Science – Rising temperatures will leave millions more people hungry by 2080 and cause critical water shortages in China and Australia, as well as parts of Europe and the United States, according to a new global climate report.
The Sky Is Falling Huh?...i dont think it is possible to accuratley predict what is going to happen in 70 years. The local wheather man cant even accuratley predict what the whather is going to be like in 5 days. Now if the ice caps were melting wouldnt that make alot more water????
Water in the oceans. But more plants would grow where the ice was, reducing the CO2 levels and increasing O2, making the planet colder again!
Actually, mostly "where the ice was" will be water. Just water. More ocean. The ice caps don't sit on anything, they're mostly floating ice. The result of this will be a decrease in the earth's albedo as ice becomes open ocean, causing accelerated warming at the poles. Not to mention stopping the thermohaline ocean processes.
Hello...the ice caps are melting!!!
The Church of Global Warming and the "green" movement is more about money than anything. Since the Church can use the changing weather as their battle cry to raise money or prove a political point, then they will never run out of money because the weather never stops changing. Next we will again hear about global "cooling",(Blasphemy they screech), and the human impacts causing the earths temperature to drop.
C02 levels have been trending down, after being quite a bit higher than it is now (.038% of the atmosphere to at most in the past .7% of the earth's atmosphere) IF C02 makes it warmer, why does the temp not go up and down with CO2 levels? http://www.churchofglobalwarming.com/images/co2.gi
H2O is the Number One greenhouse gas. Would an energy source that emits Water Vapor, increasing the H20 levels, have the opposite effect of what the Church worshipers want? Perhaps the Church wants to end human activity on earth and is taking an opposite approach. Hmmm....
Known causes of global climate change, like cyclical eccentricities in Earth's rotation and orbit, as well as variations in the sun's energy output, are the primary causes of climate cycles measured over the last half million years. However, secondary greenhouse effects stemming from changes in the ability of a warming atmosphere to support greater concentrations of gases like water vapor and carbon dioxide also appear to play a significant role. As demonstrated in the data above, of all Earth's greenhouse gases, water vapor is by far the dominant player.
As such, individuals and groups whose agenda it is to require that human beings are the cause of global warming must discount or ignore the effects of water vapor to preserve their arguments. If political correctness and staying out of trouble aren't high priorities for you, go ahead and ask them how water vapor was handled in their models. Chances are, it wasn't!
Can't attack the message? Attack the messenger.
You know where the big money is: The energy industry, the auto industry, the appliance industry, and among the billions of consumers who don't want the bother of changing life-styles. The church of Don'tWorryIt'llBeFine is on the move.
great comment. they attack the scientists that work for non-profits conducting research while the corporate bought and paid for shills go happliy lying along and they can't see the hypocrisy.
yeah, that's it global warming is all a scam perpetrated by scientists and liberals to get government grants.
Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.
Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.
i read his article and what he cited to. it really is BS. it's not even peer reviewed work.
I understand your frustration with data compiled from many reputable sources being compiled to debunk the "Man Made" global warming claim. If you do decide to review all of the data you will find the sources are from highly recognized sources in the scientific community. eg.Compiled by R.S. Bradley and J.A. Eddy based on J.T. Houghton et al., Climate Change: The IPCC Assessment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990 and published in EarthQuest, vo. 1, 1991., Temperature data inferred from measurements of the ratio of oxygen isotope ratios in fossil plankton that settled to the sea floor, and assumes that changes in global temperature approximately tracks changes in the global ice volume. Based on data from J. Imbrie, J.D. Hays, D.G. Martinson, A. McIntyre, A.C. Mix, J.J. Morley, N.G. Pisias, W.L. Prell, and N.J. Shackleton, in A. Berger, J. Imbrie, J. Hats, G. Kukla, and B. Saltzman, eds., Milankovitch and Climate, Dordrecht, Reidel, pp. 269-305, 1984.
"Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect"
This should shed some light capecoral:
Because over the first 115 years of warming, as the air's CO2 concentration rose by an average of 0.24 ppm/year, the air temperature rose by an average of 0.013°C/year; while over the final 35 years of the record, when the increase in the air's CO2 content really began to accelerate, rising at a mean rate of 1.17 ppm/year (nearly five times the rate at which it had risen in the prior period), the rate of rise of surface air temperature did not accelerate anywhere near that fast. In fact, it did not accelerate at all. In fact, it decelerated, to a mean rate of change (0.011°C/year) that was nearly the same as the rate at which it had previously risen but in the opposite direction, i.e., downward. Clearly, there was something that totally overpowered whatever effect the rise in the air's CO2 content over the first...
The "CO2Science Center" is a corporate client company which makes its money selling "CO2 Reporting services" to industrial polluters. I wonder if there is a slight chance that there may be a little bias in their collection, processing and interpretation of the data?
From their website:
"Greenhouse Gas Reporting
Since 2001, our organization has provided companies with professional assistance in filing greenhouse gas (GHG) reports with the U.S. Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program (Section 1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992). We hope that others of you will also turn to our Center for your GHG reporting needs. Together, we can help you prepare an accurate, complete, consistent, relevant and transparent accounting of your emission and sequestration activities."
Doesn't appear from that that they'd have any reason to make it look like "GHGs" are harmless, right?
Apparently you don't like the data provided because it does not support your claims about C02. Perhaps looking at the data instead of attacking the messenger would be good for you. Practice what you preach?
The energy industry actually provides a reliable proven product. The appliance industry actually provides reliable proven products. The Church of Global warming does not provide a reliable product. The product being provided (Humans are the cause of global warming) appears to be based on opinions that can not be supported by historical data. Al Gore get's it though. Take this political hot potato and run with it baby. Making the big bucks off the true believers now isn't he? And some awards from the Church worshipers to boot! Ye Ha You go Al.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
dokkyou08
slashup67
yarrkz24
volume.rendering
stepler
keeper23
prototyping.great
TGrass3001
dr_key
stalker20
goqebiva
womecuni
wynokuse
isufevo
rysodite
gypodeqa
jyfebovi
giwezydo
ywelova
dandyboy12
roughtouch
IdaTRange
AngelMCain
pacificwar
lenta
razorlight
dimka
woodywood20
dr_martin
fuzzylog
KedoZhopiy
followme
DianeSBlack
JohnCKent
NormanSWofford
motoroil
299)
Gloom and Doom!
One thing for the reader to consider: Every prediction of gloom and doom in the past has explained just how bad things were going to be based on nothing new happening and no change in technology.
In the late 1800's it was the massive increase of horse manure that would strangle us. We needed X number of horses per group of Y number of people, and as population grew the resultant growth in the number of horses, the amount of food they would eat, and the staggering levels of manure they would produce-- that would destroy us!
Apparently the horse manure is still piling up.
.
Right.
Gloom and doom scenarios have always been wrong in the past so they will always be wrong in the future.
This includes Bible Prophecy as well?...
Which bible? Every culture has its mythology. Should we abandon science for scripture? Should we stop trying to save ourselves when faced with danger? Is there a point you'd like to make?
Bible Prophecy is inerrant.
Some one just forgot to write down the dates.
Horse manure makes the best fertilizer!!! Since we got our little guy and used his poop, our garden is exploding!! We are still harvesting brocoli, cauliflower, onions, carrots
ONCE AGAIN-
the 2 MOST important questions you can ask yourself regarding global warming have nothing to do with democrats or republicans, the auto industry, or even "big oil".
the 2 most important questions you can ask yourself regarding global warming are (and ALWAYS will be)
1. if its all a lie, a hoax, or simply not true, but we believe it and act on it anyway, whats the worst that can happen?
think about that for a minute, imagine the worst case scenario you can come up with, then ask yourself this question;
2. if its all true and we DONT believe it and act accordingly, whats the worst that can happen?
now, think about THAT for a minute and imagine the worst case scenario you can come up with.
all you naysayers; do you get it YET? the consequences of #1 are a walk in the park compared to the consequences of #2
are you willing to gamble the future of your children, your grandchildren, the entire human race? yes, or no? no talking points, just YES or NO???
Dave,
As usual you bring little to the table. What evidence do you have that global warming is not occuring?
Then what is this, a driveby comment? You're trying to be political on a subject that should be free of politics. Not everything our governments ever do is hunky dorie. If this administration or any other administration tries to manipulate scientific data to placate or admonish anyone, they would be wrong.
The concensus by most of the scientific community is that global warming is a current fact, that greenhouse gases are contributing to that fact, and that we humans are contributing to that fact in many ways. That we have an opportunity mitigate the problem is something we need to understand. Nature provides many occurrances of greenhouse gases that are more dangerous than what humanity does. Yet, it's in our best interest to begin tackling the problem before nature overwhelms us with one of her most frequent occurrences like a huge volcanic erruption akin to Krakatoa. It's foolish to argue about who's at fault and that others are unwilling to join in reducing greenhouse gases.
Dave, did you see the article on why people think Americans are stupid? Need I say more?? It's not going to be a happy world if Global Warming is occuring.. you must have no understanding of the chemistry of the ocean. If too much fresh water is allowed to enter the ocean too fast the pH level of the ocean will alter tremendously. If it's too quick for marine life to adapt we're looking at worldwide problems; i mean like astronomical problems... chew on that for a while. And another thing, even if you were right.. if more fresh water was released ocean levels would rise.. in other words, Katrina is to New Orleans as Global Warming is many many cities and islands, basically wherever there is low ground... One thing's for sure; you could say goodbye to Florida..
You forgot to add Mankind into your quotient:
-ice caps will melt, releasing more fresh water for more pollutants to poison.
-more of the earth would be cultivatable by the release of fresh water provided that it hasn't been developed for waterfront condos or polluted.
-more plants will grow, allowing for more CO2 consumption provided that the land isn't burned off and clear-cut.
-more food will become available to feed more people who will have more types of cancers r/t the more pollutants released into the atmosphere from the Industrial Age because no one has to worry about the effects of Global Warming.
Whether it is truly "Global Warming" or not, we have a steady track record for not taking care of the planet.
Makes you wonder if its really getting "thicker" or is the improvements in the technology reading it, showing that there is more ice than previously thought?
David offers you evidence. You don't like the evidence. You dismiss the evidence.
That is not how a real debate works.
Dispute the evidence with your own. Or YOU are not contributing to the debate.
David is an idiot. PERIOD
Right, name calling when you can't argue your point.
The difference is due to the more comprehensive nature of satellite information. In the past, scientists have had to place a relatively small number of markers in the ice and traced their movements over time, first by shooting the stars with a sextant, and later using satellites.
Makes you wonder if its really getting "thicker" or is the improvements in the technology reading it, showing that there is more ice than previously thought?
Is that better?
Right - "evidence" from the Christian Science Monitor; hardly the most reliable or neutral of scientific sources. Also, the 'headline' of that article wasn't exactly neitral, either. Note, from the same article linked by DavidHalko: "Indeed, David Vaughn, a scientist with the British Antarctic Survey, notes that if it's real, the continental cooling trend may be a relatively brief departure from a longer-term warming trend. The average temperature trend for all Antarctic stations from 1959 to 1996 point to an average warming of 1.2 degrees C."
Oh wow, so really global warming will be fabulous and no one noticed. Let's look at point one again:
"ice caps will melt, releasing more fresh water". This water will go into the ocean, eventually mixing with salt water and becoming useless to us, but not before causing massive disruption to ocean currents, stopping the ocean conveyorbelt and potentially throwing Europe into an ice age.
Point two: more of the earth will become cultivatable by releasing fresh water- what? how will this fresh water get to land? will increased cultivatable land make up for the loss of Europe? how about the rising sea level which will cover some of the most densely populated areas of Earth?
What about effects on crop pests? could that go badly? how about melting permafrost in the Arctic and its effects on plants (not to mention constructs like pipelines)? effects on El Nino? increase in natural disasters? disruption of ecosystems resulting in species extinctions?
Suppose it gets as warm as it was in the 1000s?
Greenland habitable without food imports. Few or no glaciers in Europe.
Suppose it is all due to increased solar output? There is evidence of global warming on Mars.
Suppose we actually develop
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2006/11/easy-l
Easy Low Cost No Radiation Fusion
*
loCaRus: are you willing to gamble the future of your children, your grandchildren, the entire human race? yes, or no? no talking points, just YES or NO???
ramblingwreck: Given the historical record of Earth's climate, the simple truth is that catastrophic climate change WILL occur regardless of what "man" does or does not do. THAT is the simple incontrovertible truth which I accept.
Because of this inevitable change, yes, according to your definition I am willing to "gamble" the future since there is really not any gamble involved...the Earth's climate will dramatically change.
true, but those NATURAL changes take time, and i mean time as in thousands of years. what is happening now is happening exponentially faster than ever before.
loCaRus: what is happening now is happening exponentially faster than ever before.
ramblingwreck: Not true. Earth's climate has been known to change dramatically, and with devastating results in as little as a decade. If we factor in droughts, then the change is often much more rapid.
The Little Ice Age came as a big surprise.
That was at a sunspot minimum.
We are in a sunspot maximum phase. (although nearing the minimum for this part of the 11/22 year cycle).
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.sht
i dont accept the question as valid because it dosent matter.the earth was dead the minute it came into being.you can ask a 100 experts and get 101 answers as to how or when but they all agree that our sun will destory the earth.the worst case in either scenario is what happnes if we are still stuck on this rock.what if we waste and squander our one and only shot trying to preserve something that is going to die anyway.what will happen to shakesphere and bach,the bible and the quaran.how about norma jean and boggy.all of this and more will all be for not.we need to get our eggs out of this one fragile basket while we still have the resources to do so. before we waste them trying to conserve them.the only gamble would be to put these things off.the human race has no future on earth.after we have made sure that the only confirmed source of life has spread a little,then we can turn back and see what can be done for the earth.
yea nothing. i guess "nothing" is the reason that it didnt snow at all all winter in Northern New Jersey until now, and why the tempteratures were actually hitting the 70s in December. I should know, i live here. ( :( i miss winter!!)
Yes, this climate report is all BS that's totally wrong. It's only been verified by every legitimate climatologist on the planet, but because other doom and gloom scenarios have been wrong, therefore this one must be, too.
Let's just keep raping and piliaging our planet of every natural resource with impunity because there will surely never be any consequences for any of our actions. Why should we worry about the planet when we have giant SUVs that must be driven and oil companies that must earn ever-increasing billion-dollar record profits every single quarter to please their shareholders? Let's keep our priorities straight here, people. Who needs drinking water for the population at large when you've got profits for big business at risk? I mean, come on!!!