Get Smart about Business Spending
- Related Stories
-
Sea levels likely to rise 25cm this century
March 17, 2005 -
Photos: Glacier meltdowns amid global warming
February 23, 2005 -
Tech person of the year: Nature
December 22, 2004
Rising temperatures in the world's atmosphere and oceans will lead to more intense storms as the century progresses, according to a new report from the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
Evaporation increases when the surface temperature of the ocean rises and warmer air can hold more moisture. When this soggier-than-normal air moves over land, it results in storms wetter and more intense than those experienced in the past.
The greatest changes will occur over land in the tropics, according to the study, which was released Thursday. Heavier rain or snow, however, will also fall in northwestern and northeastern North America, northern Europe, northern and eastern Asia, southwestern Australia, and parts of South America during the current century.
"The models show most areas around the world will experience more intense precipitation for a given storm during this century," lead author Gerald Meehl said in a statement. "Information on which areas will be most affected could help communities to better manage water resources and anticipate possible flooding."
The Mediterranean and the southwestern U.S., meanwhile, will experience a different pattern. Storms will likely become wetter, particularly in the fall and winter, but dry spells may stretch for longer in the warmer months. A picture of how this pattern might develop was seen in Europe this year: While Germany endured unprecedented floods, Spain and Portugal imposed water rationing because of a lengthy drought.
Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in April released a report predicting that hurricanes would become more intense over the coming century. It became an oft-cited study after Hurricane Katrina hit.
Climate change has become a hot-button issue for scientists, politicians and the general public. The scientific community now generally agrees that global warming is in fact happening, and most of the future scenarios aren't pretty.
Rising sea levels could lead to more frequent flooding in Bangladesh and other low-lying nations. Food production could also be disrupted. Melting polar ice is expected by some to lead to a sea lane above Siberia in a few years.
While scientists generally agree that the world's climate is changing, there is more disagreement over how much of the change is due to human behavior. Some believe a great deal of the warming is caused by burning fossil fuels, which create greenhouse gases that trap heat. Examination of data from the 20th century implicates humans, Meehl said in a phone interview.
"Probably most of the climate change in the early part of the century was caused by natural events," he said, such as a rebounding of temperatures that ordinarily occurs after volcanoes. "But the change in the latter part of he 20th century was the result of human activity."
Others disagree. Still others assert that, because the stakes are so high, debating whether or not reducing greenhouse gas emissions can help makes no sense.
See more CNET content tagged:
century, rain, global warming, temperature, scientist
warming is in fact happening..." Yeah, liberal scientists haven't
figured out how to blame America yet.
"The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/
2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/
ixnewstop.html
warming is in fact happening..." Yeah, liberal scientists haven't
figured out how to blame America yet.
"The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/
2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/
ixnewstop.html
Do enough research, and stop listening to people who sound reputable, and you'll see there is little proof for global warming. Hurricanes aren't getting stronger or more frequent. News is just traveling faster and people have short memories. Plus, more people live in danger zones. They forget that the strongest hurricane on record was 1933. They forget that most hurricanes to hit the US in one decade was in the 1940's.
And, who alive knows what happened before accurate records were kept?
You have to dig deep, because even some reports that come out against global warming somehow manage to get back to it being real.
For those who would care to look http://www.newscientist.com/home.ns is a fine place to start. Type -climate change- into the search box and you will get about 1700 articles to choose from.
The truth is that global warming is accepted as factual by most of the worlds real experts. There is much debate over the exact mechanisms and outcomes but that does not alter the validity of the concept.
So, global warming is real - but it's WAY to early to say if it will contiune or reverse, or what the cause is. You can't tell me that over Earth's 5 billion-year lifetime, that "global warming" hasn't occured a couple of times.
IPCC Source: http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/small/05.16.jpg
evidence against global warming. You don't even
find much debate about whether it's a trend that
would alter local ecosystems and affect
agriculture, sea-level, etc.
What you find is debate on: how severe an issue
is it, what's the cause, is it part of a natural
cycle, is there something we can do about it
(and if so, should we), etc.
The evidence is pretty concrete that there's
global warming, and we know enough about climate
to know what the near-term ramifications are.
However, science is a less certain on the weight
of the contributing factors, the long term
prognosis for global climate, etc. So, the
amateur prognosticators (government) generally
take stances that support their overall position
with regard to the environment, and the press
presents the political spin as the underlying
science -- even going so far as presenting the
existence of global warming as some sort of
debate in the scientific community.
Global warming exists. Temperature trends are
easily tracked, the weather readily observable
on a global scale, and definition exists for the
term. It's silly to pretend it simply doesn't
exist.
Do enough research, and stop listening to people who sound reputable, and you'll see there is little proof for global warming. Hurricanes aren't getting stronger or more frequent. News is just traveling faster and people have short memories. Plus, more people live in danger zones. They forget that the strongest hurricane on record was 1933. They forget that most hurricanes to hit the US in one decade was in the 1940's.
And, who alive knows what happened before accurate records were kept?
You have to dig deep, because even some reports that come out against global warming somehow manage to get back to it being real.
For those who would care to look http://www.newscientist.com/home.ns is a fine place to start. Type -climate change- into the search box and you will get about 1700 articles to choose from.
The truth is that global warming is accepted as factual by most of the worlds real experts. There is much debate over the exact mechanisms and outcomes but that does not alter the validity of the concept.
So, global warming is real - but it's WAY to early to say if it will contiune or reverse, or what the cause is. You can't tell me that over Earth's 5 billion-year lifetime, that "global warming" hasn't occured a couple of times.
IPCC Source: http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/small/05.16.jpg
evidence against global warming. You don't even
find much debate about whether it's a trend that
would alter local ecosystems and affect
agriculture, sea-level, etc.
What you find is debate on: how severe an issue
is it, what's the cause, is it part of a natural
cycle, is there something we can do about it
(and if so, should we), etc.
The evidence is pretty concrete that there's
global warming, and we know enough about climate
to know what the near-term ramifications are.
However, science is a less certain on the weight
of the contributing factors, the long term
prognosis for global climate, etc. So, the
amateur prognosticators (government) generally
take stances that support their overall position
with regard to the environment, and the press
presents the political spin as the underlying
science -- even going so far as presenting the
existence of global warming as some sort of
debate in the scientific community.
Global warming exists. Temperature trends are
easily tracked, the weather readily observable
on a global scale, and definition exists for the
term. It's silly to pretend it simply doesn't
exist.
Not just the UN, but the National Academy of Sciences, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Brookings Institution, and even the Bush administration (before Christie Todd-Whitman got slapped down by the fossil fuel lobbies) have agreed that auto and industrial CO2 emissions are almost without question the primary cause of the current warming trend, which -- as the latest NASA prediction goes -- will result in the Arctic ice cap disappearing in 60 years.
Denying science when it conflicts with profits is nothing new. Ibsen's "Enemy of the People" nailed it over 100 years ago. The difference this time, I think, can be found in the laughable comment (troll bait?) here that referred to "liberal scientists." In science, when a researcher comes up with a hypothesis, the game is to challenge it -- and if it withstands multiple challenges over time, it is gradully accepted. That's what happened with global warming. But this process is derided as "reality-based" by the wingnuts running things these days, who live their lives based on things they would like to be true, which are never challenged. They find the conclusions that benefit them the most personally and find "evidence" to support them, even if they have to pay for its manufacture. And they haven't the foggiest idea why anyone would live their lives any other way. Ergo, scientists must be "liberal."
That's why James Inhofe, a Republican senator from Oklahoma and the top recipient of big oil lobbying money -- who recently called global warming "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people" -- kicked off his hearings with testimony by the loopy novelist Michael Crichton. No reputable member of the scientific community would be caught dead in that chair.
Not just the UN, but the National Academy of Sciences, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Brookings Institution, and even the Bush administration (before Christie Todd-Whitman got slapped down by the fossil fuel lobbies) have agreed that auto and industrial CO2 emissions are almost without question the primary cause of the current warming trend, which -- as the latest NASA prediction goes -- will result in the Arctic ice cap disappearing in 60 years.
Denying science when it conflicts with profits is nothing new. Ibsen's "Enemy of the People" nailed it over 100 years ago. The difference this time, I think, can be found in the laughable comment (troll bait?) here that referred to "liberal scientists." In science, when a researcher comes up with a hypothesis, the game is to challenge it -- and if it withstands multiple challenges over time, it is gradully accepted. That's what happened with global warming. But this process is derided as "reality-based" by the wingnuts running things these days, who live their lives based on things they would like to be true, which are never challenged. They find the conclusions that benefit them the most personally and find "evidence" to support them, even if they have to pay for its manufacture. And they haven't the foggiest idea why anyone would live their lives any other way. Ergo, scientists must be "liberal."
That's why James Inhofe, a Republican senator from Oklahoma and the top recipient of big oil lobbying money -- who recently called global warming "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people" -- kicked off his hearings with testimony by the loopy novelist Michael Crichton. No reputable member of the scientific community would be caught dead in that chair.
been warming.
Man trying to change weather is so pitiful!
Folks - we live on an organic planet that could care less that we exist on it's surface. It will continue to "live" regardless of what we little humans do to it. When you look at how long mankind has existed on this planet, versus the age of the planet itself, we are not even a blink of an eye.
One day, this planet will warm up enough that the ice caps will melt and flood all of the continents. It has happened before - and it will happen again. And there isn't one damn thing us puny little humans can do about it.
See, that is the probelm with mankind We are so narcissistic. We actually think we are "important" and we can conqueror all. LOL!!! Tell that to a hurricane or earthquake.
been warming.
Man trying to change weather is so pitiful!
Folks - we live on an organic planet that could care less that we exist on it's surface. It will continue to "live" regardless of what we little humans do to it. When you look at how long mankind has existed on this planet, versus the age of the planet itself, we are not even a blink of an eye.
One day, this planet will warm up enough that the ice caps will melt and flood all of the continents. It has happened before - and it will happen again. And there isn't one damn thing us puny little humans can do about it.
See, that is the probelm with mankind We are so narcissistic. We actually think we are "important" and we can conqueror all. LOL!!! Tell that to a hurricane or earthquake.
Perhaps the writer can respond with an explanation.
Perhaps the writer can respond with an explanation.
China's central planning and Communist rule will allow them to bypass social and environmental concerns to move ahead with experimental methods such as beaming down microwave energy from space. Once they find technology that works, they will license it, or perhaps sell the power directly to a desperate world. I do not expect solutions to come from the industrialized countries of Europe or the U.S. as their Big Energy vested interests have the most to lose from a move away from fossil fuels.
that you can come up with an adequate orbital power source, by
the time you can beam enough power to the ground to be useful,
you'll have fried everything on the ground. Then, no further power
will be needed.
Such as wind farms that kill birds and bats.
Or solar cells that generate tons of chemical waste for their production, and that last for a few years.
Or hydrogen, that needs other sources for generation, adding inefficiencies in the process.
Or hydroelectric that floods vast areas and kills whole ecosystems.
Or geothermal that produces enough energy to power an average house.
Until cold fusion is attained, or environmentalists stop opposing to (much cleaner and safer) atomic fision energy, we are stuck with oil, CO2 and global warming.
China's central planning and Communist rule will allow them to bypass social and environmental concerns to move ahead with experimental methods such as beaming down microwave energy from space. Once they find technology that works, they will license it, or perhaps sell the power directly to a desperate world. I do not expect solutions to come from the industrialized countries of Europe or the U.S. as their Big Energy vested interests have the most to lose from a move away from fossil fuels.
that you can come up with an adequate orbital power source, by
the time you can beam enough power to the ground to be useful,
you'll have fried everything on the ground. Then, no further power
will be needed.
Such as wind farms that kill birds and bats.
Or solar cells that generate tons of chemical waste for their production, and that last for a few years.
Or hydrogen, that needs other sources for generation, adding inefficiencies in the process.
Or hydroelectric that floods vast areas and kills whole ecosystems.
Or geothermal that produces enough energy to power an average house.
Until cold fusion is attained, or environmentalists stop opposing to (much cleaner and safer) atomic fision energy, we are stuck with oil, CO2 and global warming.
a potentially catastrophic problem?
I mean, their educated guess could be wrong. Then we'll have
wasted all that money.
Holes in the ozone open up and close all the time! Just last
night, in fact, one opened over my neighbors garage. He says
smoking causes lung cancer. The fool, cancer rates have surged
and subsided throught out history.
Equating liberalism with science is a terrible mistake. Ignoring a
potential problem that is very probably real, is the mark of
delusional irresponsibility.
a potentially catastrophic problem?
I mean, their educated guess could be wrong. Then we'll have
wasted all that money.
Holes in the ozone open up and close all the time! Just last
night, in fact, one opened over my neighbors garage. He says
smoking causes lung cancer. The fool, cancer rates have surged
and subsided throught out history.
Equating liberalism with science is a terrible mistake. Ignoring a
potential problem that is very probably real, is the mark of
delusional irresponsibility.
There was a period of "global warming" between 1900-1940, with a mini "ice age" or "global cooling" between 1940 and 1980 - then another reversal back to a warming phase. Given that, I can see why everyone cried "the ice age is coming" back in the 1970's, but still - that trend reversed. Who knows if global warming will or won't do the same - I sure don't, and I am willing to bet that everyone else on earth don't know the answer either.
Is the earth warming? Yes. At some point in the future the earth will be significantly warmer than it is now. Probably leading to mass extinctions.
Is the earth cooling? Yes. At some point in the futrue the earth will be significantly cooler than it is now. Probably leading to mass extinctions.
The problem is the doomsayers are trying to conceptualize matters of geologic scales from within their gnat-like attention spans.
The Earth is what, 4 BILLION years old? You think a 100 year period actually matters to it? For that matter, you think a 10,000 year period matters to it?
- O'Reily is my friend...
- by October 17, 2005 12:09 PM PDT
- I can honestly say that I am a conservative, I like O'reily (to an extent), and I do in fact believe that global warming is a FACT. The only questions left are: What's the cause? Will it continue?
- Reply to this comment
-
-
- a 1000 years ago
- by October 17, 2005 3:06 PM PDT
- a thousand years ago there was a growing season in Greenland. That was long before SUVs. No one's ever explained why that was possible then, but any warming now must be because of man.
- View reply
Processing -
(98 Comments)There was a period of "global warming" between 1900-1940, with a mini "ice age" or "global cooling" between 1940 and 1980 - then another reversal back to a warming phase. Given that, I can see why everyone cried "the ice age is coming" back in the 1970's, but still - that trend reversed. Who knows if global warming will or won't do the same - I sure don't, and I am willing to bet that everyone else on earth don't know the answer either.
Is the earth warming? Yes. At some point in the future the earth will be significantly warmer than it is now. Probably leading to mass extinctions.
Is the earth cooling? Yes. At some point in the futrue the earth will be significantly cooler than it is now. Probably leading to mass extinctions.
The problem is the doomsayers are trying to conceptualize matters of geologic scales from within their gnat-like attention spans.
The Earth is what, 4 BILLION years old? You think a 100 year period actually matters to it? For that matter, you think a 10,000 year period matters to it?