From Coal 2 Gas Increases Warming for Decades

what is scenario 1 based on?? Is this accpet in the wider scientifc community?Actually the model are pretty good. They have been tested against historical data and have predicted outcomes correctly. IPCC AR4 discusses the reliability of  models in projecting future climate changes.  Among the reasons it cites that we can be confident in model projections is their ability to model past climate changes in a process known as "hindcasting.  This is a fantastic link on the use of models: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/faq-on-climate-models. James Hanen's simple 1988 model has predicted the rise in global pretty accurately 

bottom line,

there is global warming, but where it leads depends on many parameters we barely know of. so conclusions drawn must be very very carefull.

i loved the discussion. but i have to move on.

sam. out.

scenario1:

Global warming could lead to an increase in freshwater into the oceans, by melting glaciers and by increasing precipitation. fresher watered oceans could  interrupt thermohaline circulation leading to yet another Younger Dryas (mini ice age which might have been caused by similar factors), and some even fear that global warming may be able to trigger the type of abrupt massive temperature shifts which occurred during the last glacial period. Turell,B. The Big Chill 13 november 2003.

scenario2:

IPCC Working Group 1, chapter 9: "thermohaline circulation changes" says no: Model runs in which the THC is forced to shut down do show cooling but  in coupledAtmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models, the THC tends to weaken somewhat rather than stop, and the warming effects outweigh the cooling

However, climate models are not sufficiently sophisticated at present to include climatic factors which give these predictions veracity

5 billion people, Slapper. This is what most scientists think. So, we are already 23 % too many!

LP - how many people if we all lived like americans and australians (ie the biggest polluters and consumers)?????

DRSAM - another 0.6 will lead to more warming. Yes? Arctic sea ice is at record low levels now with current warming. Will only get worse if we keep going like this Ridiculously  logical if you ask me. Look at the past and you will see the effects.   What has caused the rise in atmC02 DRSAM????

what will the 0.6 yet to come produce slapper? DO NOT EXTRAPOLATE. what applies today can't apply tomorrow. it gives a warning, a trend, an idea. but don't draw conclusions and tell this will happen. in 2000, they predicted that the tibet will be snowless in 2035. in 2010 they say, ooops! we were wrong! maybe 2050-2100.

i'm with birth control, and population control.

in fact i'm more into zoning of the entire planet earth: this land is for agriculture, no building in it, this land is for forest...

but if it will not be applied, wars, famine, and deseases will regulate them.

just pick a good country that does to live in.

maltus 200 hundred years ago extrapolated the end of humanity. much of his variables were wrong, and we're still here.

drsam, and the reason for this is: OVERPOPULATION!We can sustain the "race", but only if we drastically reduce the number of people.In the future, people who are allowed to have offspring will be carefully selected. Trust me.

LP  tell me of a race or species that doesn't fight. same amount of resources for a growing number of mouths to feed. unless we get rid of our dependancy on classical food, and start eating manufactured pills of protein, carbohydrates,... there will be war over land and resources. 

70-100 years?? Oh no. We have 0.8 degree warming now and look at the turmoil it is producing. There another 0.6 warming in the bank if we stopped all emission tioday so extrapolate the effect this addition will have on ecology.  I would like to hear what you kids said when you told them you dont care about thier future

For what, Drsam? For Beethoven's symphonies? I agree. For Picasso's paintings and sculptures? I agree. For Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliette? I agree. For Dirac's equations? I agree. For all the wars fought for what? I don't think they should be sustained. - What does that mean? It means that I am perfectly fine with a scenario that kills 99% of the humans and leaves 1 %.I will make sure to be among the 1 %.

Slapper, don't worry for the children's future. You are talking about 70 to 100 years. I am talking about millions of years. Of course, you can do something for your immediate environment. Build a house, plant trees, conserve water and energy. But you can never expect your neighbor to do the same. He might be a share holder of an oil company.

DRSAM - OK., then first off, what caused this increase in C02?

LP yes the human race is worth being sustained. u tell me why not?

is your children's future worth it?

no they are not controversial for me. what is, is the predictions, and extrapolations into the futur

The opposite of 're-volution' would be 'e-volution'. Volvere still means 'move', and 'e' means 'out of'. If we evolve we move 'out of the darkness'!But as you know there are harsh critics concerning the evolution as a theory. And therefore, it makes no sense at all to teach the people. They 'believe' what they want to believe. Right or wrong don't exist.And again, I ask you: is the human race worth being sustained? The universe might have a clear answer to that, which is NO! (It doesn't care at all).

i sent u an email

checked, i didn't say that. but now that U have said it, it does ring a bell:

the african nations did point in the rio summit that most CO2 where produced in China USA and europe, so not to cut on their carbon footprints as much as the other.

and the USA arguing about the carbon pits (that countries with forests that take back CO2, must be favored.

Black - are FF a finite resource? Are there any links b/w AGW with the drougts, floods and famines we see today?

DRSAM - you didnt answer. Are those statements controversial for you?

no way! where did i say that? let me check

LP - and business as usual is progressive??

what about " i dont blame all humans for global warming"?

dble post

wow! the post has been animated!

let's all agree (or disagree) on some things:

- i find the article above worthless.

- i don't blame all the global warming on humans

- i am skeptical (not against or false: only skeptical) of studies forcasting our futur, or the futur of an ecosystem, biosphere or earth. 

Possible if the politicians won't be against it..:)

'Volvere' means 'to move'. 'Re' means 'backwards'. But that's only the meaning of the Latin origins.

So do u really think it would be a success while the economy is going down,many people are in famine, too many crimes to solve..?

Bark Control - you cant switch to a renewable energy economy? Impossible?

what do you think the word revolution means?

Slapper - You can't control all the people on Earth..ok?

There are a lot of things to be worried about: If you are worried about ur job,bills,kids,marriage,poverty,crimes...guess worrying about the earth getting burned won't be the priority..

Slapper, if you do that, you'll be dead within hours. There are powerful energy companies who would not like to lose any of their profits! And in most cases politicians have their shares in these companies. So, what do you expect? A revolution a la Libya? 

Bark - Control - what does this mean "These are things that are out of our control"???? If you are the cause of the problem - how can it be out of your control?? Sound like an oxymoron Barky.

through our  every increasing use of fossil fuels and our insatiable consumerism, we have gone from a land of plenty to one of scarcity and in the process burning up the planet. Your position is "who cares"???? Fight for what??? For the only planet we have LP. 

And even if science came up with a solution, the politicians would boycott it, if it was against their interests!! For sure!!

These are things that are out of our control. If someone think he/she is capable in solving this, then he's welcome to do whatever he/she wants. Why don't we just let go the things that we dont have control over? Walk the talk if you know the solutions. Talking wont help unless an action is taken. 

Fight what, slapper? The universe that put earth in this odd position? No! The billions who fart and breathe out CO2? No! I can't take care of the earth. But I know a place that is safe for another 100.000 years.

LP -  you wont fight to secure a good  future for your kids????

In a latest attempt of thought scientists want to enlarge the ozone hole over Antartica because if the ozon layer is closed, it will trap even more heat in the atmosphere.One thing is for sure, there was global warming and freezing all the time in the 4 billion years of earth's history. Mostly due to the position of the Solar system in the Milky Way. The Solar System moves through the Milky Ways disk at intervalls of 30 million years. That means that the weather is fine once the system is out of the disk, and that the weather is not fine, once the system moves through the dusty disk. Mass extinctions also correspond with this cycle of 60 million years.And the last question would be: why worry? The human race is not worth being sustained if we can't solve the problems! Then our fate will be like the dinosaurs' fate. So, get your heads together and find solutions. Lamenting doesn't solve any problem.

DRSAM - are you familiar with climate science?? Tell me if the following is true:1. C02 is a greenhouse gas2. the conc of atm CO2 has gone up for about 240 ppm to about 390 ppm over the last 200 years3. avergae global temp have risen by 0.8 degrees celcius over this period. Are these controversial  statements for you? If so can you please what has caused the rise of C02 and what has caised the warming. `WHat other factors or as you put it parameters are you talking about, because, solar, volcano and cosmic rays have all been assessed and dismissed.  You are using the typical strw man  arguement in the sense that the nobody is claiming that climate hasnt changed in the past. The issue is the reasons why have been shown to be differnet this time. Using your reasoning, bush fires today cant be man made as there have always been fires pre the human race.  Adaption?? tell it to the  milliions and millions of extict species witnessed by this great earth over  its lifetime - 5 times over !!! 

again, human activity may be associated with the global warming. maybe it's the main factor behind it. not the sole factor. 10.000 years ago the sahara was a savana teaming with giraffes lions. than it turned to a desert. that wasn't man made, was it? before the Zanclean flood the mediterranean sea didn't exist. europe was connected to africa. there will always be changes, organisms adapt. during the last glacial age, beiring strait was dry, enabeling homosapiens to cross from siberia to alaska...there is a cycle.

when the dinosaurs roamed the earth, more than 60 million years ago, the Oxygen proportion was 25% of the air compared to the 21% today. those 4% got trapped and evolved to form the fossil fuels and oil we are releasing back into the atmosphere today.

the point is many predictions are not accurate; no one is a sitting duck. all organisms adapt or devolve.  

DRSAM - dont fret. It is clear - we are the cause of the warming and it is accerating. Read the IPCC report and every natiional scientifc acedemy in the world. Parameters? You mean forcing agents?? Your reasoning is  not clear.  Oh and canada and siberia will be good ay??? Oh goodie - maybe the rest of the 6 billion population can find a nice home together on the same land. One big happy family ??? Hopeless

i say maybe. but not sure. too many unknown parameters to firmly state conclusion. there is global warming. it may be related to human activity. how much and till when this warming is gona last if it's not human generated, how to reverse it's effect if it's human generated....

too many parameters to draw conclusions. in the mean time, canada and siberia have bright futur ahead. and water rise, and warmer temperatures means more rain.

side note, if sea levels rise 10 meters, Qatar will become an island, and most of Doha will be submerged, the TV r/a being Doha's highest point at 25 meters. (no links. personal study using google maps)

DRSAM - pretty much if we continue business as usual. And then there is this: New research: "We may be headed for a period of sea-level change more dynamic than current observations suggest." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110911145228.htm ScienceDaily, Sep. 11, 2011 New evidence of sea-level oscillations during a warm period that started about 125,000 years ago raises the possibility of a similar scenario if the planet continues its more recent warming trend, says a research team led by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI).  and this:Global warming amplifying Texas drought, wildfires, scientists say. http://www.climatecentral.org/news/record-breaking-texas-drought-and-heat/ Alyson Kenward, Climate Central, 7 September 2011 Just when it looked like weather conditions couldn’t get any worse in Texas, a new wildfire burning outside of Austin destroyed nearly 800 homes in the past few days.  and this:Europe's oceans changing at unprecedented rate - report http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/09/13/idINIndia-59319820110913 Nina Chestney, Reuters, 14 September 2011 Europe's seas are changing at an unprecedented rate as ice sheets melt, temperatures rise and marine life migrates due to climate change, a report by the Climate Change and European Marine Ecosystem Research (CLAMER) project warned.  and this:Changing Climate Lurking Behind Epic Drought and High Temps http://www.climatecentral.org/news/texas-sets-record-for-hottest-ever-us-summer Alyson Kenward, Climate Central, 9 September 2011 Weather officials have confirmed what people in many states along the southern tier of the U.S. have said for months: this has been the hottest summer on record  what do you say?

James Lovelock

"By 2040, parts of the Sahara desert will have moved into middle Europe. We are talking about Paris – as far north as Berlin. In Britain we will escape because of our oceanic position

from we're all doomed! 40 years from global catastrophe Daily mail 22 march 2008

DRAM - the prediction range from very very bad to amaggedon. WHt other probelm facing the world could be more seriuos than this??  "much talk about oil running up in 10 years"that not what peak oil is all about"much talk about the desertification encrotching on arable lands" are you aware of the increase frequency of 1 in 100 year droughts around the world???"much talk about the ozone layer in the 90s" James Loverlock claimed there was a hole in the ozone layer caused by CFC's and it presented an immediate risk to life on earth. What do you say???

maybe. it's not one of my priorities.

i wanted to point to the fact that the article doesn't seem professional or scientific.

a fact is that predictions concerning global warming, or fossil fuels, or ecology in general are rarely accurate if ever.

-much talk about the ozone layer in the 90s

-much talk about the desertification encrotching on arable lands

-much talk about oil running up in 10 years ...

DRSAM - if we want to avoid catastrophic warming, we need to start getting off of all fossil fuels. Yes??

what kind of scientific study is that? what are the matherial and method, the variables taken into account, which simulation program was used, the amount of gaz consumption now will be a fraction of what it will be in a decade. predicting this variable alone is highly risky for 10 years only...