sell electrical and electronic equipment. Take a reading while the device is running; this is the actual amount of current being used at that instant. (4)
If you don’t feel like getting down to that level of nitty-gritty, there are plenty of tables available that will provide an estimated wattage rating for major appliances. To help me answer the question about using my crock-pot instead of my oven to roast a chicken for example, I looked up the estimated wattage of the two appliances so I could compare.
According to my source (5), the wattage of an electric oven is approximately 4000 W, while a crock-pot uses approximately 250 W. So, I can roast a chicken for 2 hours in the oven, or for 5 hours in the crock-pot. Does it make a big difference? Let’s see:
Oven: (4000 W) x (1 kW/1000 W) x (2 hours) = 8 kWh
Crock-pot: (250 W) x (1 kW/1000 W) x (5 hours) = 1.25 kWh
Now, like many appliances, ovens and crock-pots aren’t “on” the entire time they are being used. They heat up to the temperature required, and then cycle on and off as many times as are needed to maintain that temperature. What percentage of time are they off? I actually don’t know, and it is dependent on many factors (including how many times you open the oven door or lift the lid of the crock-pot to check on your meal). But let’s assume over a period of time, our cooking appliances are actually on for 70% of the time. (This is a guess folks, completely off the top of my head. If anyone has any real figures on this – please let me know!)
Back to our chicken. If we reduce our calculations by 30%, we have comparative figures for our two appliances of:
Oven: 5.6 kWh at 1.37 pounds CO2 per kWh corresponds to 7.67 lbs of CO2
Crock-pot: 0.875 kWh at 1.37 pounds CO2 per kWh corresponds to 1.20 lbs of CO2
So, by roasting a chicken in the crock-pot, I can save approximately 4.7 kWh, and avoid corresponding emissions of approximately 6.4 lbs of CO2. Not to mention avoid heating up my kitchen by using the oven, which impacts another energy hungry beast in my house – the air conditioner. Nice!
COOKING WITH GAS
For those that would rather sauté their chicken on the stove, or throw it on the barbeque, there are conversion factors to calculate CO2 emissions from the use of natural gas and propane as well.
If you get a bill each month for natural gas, most likely it is going to display your gas usage in terms of therms. One therm is equivalent to 100,000 BTU, and one therm of natural gas generates 11.7 pounds of CO2 (6). To determine your energy usage and corresponding emissions from using your gas stove, you first need to discover your stove’s BTU input rate. Most major gas appliances have a fuel rating plate attached to them that will tell you its hourly BTU input. But just as with electrical appliances, if you cannot find the specific information on your appliances, there are several tables available that can help you estimate the values.
The estimated energy usage for a gas stovetop is 9000 BTUs/hr (7). So if you decide to make a nice chicken sauté, a half-hour of cook time on the stove would equate to:
(9000 BTU/hr) x (.5 hr) x (1 therm/100,000 BTU) x (11.7 lbs CO2/therm) = 0.53 lbs CO2
What if you like to grill? During the summer months, there’s not much that can beat a great meal prepared on the BBQ. But what is the impact to using a propane-fueled grill? Well, the conversion factor for propane is 1 gallon of propane generates 11 pounds of CO2 (7). But to determine how quickly your grill burns through a gallon of propane, you will once again need to have an idea of what the BTU rating is for your particular grill.
Generally you will find that the BTU rating of most grills is approximately 10,000 BTU per the number of burners. So if you have a 4-burner grill, you’re looking at a grill in the neighborhood of 40,000 BTUs/hr. Now given the amount of technical data available on most grills (to compare against the neighbors’, of course), you may know exactly what the BTU rating is for your 6-burner-with-rotisserie-and-smoker stainless steel behemoth. But if the particulars have slipped your mind, you can use the 10,000 BTU/burner rule.
So to determine the propane used (and CO2 generated) when you throw some chicken on the grill, the last piece of information you will need to know is that each gallon of propane is equivalent to 91,502 BTU (8). Given that, what does the math tell us is the result of a half-hour of grilling on our Weber 4-burner?
(40,000 BTU/hr) x (0.5 hr) x (1 gal/91,502 BTU) x (11 lbs CO2/gal) = 2.40 lbs CO2
And what if you decide to use a charcoal grill instead of propane? A charcoal grill operated for an hour will emit approximately 11 pounds of carbon dioxide (9). And unlike a gas grill, it cannot be turned off once you pull your meat off. So although there are certainly flavor benefits to cooking over a smoky grill, if your concern this 4th of July is reducing your environmental impact, then propane is the way to go.
WATER
It’s easy to miss the link between water usage and carbon emissions. Water of course is not a source of greenhouse gas itself, but the electricity required to transport, treat, and distribute it certainly is!
According to the CEC (10), the typical energy use for urban drinking water supply is comprised of the following segments:
Conveyance: Average energy use – 100 kWh/MG
Treatment: Average energy use – 250 kWh/MG
Distribution: Average energy use – 1,150 kWh/MG
When you add it all together, on average it takes 1,450 kWh per Million Gallons (MG) to deliver clean water to our homes.
So how much water do we use during our typical daily activities? Well, let’s begin with our daily shower. A conventional showerhead uses 3-5 gallons of water per minute. However, federal regulations mandate that new showerhead flow rates can’t exceed more than 2.5 gpm (at a water pressure of 80 psi). To determine the impact of the water used by each option, we’ll do the math for a ten-minute shower for both:
Conventional Showerhead (Avg. 4 gpm)
(4 gal/min) x (10 min) x (1 MG/ 1,000,000 gal) x (1450 kWh/MG) = 0.058 kWh
Low-Flow Showerhead (2.5 gpm)
(2.5 gal/min) x (10 min) x (1 MG/ 1,000,000 gal) x (1450 kWh/MG) = 0.036 kWh
Then using our previously discovered conversion to CO2 for electricity:
Conventional: (0.058 kWh) x (1.37 lb CO2/kWh) = 0.079 lbs CO2
Low-Flow: (0.036 kWh) x (1.37 lb CO2/kWh) = 0.049 lbs CO2
So one shower by itself doesn’t have a huge impact, regardless of the showerhead used. But not many of us out there are happy to stop at one shower for a lifetime. Let’s assume we take 6 showers a week (maybe we take Saturday off?), every week, each year.
Conventional: (0.079 lbs CO2) x (6 days/week) x (52 weeks/yr) = 24.65 lbs CO2/year
Low-Flow: (0.049 lbs CO2) x (6 days/week) x (52 weeks/yr) = 15.28 lbs CO2/year
And how many people are in your household (hopefully) taking showers on a regular basis? If you are a family of four, with each person taking the equivalent of 6 ten-minute showers per week:
Conventional: (24.65 lbs CO2/year) x 4 = 98.60 CO2/year
Low-Flow: (15.28 lbs CO2/year) x 4 = 61.12 CO2/year
What about other daily uses of water? Where we live, the lawn must be watered just about daily if we want our grass to remain anything close to green during the summer months. So how much water and electricity is being used each morning when we hear the sprinklers kick on, and what is the impact?
To determine the gallons of water that are used during your daily watering cycle, calculate the gallons per minute (gpm) used by each zone of your sprinkler system. To accomplish this, add up the gpm output of each sprinkler head in each zone. The data for each spinkler nozzle can be obtained from the manufacture, and many nozzles have the gpm figure stamped or molded right on them. Generally however, spray heads use about 0.75 gpm for ¼-circle, 1.5 gpm for ½-circle, and 3.0 gpm for full-circle heads. “Rotor” style heads use 2 to 5 gpm each, for most residential applications (11). After determining the gpm for each zone, multiply it by the time that zone is on each morning, and then add all the zones together to find out what your total water usage is for each watering cycle.
Here’s an example. Let’s say that after a quick look over your front and back lawns, you determined that you had the equivalent of 20 “full-circle” heads in your entire system. Also each of your zones is set to water for the same amount of time each morning, 12 minutes. Skipping a step or two, you can just multiply out the total gpm, and the resulting water usage, for the whole system.
(20 sprinklers) x (3.0 gpm/sprinkler) x (12 min/day) = 720 gallons/day
This equates to:
(720 gallons/day) x (1 MG/ 1,000,000 gal) x (1450 kWh/MG) = 1.044 kWh/day
(1.044 kWh/day) x (1.37 lb CO2/kWh) = 1.43 lb CO2/day
Assuming the sprinklers run 5 mornings a week through the 13 weeks of summer:
(1.43 lb CO2/day) x (5 days/week) x (13 weeks) = 92.95 lbs CO2
So in this case, just running the sprinklers through the summer uses almost the same amount of resources and has the same impact of a family of four showering for an entire year!
THE CARBON COMPONENT
All of our equations have helped us to quantify the amount of carbon dioxide that is emitted into the atmosphere as a result of the electricity, water, natural gas and gasoline that we use. But how much is too much? And what do these pounds of carbon dioxide mean in terms of something we can better understand?
Natural components or our earth’s ecosystem are doing their best to offset the carbon dioxide produced each year. The oceans, trees, plants, and soil have the natural ability to absorb carbon dioxide through photosynthesis – the process through which plants and trees convert water, sun, and carbon dioxide into fuel and nutrients, while producing oxygen as a byproduct. As efficient as these natural “carbon sinks” are however, they can no longer keep up with the accelerated rate that carbon dioxide is being released through the use and burning of fossil fuels.
Of the approximately 8 billion tons of carbon emitted each year, scientists believe about 30 percent is absorbed by the oceans, and about 30 percent is absorbed by terrestrial ecosystems, especially trees. The remaining 40 percent however, accumulates in the atmosphere (12). This percentage may be increasing though, as recent studies have discovered that some of our oceans are already saturated with carbon dioxide. Researchers say at least one large ocean, the Southern Ocean around Antarctica, is so loaded with CO2 that it's losing its ability to soak it up. The Southern Ocean alone accounts for 15 percent of the global carbon sink. The decline of Antarctica's Southern Ocean as a carbon sink may raise future CO2 levels and speed up global warming. Climate scientists have predicted this would happen. The trouble is that the changes appear to be happening some 40 years ahead of schedule (13).
So if over time, the oceans begin to max-out on their carbon absorption capabilities, our only remaining natural resource to counterbalance growing carbon dioxide emissions is plant life… especially trees. But how many trees does it take to absorb the CO2 that is being emitted as a result of our daily activities?
Different trees absorb CO2 at different rates. As an example, let’s take one that we’re all familiar with (especially around Christmas time), the Douglas fir. Through photosynthesis, trees remove CO2 from the atmosphere and store the carbon within the components that make up wood tissue. An acre of Douglas fir trees stores approximately 1.4 metric tons of carbon each year (14). To equate this to pounds of CO2 removed from the atmosphere, we need to multiply this figure by the ratio of the molecular weight of carbon dioxide to that of carbon (44/12), and the ratio of pounds per metric tons (2203/1).
(1.4 MT C/acre) x (44 units CO2 / 12 units C) x (2203 lbs/MT) = 11,308.7 lbs CO2
Each year, an acre of Douglas fir trees can absorb 11,308.7 lbs of carbon dioxide.
But what about just one tree? Not all of us have acres available to devote to a Christmas tree farm. However, for the beauty factor alone I love to have trees throughout my yard. Besides providing shade in the hot summer, can a tree planted in the suburbs make a difference in offsetting carbon emissions?
A medium growth coniferous (evergreen) tree, planted in an urban setting and allowed to grow for 10 years, sequesters 23.2 lbs of carbon (14). This estimate assumes the trees are planted when they are approximately 4.5 feet tall (the typical size of tree purchased in a 15-gallon container). Once again, we need to convert this estimate to pounds of CO2 removed from the atmosphere.
(23.2 lbs C) x (44 units CO2 / 12 units C) = 85.1 pounds of CO2
A medium growth evergreen tree, planted in an urban setting and allowed to grow for 10 years, absorbs approximately 85 pounds of carbon dioxide.
So every tree can make a difference, but clearly there is a vast difference in scale in terms of how quickly CO2 can be released into the atmosphere compared to how long it would take for that same amount to be absorbed naturally. For example, it would take a single tree 10 years to absorb the carbon dioxide emitted in less than 90 minutes by a typical car driving on the freeway.
For further illustration, here are some additional “weekly activities” and what they equate to after a month in terms of energy consumption, CO2 emissions, and equivalent fossil fuel use. Also included is the number of evergreen tree seedlings that would need to be planted (and left to grow for 10 years) to offset the resulting emissions.
* Monthly costs are based on: $0.10 per kWh, $3.00 per gallon for gasoline, $1.20 per therm for natural gas, $1.90 per gallon for propane, and $5.00 per 10 lb. bag of charcoal.
** Coal emissions were estimated by averaging the carbon coefficients for bituminous and sub-bituminous categories of coal, which make up over 90% of the coal used in the U.S. (15)
SO WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN?
The topic of global warming is a controversial one. There are as many people confident that the temperature increases we are experiencing are part of a natural cycle, as there are people that are convinced that it is the beginning of a steep incline like nothing we’ve seen before. Despite where the truth lies, there is no dispute that most of the things we do as part of our daily industrialized life result in significant carbon emissions into our atmosphere.
What started for me as mere curiosity, has resulted in the discovery that as a single individual my impact on this planet is much larger than I would have guessed. It was eye-opening, and surprising – and definitely has made me fold some additional factors into my every-day decision making. Now instead of making choices based solely on what are the easiest and fastest options, I think also of the long-term impacts.
As I said before, information is never a bad thing. And the more we have in our own back pocket, the less we need to rely on others to feed it to us - either with or without their own personal spin.
-
Oh, and the "Scientific Pickup Lines" like, - According to the second law of thermodynamics, you're supposed to share your hotness with me.
:laugh:
-
Oh, and the "Scientific Pickup Lines" like, - According to the second law of thermodynamics, you're supposed to share your hotness with me.
:laugh:
:LMAO:
-
i just talked to mom about thermodynamics' second law... dave gorman made it stick for me.
-
dave gorman made it stick for in me.
fixed.
-
that doesn't make any sense.
-
that doesn't make any sense.
:yikes: really?! cal not making sense? it's a miracle!
-
:emb:
-
Global warming freakouts are just a bunch of liberal BULLSHIT.
-
Global warming freakouts are just a bunch of liberal BULLSHIT.
Nah. It's a fact. The causes, on the other hand....
-
Global warming freakouts are just a bunch of liberal BULLSHIT.
and you suck ass.
-
interesting stuff i've just read about contrails contributing more to global warming than the actual burning of fuel. sadly, i've lent the book to my neighbour, so haven't got the references to hand, but basically, it's about contrails seeding cirrus clouds, so they thicken, causing more cloud cover, which "hot" wavelengths from the sun can penetrate, but which prevent heat energy from the earth radiating out again. i can't remember the exact figures, but apparently, we could cut something like 85% of the effect by flying 500 feet lower, or something.
gobsmacking, i thought.
-
Here is my $0.02 cents on global warming. While my estimates are on the conservative side (mean warming of 1.5-2C in the next 100 years), however the rises in temperatures will not be gradual but rather sudden. I think in 1998 we went through one, as a result much needed winter rainfall in Southern Australia has decreased by 20%, which is a factor behind the worst drought in recorded history we are experiencing here.
This 4T coming up will have this as a major issues.
Humans have had an impact on the global greenhouse emissions since the beginnings of agriculture, the clearing of forests for grazing, the planting of crops and the methane coming from livestock. Probably resulted in temperatures in the last few thousand years being a little higher than they have should be.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...732281706.html
Since the industral revolution Co2 levels have risen from 280 parts per million to 370-380 parts per million, a more than 35% increase. Given the rise in Co2 levels in the amosphere the warming should have been more than 0.6C mean recorded globally since 1850. There is a thing called global dimming, which is caused by aerosols being poured into the amosphere as a result of industry, which reflected sunlight and limited the extent of warming caused by rising Co2 levels. The level of aerosols have decreased in the developed world, could be rising in the fast industralising countries like China and India although.
If we contiude business as usual in regard to greenhouse emissions, globally temperatures will warm to levels which were seen 120,000 years ago during the last intergalacial. When temperatures globally were 1-2C warmer than today. Back then sea levels were 5-8 meters higher than today, forests grew as far north as North Cape, Norway which is now Tundra, trees like Oak and Hazel grew as far north as Oulu in Finland which is at 65N. Also the forest-priare boundary was where Fort Lubbock, Texas is today, instead of Dallas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian_interglacial
I dunno if the climate modern similar to the Pilocene period around 5-2 million years ago would be apporiate because back then the straits of panama, allowed the gulf stream to go into the arctic ocean because the ocean salinity levels were lower. That would have resulted in huge temperature increases in North America, Northern Eurasia, plus a stronger monsoon in Africa and Eurasia, meaning the Arctic ocean was ice free in summer, Greenland was tundra and boreal forest, the sahara and arabian deserts were grasslands and trees grew right up to the arctic ocean.
Overall I think global greenhouse levels will reach to around 560 parts per million, literally a doubling since the beginning of the industral age. That is given a business as usual approach, greenhouse emissions will peak once the all the countries of the world become economically developed as western countries are now.
For example a Co2 level some 100 parts per million lower than pre-industral levels, maybe resulted in temperatures globally 5C cooler than present, however the milankovitch cycle where the earth's axis shifts, which is linked to glacial and interglacial contributed greatly to those lower temperatures.
My rough estimate is as co2 levels in the amosphere reach levels double pre-industral levels, mean global temperatures will rise by 1.5 to 2C. But the effects will be not evenly distrubted in North America temperatures will rise by 3-4C on average. Boston would have a climate like Baltimore, some places will get wetter, some places will get drier.
A sudden warming of the earth's climate would be a disaster, because global agriculture depends on a stable climate and if the climate patterns were to suddenly shift, some places will face ruin and until the agricultural zones of the world shift, agricultural yeilds will crash.
This is quite potentially scary stuff, greenhouse emissions must be reduced post haste to avoid these things from happening, however we have to develop ways of reducing greenhouse emissions which do not reduce living standards or economic growth.
I'm in favor of widespread use of nuclear power (replacing fossil fuels), diverting of subsides for fossil to subsides for cleaner forms of energy like solar, nuclear fission and fusion, wind and compressed air engines (which run on electricity).
I watched "An Inconvenient Truth" recently by Al Gore and I actually enjoyed reading your post more than the movie. The movie was good for about 45 mins. until the last half hour or so dragged on. Anyway, I haven't read your posted links yet but I'll get to them and reread everything ASAP but sounds all good so far. I just don't think the temperatures will rise quickly as you think they will but I could be wrong.
-
:yawn:
-
:yawn:
What?
Global warming bores you or those who don't accept the evidence bore you?
-
both.
-
So if people were not about what caused the global warming that lead to the end of the last Ice Age. We may be aggravating it but fluctuations in Earths climate have been happening since the beginning.
-
The whole nature of this warming cycle is
VERY different from previous ones. Indeed,
CO2 emissions seem to be causing this one,
rather than a byproduct.
-
Some nice graphics and loads of informative links in the wiki article on greenhouse gases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas) along with something barely touched upon, here:
The role of water vapor
Water vapor is a naturally occurring greenhouse gas and accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 66%. Water vapor concentrations fluctuate regionally, but human activity does not directly affect water vapor concentrations except at local scales (for example, near irrigated fields).
Current state-of-the-art climate models include fully interactive clouds. They show that an increase in atmospheric temperature caused by the greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic gases will in turn lead to an increase in the water vapor content of the troposphere, with approximately constant relative humidity. The increased water vapor in turn leads to an increase in the greenhouse effect and thus a further increase in temperature; the increase in temperature leads to still further increase in atmospheric water vapor; and the feedback cycle continues until equilibrium is reached. Thus water vapor acts as a positive feedback to the forcing provided by human-released greenhouse gases such as CO2
-
it's gonna get fixed. the aliens are here to help.
-
The whole nature of this warming cycle is
VERY different from previous ones. Indeed,
CO2 emissions seem to be causing this one,
rather than a byproduct.
\
Yeah, the August issue of Scientific American does a really good job of explaining this. Here's the link...
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=B1182F51-E7F2-99DF-30CB2EAAC975FE93
Unfortunately, you can't read it for free. But if you want a really fantastic explanation it's well worth either paying to see the article or going to the store/library to read it.
-
Yeah, the August issue of Scientific American does a really good job of explaining this. Here's the link...
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=B1182F51-E7F2-99DF-30CB2EAAC975FE93
Unfortunately, you can't read it for free. But if you want a really fantastic explanation it's well worth either paying to see the article or going to the store/library to read it.
Here is part of it, but you have to pay to see the whole thing:
The Physical Science behind Climate Change
By William Collins, Robert Colman, James Haywood,
Martin R. Manning and Philip Mote
"Why are climatologists so highly confident that
human activities are dangerously warming the earth?
Here some of the participants in the most recent
and comprehensive international review of the
scientific evidence summarize the arguments
and discuss what uncertainties remain
For a scientist studying climate change,
"eureka" moments are unusually rare.
Instead progress is generally made by a
painstaking piecing together of evidence from
every new temperature measurement, satellite
sounding or climate-model experiment. Data
get checked and rechecked, ideas tested over
and over again. Do the observations fit the predicted
changes? Could there be some alternative
explanation? Good climate scientists, like
all good scientists, want to ensure that the highest
standards of proof apply to everything they
discover.
And the evidence of change has mounted as
climate records have grown longer, as our understanding
of the climate system has improved
and as climate models have become ever more
reliable. Over the past 20 years, evidence that
humans are affecting the climate has accumulated
inexorably, and with it has come ever greater
certainty across the scientific community in
the reality of recent climate change and the potential
for much greater change in the future.
This increased certainty is starkly refl ected in
the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC), the fourth in a series
of assessments of the state of knowledge on
the topic, written and reviewed by hundreds of
scientists worldwide
The panel released a condensed version of the
first part of the report, on the physical science
basis of climate change, in February. Called the
"Summary for Policymakers," it delivered to
policymakers and ordinary people alike an unambiguous
message: scientists are more confi -
dent than ever that humans have interfered with
the climate and that further human-induced climate
change is on the way. Although the report
finds that some of these further changes are
now inevitable, its analysis also confirms that
the future, particularly in the longer term, remains
largely in our hands-the magnitude of
expected change depends on what humans
choose to do about greenhouse gas emissions.
The physical science assessment focuses on
four topics: drivers of climate change, changes
observed in the climate system, understanding
cause-and-effect relationships, and projection of
future changes. Important advances in research
into all these areas have occurred since the IPCC
assessment in 2001. In the pages that follow, we
lay out the key findings that document the extent
of change and that point to the unavoidable conclusion
that human activity is driving it.
Drivers of Climate Change
KEY CONCEPTS
Scientists are confident that
humans have interfered with
the climate and that further
human-induced climate change
is on the way.
The principal driver of recent
climate change is greenhouse
gas emissions from human
activities, primarily the burning
of fossil fuels.
The report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change
places the probability that
global warming has been
caused by human activities at
greater than 90 percent. The
previous report, published in
2001, put the probability at
higher than 66 percent.
Although further changes in the
world's climate are now inevitable,
the future, particularly in the
longer term, remains largely in
our hands-the magnitude of
expected change depends on
what humans choose to do about
greenhouse gas emissions.
-The Editors
Atmospheric concentrations of many gases-
primarily carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous
oxide and halocarbons (gases once used widely
as refrigerants and spray propellants)-have
increased because of human activities. Such
gases trap thermal energy (heat) within the
atmosphere by means of the well-known greenhouse
effect, leading to global warming.
The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide,
methane and nitrous oxide remained roughly
stable for nearly 10,000 years, before the
abrupt and rapidly accelerating increases of the
past 200 years [see right illustrations in box on
page 67]. Growth rates for concentrations of
carbon dioxide have been faster in the past 10
years than over any 10-year period since continuous
atmospheric monitoring began in the
1950s, with concentrations now roughly 35
percent above preindustrial levels (which can
be determined from air bubbles trapped in ice
cores). Methane levels are roughly two and a
half times preindustrial levels, and nitrous
oxide levels are around 20 percent higher.
How can we be sure that humans are responsible
for these increases? Some greenhouse gases
(most of the halocarbons, for example) have no
natural source. For other gases, two important
observations demonstrate human influence.
First, the geographic differences in concentrations
reveal that sources occur predominantly
over land in the more heavily populated Northern
Hemisphere. Second, analysis of isotopes,
which can distinguish among sources of emissions,
demonstrates that the majority of the increase
in carbon dioxide comes from combustion
of fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas).
Methane and nitrous oxide increases derive
from agricultural practices and the burning of
fossil fuels.
Climate scientists use a concept called radiative
forcing to quantify the effect of these increased
concentrations on climate. Radiative
forcing is the change that is caused in the global
energy balance of the earth relative to preindustrial
times. (Forcing is usually expressed as watts
per square meter.) A positive forcing induces
warming; a negative forcing induces cooling.
We can determine the radiative forcing associated
with the long-lived greenhouse gases fairly
precisely, because we know their atmospheric
concentrations, their spatial distribution and
the physics of their interaction with radiation.
Climate change is not driven just by increased
greenhouse gas concentrations; other mechanisms-
both natural and human-induced-also
play a part. Natural drivers include changes in
solar activity and large volcanic eruptions. The
report identifi es several additional signifi cant
human-induced forcing mechanisms-microscopic
particles called aerosols, stratospheric
and tropospheric ozone, surface albedo (refl ectivity)
and aircraft contrails-although the in-
fl uences of these mechanisms are much less certain
than those of greenhouse gases [see left illustration
in box on opposite page].
Investigators are least certain of the climatic
influence of something called the aerosol cloud
albedo effect, in which aerosols from human origins
interact with clouds in complex ways and
make the clouds brighter, refl ecting sunlight
back to space. Another source of uncertainty
comes from the direct effect of aerosols from human
origins: How much do they refl ect and absorb
sunlight directly as particles? Overall these
aerosol effects promote cooling that could offset
the warming effect of long-lived greenhouse gases
to some extent. But by how much? Could it
overwhelm the warming? Among the advances
achieved since the 2001 IPCC report is that scientists
have quantified the uncertainties associated
with each individual forcing mechanism
through a combination of many modeling and
observational studies. Consequently, we can
now confidently estimate the total human induced
component. Our best estimate is some
10 times larger than the best estimate of the natural
radiative forcing caused by changes in solar
activity.
This increased certainty of a net positive radiative
forcing fits well with the observational evidence
of warming discussed next. These forcings
can be visualized as a tug-of-war, with positive
forcings pulling the earth to a warmer climate
and negative ones pulling it to a cooler state. The
result is a no contest; we know the strength of
the competitors better than ever before. The
earth is being pulled to a warmer climate and
will be pulled increasingly in this direction as
the "anchorman" of greenhouse warming continues
to grow stronger and stronger.
Observed Climate Changes
The many new or improved observational data
sets that became available in time for the 2007
IPCC report allowed a more comprehensive
assessment of changes than was possible in earlier
reports. Observational records indicate that
11 of the past 12 years are the warmest since
reliable records began around 1850. The odds of
such warm years happening in sequence purely
by chance are exceedingly small. Changes in
three important quantities-global temperature,
sea level and snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere
[see box on page 68]-all show evidence
of warming, although the details vary. The previous
IPCC assessment reported a warming
trend of 0.6 ± 0.2 degree Celsius over the period
1901 to 2000. Because of the strong recent
warming, the updated trend over 1906 to 2005
is now 0.74 ± 0.18 degree C. Note that the 1956
to 2005 trend alone is 0.65 ± 0.15 degree C,
emphasizing that the majority of 20th-century
warming occurred in the past 50 years. The climate,
of course, continues to vary around the
increased averages, and extremes have changed
consistently with these averages-frost days and
cold days and nights have become less common,
while heat waves and warm days and nights have
become more common.
JARGON BUSTER
RADIATIVE FORCING, as used
in the box on the opposite page, is
the change in the energy balance of
the earth from preindustrial times
to the present.
LONG-LIVED GREENHOUSE
GASES include carbon dioxide,
methane, nitrous oxide and halocarbons.
The observed increases
in these gases are the result of
human activity.
OZONE is a gas that occurs both in
the earth's upper atmosphere and at
ground level. At ground level ozone
is an air pollutant. In the upper
atmosphere, an ozone layer protects
life on the earth from the sun's
harmful ultraviolet rays.
SURFACE ALBEDO is the refl ectivity
of the earth's surface: a lighter
surface, such as snow cover, refl ects
more solar radiation than a darker
surface does.
AEROSOLS are airborne particles
that come from both natural (dust
storms, forest fi res, volcanic eruptions)
and man-made sources, such
as the burning of fossil fuels.
CONTRAILS, or vapor trails,
are condensation trails and artifi cial
clouds made by the exhaust of
aircraft engines.
TROPOSPHERE is the layer of the
atmosphere close to the earth. It rises
from sea level up to about 12 kilometers
(7.5 miles).
STRATOSPHERE lies just above
the troposphere and extends upward
about 50 kilometers.
TOM
The properties of the climate system include
not just familiar concepts of averages of temperature,
precipitation, and so on but also the state
of the ocean and the cryosphere (sea ice, the
great ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica,
glaciers, snow, frozen ground, and ice on lakes
and rivers). Complex interactions among differ-
ent parts of the climate system are a fundamental
part of climate change-for example, reduction
in sea ice increases the absorption of heat by
the ocean and the heat fl ow between the ocean
and the atmosphere, which can also affect cloudiness
and precipitation.
A large number of additional observations
are broadly consistent with the observed warming
and refl ect a flow of heat from the atmosphere
into other components of the climate system.
Spring snow cover, which decreases in concert
with rising spring temperatures in northern
midlatitudes, dropped abruptly around 1988
and has remained low since. This drop is of concern
because snow cover is important to soil
moisture and water resources in many regions.
In the ocean, we clearly see warming trends,
which decrease with depth, as expected. These
changes indicate that the ocean has absorbed
more than 80 percent of the heat added to the climate
system: this heating is a major contributor
to sea-level rise. Sea level rises because water expands
as it is warmed and because water from
melting glaciers and ice sheets is added to the
oceans. Since 1993 satellite observations have
permitted more precise calculations of global sealevel
rise, now estimated to be 3.1 ± 0.7 millimeters
per year over the period 1993 to 2003. Some
previous decades displayed similarly fast rates,
and longer satellite records will be needed to determine
unambiguously whether sea-level rise is
accelerating.
Substantial reductions in the extent
of Arctic sea ice since 1978 (2.7 ± 0.6 percent
per decade in the annual average, 7.4 ± 2.4
percent per decade for summer), increases in
permafrost temperatures and reductions in glacial
extent globally and in Greenland and Antarctic
ice sheets have also been observed in recent
decades. Unfortunately, many of these quantities
were not well monitored until recent de-
cades, so the starting points of their records vary.
Hydrological changes are broadly consistent
with warming as well. Water vapor is the strongest
greenhouse gas; unlike other greenhouse
gases, it is controlled principally by temperature.
It has generally increased since at least the
1980s. Precipitation is very variable locally but
has increased in several large regions of the
world, including eastern North and South
America, northern Europe, and northern and
central Asia. Drying has been observed in the
Sahel, the Mediterranean, southern Africa and
parts of southern Asia. Ocean salinity can act
as a massive rain gauge. Near-surface waters of
the oceans have generally freshened in middle
and high latitudes, while they have become saltier
in lower latitudes, consistent with changes in
large-scale patterns of precipitation.
Reconstructions of past climate-paleoclimate-
from tree rings and other proxies provide
important additional insights into the
workings of the climate system with and without
human infl uence. They indicate that the
warmth of the past half a century is unusual in
at least the previous 1,300 years. The warmest
period between A.D. 700 and 1950 was probably
A.D. 950 to 1100, which was several tenths
of a degree C cooler than the average temperature
since 1980.
Attribution of Observed Changes
Although confidence is high both that human
activities have caused a positive radiative forcing
and that the climate has actually changed,
can we confi dently link the two? This is the
question of attribution: Are human activities
primarily responsible for observed climate
changes, or is it possible they result from some
other cause, such as some natural forcing or
simply spontaneous variability within the climate
system?
The 2001 IPCC report concluded
it was likely (more than 66 percent probable)
that most of the warming since the mid-20th
century was attributable to humans. The 2007
report goes signifi cantly further, upping this to
very likely (more than 90 percent probable).
The source of the extra confi dence comes
from a multitude of separate advances. For a
start, observational records are now roughly fi ve
years longer, and the global temperature increase
over this period has been largely consistent with
IPCC projections of greenhouse gas-driven
warming made in previous reports dating back
to 1990.
In addition, changes in more aspects of
the climate have been considered, such as those
in atmospheric circulation or in temperatures
within the ocean. Such changes paint a consistent
and now broadened picture of human intervention.
Climate models, which are central to
attribution studies, have also improved and are
able to represent the current climate and that of
the recent past with consid erable fi delity. Finally,
some important apparent inconsistencies noted
in the observ ational record have been largely
resolved since the last report.
The most important of these was an apparent
mismatch between the instrumental surface
temperature record (which showed signifi cant
warming over recent decades, consistent with a
human impact) and the balloon and satellite atmospheric
records (which showed little of the
expected warming). Several new studies of the
satellite and balloon data have now largely re-
solved this discrepancy-with consistent warming
found at the surface and in the atmosphere.
An experiment with the real world that
duplicated the climate of the 20th century with
constant (rather than increasing) greenhouse
gases would be the ideal way to test for the cause
of climate change, but such an experiment is of
course impossible. So scientists do the next best
thing: they simulate the past with climate
models.
Two important advances since the last IPCC
assessment have increased confi dence in the use
of models for both attribution and projection of
climate changes. The fi rst is the development of
a comprehensive, closely coordinated ensemble
of simulations from 18 modeling groups around
the world for the historical and future evolution
of the earth's climate. Using many models helps
to quantify the effects of uncertainties in various
climate processes on the range of model
simulations. Although some processes are well
understood and well represented by physical
equations (the fl ow of the atmosphere and ocean
or the propagation of sunlight and heat, for example),
some of the most critical components of
the climate system are less well understood,
such as clouds, ocean eddies and transpiration
by vegetation. Modelers approximate these
components using simplified representations
called parameterizations.
The principal reason to develop a multimodel ensemble for
the IPCC assessments is to understand how this lack of
certainty affects attribution and prediction of
climate change. The ensemble for the latest assessment
is unprecedented in the number of
models and experiments performed.
The second advance is the incorporation of
more realistic representations of climate processes
in the models. These processes include
the behavior of atmospheric aerosols, the dynamics
(movement) of sea ice, and the exchange
of water and energy between the land and the
atmosphere. More models now include the major
types of aerosols and the interactions between
aerosols and clouds.
When scientists use climate models for
attribution studies, they fi rst run simulations
with estimates of only "natural" climate
influences over the past 100 years, such as
changes in solar output and major volcanic
eruptions. They then run models that include
human-induced increases in greenhouse gases
and aerosols. The results of such experiments
are striking [see box below]. Models using only
natur al forcings are unable to explain the
observed global warming since the mid-20th
century, whereas they can do so when they
include anthropogenic factors in addition to
natural ones. Large-scale patterns of temperature
change are also most consistent between
models and observations when all forcings are
included.
Two patterns provide a fingerprint of human
infl uence. The first is greater warming over
land than ocean and greater warming at the
surface of the sea than in the deeper layers.
This pattern is consistent with greenhouse gas-
induced warming by the overlying atmosphere:
the ocean warms more slowly because of its
large thermal inertia. The warming also indicates
that a large amount of heat is being taken
up by the ocean, demonstrating that the planet's
energy budget has been pushed out of balance.
A second pattern of change is that while
the troposphere (the lower region of the
atmosphere) has warmed, the stratosphere, just
above it, has cooled. If solar changes provided
the dominant forcing, warming would be
expected in both atmos pher ic layers. The
from the combination of green house gas
increases and stratospheric ozone decreases.
This collective evidence, when subjected to
careful statistical analyses, provides much of
the basis for the increased confidence that
human influences are behind the observed
global warming. Suggestions that cosmic rays
could affect clouds, and thereby climate, have
been based on correlations using limited records;
they have generally not stood up when
tested with additional data, and their physical
mechanisms remain speculative.
What about at smaller scales? As spatial and
temporal scales decrease, attribution of climate
change becomes more diffi cult. This problem
arises because natural small-scale temperature
variations are less "averaged out" and thus more
readily mask the change signal. Never the less,
continued warming means the signal is emerging
on smaller scales. The report has found that human
activity is likely to have infl uenced temperature
signifi cantly down to the continental scale
for all continents except Antarctica.
Human influence is discernible also in some
extreme events such as unusually hot and cold
nights and the incidence of heat waves. This does
not mean, of course, that individual extreme
events (such as the 2003 European heat wave)
can be said to be simply "caused" by humaninduced
climate change-usually such events are
complex, with many causes. But it does mean
that human activities have, more likely than not,
affected the chances of such events occurring.
Projections of Future Changes
How will climate change over the 21st century?
This critical question is addressed using simulations
from climate models based on projections
of future emissions of greenhouse gases and
aerosols. The simulations suggest that, for
greenhouse gas emissions at or above current
rates, changes in climate will very likely be larger
than the changes already observed during the
20th century. Even if emissions were immediately
reduced enough to stabilize greenhouse
gas concentrations at current levels, climate
change would continue for centuries. This inertia
in the climate results from a combination of
factors. They include the heat capacity of the
world's oceans and the millennial timescales
needed for the circulation to mix heat and carbon
dioxide throughout the deep ocean and
thereby come into equilibrium with the new
conditions.
To be more specific, the models project that
over the next 20 years, for a range of plausible
emissions, the global temperature will increase
at an average rate of about 0.2 degree C per decade,
close to the observed rate over the past 30
years. About half of this near-term warming
represents a "commitment" to future climate
change arising from the inertia of the climate
system response to current atmospheric concentrations
of greenhouse gases.
The long-term warming over the 21st century,
however, is strongly infl uenced by the future rate
of emissions, and the projections cover a wide
variety of scenarios, ranging from very rapid to
more modest economic growth and from more
to less dependence on fossil fuels. The best estimates
of the increase in global temperatures
range from 1.8 to 4.0 degrees C for the various
emission scenarios, with higher emissions leading
to higher temperatures. As for regional impacts,
projections indicate with more confi dence
than ever before that these will mirror the patterns
of change observed over the past 50 years
(greater warming over land than ocean, for example)
but that the size of the changes will be
larger than they have been so far.
The simulations also suggest that the removal
of excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere
by natural processes on land and in the ocean
will become less effi cient as the planet warms.
This change leads to a higher percentage of
emitted carbon dioxide remaining in the atmosphere,
which then further accelerates global
warming. This is an important positive feedback
on the carbon cycle (the exchange of carbon
compounds throughout the climate system).
Although models agree that carbon-cycle
changes represent a positive feedback, the range
of their responses remains very large, depending,
among other things, on poorly understood
changes in vegetation or soil uptake of carbon
as the climate warms. Such processes are an important
topic of ongoing research.
The models also predict that climate change
will affect the physical and chemical characteristics
of the ocean. The estimates of the rise in
sea level during the 21st century range from
about 30 to 40 centimeters, again depending on
emissions. More than 60 percent of this rise is
caused by the thermal expansion of the ocean.
Yet these model-based estimates do not include
the possible acceleration of recently observed
increases in ice loss from the Greenland and
Antarctic ice sheets.
Although scientific understanding of such effects is
very limited, they could add an additional 10 to 20
centimeters to sea-level rises, and the possibility of
significantly larger rises cannot be excluded. The
chemistry of the ocean is also affected, as the increased
concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide
will cause the ocean to become more acidic.
Some of the largest changes are predicted for
polar regions. These include signifi cant increases
in high-latitude land temperatures and in the
depth of thawing in permafrost regions and
sharp reductions in the extent of summer sea ice
in the Arctic basin. Lower latitudes will likely
experience more heat waves, heavier precipitation,
and stronger (but perhaps less frequent)
hurricanes and typhoons. The extent to which
hurricanes and typhoons may strengthen is uncertain
and is a subject of much new research.
Some important uncertainties remain, of
course. For example, the precise way in which
clouds will respond as temperatures increase is
a critical factor governing the overall size of the
projected warming. The complexity of clouds,
however, means that their response has been
frustratingly diffi cult to pin down, and, again,
much research remains to be done in this area.
We are now living in an era in which both humans
and nature affect the future evolution of
the earth and its inhabitants. Unfortunately, the
crystal ball provided by our climate models becomes
cloudier for predictions out beyond a
century or so. Our limited knowledge of the response
of both natural systems and human society
to the growing impacts of climate change
compounds our uncertainty. One result of global
warming is certain, however. Plants, animals
and humans will be living with the consequences
of climate change for at least the next thousand
years.
FACING OUR FUTURE: Notes from the Editors
The human race can respond to climate change in two ways:
adaptation and mitigation. Adaptation means learning how to
survive and prosper in a warmer world. Mitigation means
limiting the extent of future warming by reducing the net
release of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.
Given that rising temperatures are already encroaching on
us and that an unstopped increase would be overwhelming,
a strong combination of both adaptation and mitigation will
be essential.
Unfortunately, disagreements over the feasibility, costs and
necessity of mitigation have notoriously bogged down global
responses to date. To project mitigation strategies for the looming
problems-and their costs-Working Group III of the IPCC considered
various estimates of economic expansion, population growth and
fossil-fuel use for its 2007 report. The six resulting scenarios predict
atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide equivalents
(that is, greenhouse gases and aerosols equivalent
to carbon dioxide) ranging from 445 parts per million to 1,130 ppm,
with corresponding increases in temperatures from 2.0 to as
much as 6.1 degrees C (approximately 3.6 to 11 degrees F)
over preindustrial levels.
To keep the temperature increase to the lowest of those projections,
the group estimates that the world must stabilize atmospheric
greenhouse gases at 445 ppm by 2015. (Current concentrations are
approaching 400 ppm.) The scientists believe that any higher
temperatures might trigger severe flooding in some places
and severe drought in others, wipe out species and cause
economic havoc.
The group's report looks in detail at the most promising
technologies and policies for holding the gases at 445 ppm.
It emphasizes the importance of improving energy efficiency
in buildings and vehicles, shifting to renewable energy sources
and saving forests as "carbon sinks." Policies include setting
a target for global emissions, emissions trading schemes,
caps, taxes and incentives. But the IPCC scientists made
their assessment before a study published online this past
April in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
USA reported that worldwide carbon dioxide emissions
between 2000 and 2004 increased at three times the rate
of the 1990s- from 1.1 to 3.2 percent a year. In other words,
the actual global emissions since 2000 grew faster than those
projected in the highest of the scenarios developed by the IPCC.
That research indicates that the situation
is more dire than even the bleak IPCC assessment forecasts.
Global warming is real and, as Working Group I
of the IPCC stated in its January-February
2007 report, "very likely" to be largely the
result of human activities for at least the past
half a century. But is that warming signifi cant
enough to pose real problems? That
determination fell to Working Group II, a
similarly international assembly of scientists
who focused on the vulnerability of natural
and human environments to climate change.
In the April 2007 summary of its fi ndings,
Working Group II concluded that human induced
warming over the past three and a half
decades has indeed had a discernible infl uence
on many physical and biological systems.
Observational evidence from all continents and
most oceans shows that many natural systems
are being affected by regional climate changes,
particularly temperature increases. The ground
in permafrost regions is becoming increasingly
unstable, rock avalanches in mountainous
areas are more frequent, trees are coming into
leaf earlier, and some animals and plants are
moving to higher latitudes or elevations.
Looking to the future, the group also projected
that ongoing shifts in climate would
affect the health and welfare of millions of
people around the world. The severity of the
effects would depend on precisely how much
warming occurred. Among the most probable
consequences:
More frequent heat waves, droughts, fires,
coastal flooding and storms will raise the toll
of deaths, injuries and related diseases.
Some infectious diseases, such as malaria,
will spread to new regions.
High concentrations of ground-level ozone
will exacerbate heart and respiratory
ailments.
By the 2080s, rising sea levels will flood the
homes and property of millions of people,
especially in the large deltas of Asia and
Africa and on small islands.
The harm from these changes will be most
severe for impoverished communities. The poor
are generally more dependent on climate-sensitive
resources such as local water and food,
and by defi nition their adaptive capacities are
economically limited.
The effects of global warming would not be
universally bad, particularly for the next few
decades. For example, whereas higher temperatures
would hurt the growth of important cereals
in equatorial nations fairly quickly, they would
for a time raise productivity on farms in mid- to
high-latitude countries, such as the U.S. But
once the temperature increase exceeded three
degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit), agricultural
declines would set in even there, barring
widespread adaptive changes.
THE CONSEQUENCES OF ONGOING WARMING
WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE
Central and South America
Gradual replacement of tropical forest
by savanna in eastern Amazonia
Replacement of semiarid vegetation
by arid-land vegetation
Species extinctions in many
tropical areas
Reduced water availability
Loss of arable land in drier areas
Decreased yields of some
important crops
Reduced livestock productivity
The Regional Picture
North America
In the western mountains, decreased snowpack, more
winter flooding and reduced summer flows
An extended period of high fi re risk and large increases
in area burned
Increased intensity, duration and number of heat waves
in cities historically prone to them
In coastal areas, increased stress on people and property
as climate interacts with development and pollution
Europe
Increased risk of inland flash floods
In the south, more health-threatening heat waves and
wildfi res, reduced water availability and hydropower
potential, endangered crop production and reduced
summer tourism
In the central and eastern areas, more health-threatening
heat waves and peatland fi res and reduced summer rainfall
and forest productivity
In the north, negative impacts eventually outweigh such
initial benefi ts as reduced heating demand and increased
crop yields and forest growth
Small islands
Threats to vital infrastructure,
settlements and facilities because
of sea-level rise
Reduced water resources in many places
by midcentury
Beach erosion, coral bleaching and other
deteriorating coastal conditions, leading
to harmed fi sheries and reduced value as
tourist destinations
Invasion by nonnative species, especially
on mid- and high-latitude islands
Polar regions
Thinning and shrinking of glaciers and
ice sheets
Changes in the extent of Arctic sea ice
and permafrost
Deeper seasonal thawing of permafrost
Asia
Increased flooding, rock avalanches
and water resource disruptions
as Himalayan glaciers melt
Ongoing risk of hunger in several
developing regions because of
crop productivity declines combined
with rapid population
growth and urbanization
Australia and New Zealand
Intensifi ed water security
problems in southern
and eastern Australia
and parts of NewZealand by 2030
Further loss of biodiversity
in ecologically richsites by 2020
Increased storm severity
and frequency inseveral places
Africa
Decreased water availability by 2020 for
75 million to 250 million people
Loss of arable land, reduced growing
seasons and reduced yields in some areas
Decreased fish stocks in large lakes
The lists here indicate just some of the disturbing effects,
beyond those enumerated in the discussion at the left,
that Working Group II foresees in various parts of the world over
the coming century. The group made most of these predictions
with high or very high confi dence. Find more details at
www.ucar.edu/news/features/climatechange/
-
brilliant, callaway. thank you.
:plus:
i have a document which explains stuff, too, only it's in pdf format. i'll foward it to anyone interested, if they PM me.
-
Include me, please.
I have been following this for many years as a skeptic, but I have come around. I need every puzzle piece.
Thanks in advance.
-
oops. only noticed this by mistake - can people PM me, cos i'm a bit dur at the mo. ::)
have i got your email address, dawg?
edit: dur. yes i have - on its way.
-
You do not have to agree with something for it to make sense. I think that the Climate is changing. I think it is ridiculous to put that all at the feet of the human race and when people smuglyrics pretend they "know" otherwise and only have poor models that prove themselves inaccurate, it does not strengthen their position.
I am willing to accept so man made climate change exists but I am not going to accept that all climate change is because of us and until those promoting the theory can give hard and fast answers on it without yelling at me or treating me like I denounce gravity, I am not interested, even their appeals to popularised won'the move me
-
Who you calling a smuglyrics?
I don't know of anyone who claims that climate change is all caused by humans. Climate is inherently unstable and has changed a fuck of a lot many times before we humans got here.
That's kinda the point. Throwing billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere when the climate is inherently unstable and prone to change... doesn't seem like a great plan.
-
Who you calling a smuglyrics?
I don't know of anyone who claims that climate change is all caused by humans. Climate is inherently unstable and has changed a fuck of a lot many times before we humans got here.
That's kinda the point. Throwing billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere when the climate is inherently unstable and prone to change... doesn't seem like a great plan.
You are talking to an Australian Centrist, I am happy to look at evidence on both sides and theory with substantial reasoning.
What I am a little tired of is people using anonymous sources or suggesting wild theories that don't pan out, as we saw all last year.
I am not doubting you out of hand. Evidence. Big claims demand big evidence. Big evidence is NOT wishful thinking, anonymous sources, speculation....and I am sorry to say not reporting from some of who used to be "reputable sources".
Evidence, what have you got to back your claims?
-
Is your background in science or are you more of a Google kind of guy?
-
Is your background in science or are you more of a Google kind of guy?
Duckduckgo is not great. Google is heaps better at being a search engines
BUT i use Duckduckgo because screw Google and their SJW agenda
-
Is your background in science or are you more of a Google kind of guy?
Duckduckgo is not great. Google is heaps better at being a search engines
BUT i use Duckduckgo because screw Google and their SJW agenda
So your background is not in science? Gotcha.
-
Is your background in science or are you more of a Google kind of guy?
Duckduckgo is not great. Google is heaps better at being a search engines
BUT i use Duckduckgo because screw Google and their SJW agenda
So your background is not in science? Gotcha.
Keep telking yourself that. We can hear the waterfall of salty tears from here.
-
So, tell us more about global warming. :kumbaya:
-
So, tell us more about global warming. :kumbaya:
You will have to do a lot better than that.
Here is some reading comprehension
“Is that four legged equine out there a zebra?”
Have I implied that the animal is a zebra? No I asked whether it is.
“I hope that equine is not a zebra?”
Have I implied that the animal is a zebra? No I am questioning a desire for the animal not to be something I wish it not to be. It is not implying that it is or is not.
So it does not appear I need to be able to comprehend what has been said.
-
So it does not appear I need to be able to comprehend what has been said.
Thanks. This explains you perfectly.