- Related Stories
-
Report: Feds manipulate release of climate change research
March 28, 2007 -
Using solar energy to keep homes cool
March 20, 2007 -
Eco house of the future is no hippie commune
October 25, 2006
Root, a senior fellow at Stanford University, is co-author of a report on climate change that will be discussed at an international conference later this week in Belgium.
The report, "Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability," investigates how global warming is already affecting the animal and plant kingdoms.
In an interview with CNET News.com on the eve of the conference, Root outlined her concerns about global warming as well as how a complex scientific question has been politicized.
Q: How do you think global warming is going to impact the plant and animal kingdoms?
Root: Global warming isn't something in the future; it's already happening. The species that lay eggs in the springtime, they are laying eggs earlier. There are species that migrate back in the springtime, they are coming back earlier, and flowers are blooming. Daffodils are coming up now much earlier than they used to, and the change that has happened is about three weeks in the last 30 years. So it's about a week per decade, and that is quite a change when you only think that we've had a 0.7-degree-centigrade increase in temperature--and we are talking about now that it could possibly go as high as 6 degrees C. That really is quite a concern because that can lead to extinction of various species.
The species that are going to be most vulnerable are the ones that are very, very specialized and the ones that have very small ranges. The ones that are on the top of mountains, for instance right now; as the globe warms, they want to move up in elevation, but there is no place for them to go. So they are going to end up going extinct, and we have already seen some of that happening.
How would we know the tipping point, and when it would be irreversible?
Root: In biology, each species has what you would call a tipping point, and some of them are very close to the tipping point already and some of them are not. The species that are not very close to tipping points right now are things that live with us in our cities, like raccoons and skunks and things like that, but there are several species that are very rare already and that is something to worry about. For some species it certainly has already been the tipping point, for the butterfly that is moving up in Baja California, the tipping point has been reached. For other species that are able to move through Tijuana or San Diego, they are doing fine.
Video:
Climate change to increase extinctions
New warnings to come from U.N. climate panel.
So each species has its own different way, and that actually is one of the things that I am most concerned about because the species communities that we know today are not going to move together up north or up in elevation. One species is going to go one way and one species is going to go the other way, and this one is going to go fast, and that one is going to go slow, and one is not going to move at all, and so we have this tearing apart of communities, and it's tearing apart the biotic interactions of the species. So if we have a predator-and-prey relationship, if the predator moves, that's good for the prey because it can go up in abundance. But if the prey is a pest on our crops, then we don't want to have that happen.
How is global warming going to affect the food crops?
Root: When we are talking about crops, there are going to be very many different things affecting our crops that we have to worry about. We could have more pests because the predators are moving out of the way as I just said, then we could also have stress in the crops themselves because it's warmer. We can have stress in the crops because there is not as much water, and so you put all of those things together and our crops could actually be in danger.
What about humans? How would they be affected by global warming?
Root: Well, humans are smart enough to...as a lot of people say, they just go indoors and have their air-conditioning. But that doesn't work. There are lots of people on this planet that do not have air-conditioning. So how are people really going to be affected? There is a whole wide range of things, like disease, that are going to be changing dramatically. We are going to have stresses because we are not going to have enough water. People will be stressed because it's going to be so warm.
Can you specify some of the diseases?
Root: The diseases are a little bit tough to understand because humans have been trying to suppress them, obviously. But now global warming is saying the vectors that are carrying the disease are able to move into new places where they have never been before...With malaria, it's changing; with dengue fever, it's changing; with hantavirus, it's changing. What we need to do is figure out how to control those and encounter what the global warming is doing.
Why do you think there continues to be so much resistance to evidence showing a correlation between carbon emissions and global warming?
Root: We could have done a lot more to work on the connection between the global warming and carbon. But there has been a real strong disinformation campaign that has been out there and has tried to actually confuse the public. People love to be in denial, but we can't have that anymore. A lot of people are going to be hurt monetarily, and we have to worry about that aspect, too.
See more CNET content tagged:
species, global warming, Terry Root, conference
1. As the paper states, the estimated global warming is around .7c.
Certainly, there are regions that are warmer as well as cooler. Getting a global average is a complex issue that can only be done with minimal precision. .7c is well within the margin of error and the temp might actually have cooled.
2. There has been unusual solar activity over the last 50 years, which does affect global temps.
3. We have only been recording temps for a little over a hundred years now. For all we know, it may have cooled .7c the century before.
4. Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation." Science Digest (February 1973) reported that "the world's climatologists are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age." Christian Science Monitor ("Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster Than Even Experts Expect," Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers "have begun to advance," "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter" and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool." Newsweek agreed ("The Cooling World," April 28, 1975) that meteorologists "are almost unanimous" that catastrophic famines might result from the global cooling that the New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said "may mark the return to another ice age."
1. As the paper states, the estimated global warming is around .7c.
Certainly, there are regions that are warmer as well as cooler. Getting a global average is a complex issue that can only be done with minimal precision. .7c is well within the margin of error and the temp might actually have cooled.?
--I think the margin of error is very low not 0.7 C as just a minor change is very bad like 0.1c.
"2. There has been unusual solar activity over the last 50 years, which does affect global temps."
--Not as badly as melting huge glaciers which should not melt at all..in 50 years.
"3. We have only been recording temps for a little over a hundred years now. For all we know, it may have cooled 0.7c the century before."
--We are using ice rulers (long tubes of ice) that are taken out of the ground in Antarctica that measure what's been happening over thousands of years as well as looking at glaciers melt quickly which is not supposed to happen in just 50 years. MASSIVE melting. Please pick up a copy of National Geographic or Website as it's a moderate not liberal magazine for true conservationists to get this info or you sound like you work for an oil company or conserva-crazy extremist group.
?4. Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation." Science Digest (February 1973) reported that "the world's climatologists are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age." Christian Science Monitor ("Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster Than Even Experts Expect," Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers "have begun to advance," "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter" and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool." Newsweek agreed ("The Cooling World," April 28, 1975) that meteorologists "are almost unanimous" that catastrophic famines might result from the global cooling that the New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said "may mark the return to another ice age."
-Where is the Ice Age then? Maybe we just started having fluctuations and it went in t opposite direction temporarily. I guess it has to be pretty bad to alter an natural Ice Age movement right???
Some reading suggestions that are more moderate:
National Geographic
CNET
http://www.physorg.com/ //Popular mainstream Science site
These are not extreme groups so don't think that your fighting extremist liberal groups as this is just basic information.
No one is saying that we want to have super uniform all natural Hobbit-like environments everywhere. We just want basic efficiencies and standards.
The only constant is human greed and power.
3. We have only been recording temps for a little over a hundred years now. For all we know, it may have cooled .7c the century before.
how long we have been "recording temperatures" has NOTHING to do with our ability to know the temperature in times past. Yes, that's right, idiot, you don't need to sit there with a thermometer and write down the temperature to know what it was in that past. OF course, if you knew even the the FIRST FREAKING THING about science or climatology, you never would have made that naive mistake, but oh well, you don't need to KNOW things to be a Republican , you just need to BELIEVE them with all your heart and soul!
Why is it that suddenly every 2 bit loser who snorts Rush Limbaugh for a couple hours everyday suddenly fancies his or herself a scientist and thinks they're equal to or better than the experts like the author of this article who have spent a lifetime researching the topic?
Do any of these people have any inkling that they are just total tools and zombies who have a belief structure that's been meted out and fed to them to them by Big Oil and their goons in the right wing media? They have no idea. They think they're reasoning when what they're doing is puking back up whatever has been spoon fed to them by Hannity and Limnbaugh and all the other brain dead low-IQ no-education, no criticial thinking skills greedhead right-wing human garbage. .
This guy's post should be preserved and pilloried as an example of what the Republican party is all about. The stupidest most ignorant (think Terry Shivo here) people on the planet being whipped up into a froth by multinational corporations whose CEOs need yet another round of blow n' ****** and can convince themselves of absolutely anything so long as it results in a couple more million in their bank accounts.
At this point, with the world's scientists in full agreement, it's gone beyond bad judgment and into the criminal to continue agitate for a do-nothing policy. Remember, the Nazi's all thought that THEY would write history too, and they ended up at the end of ropes for the crimes they committed. Do you think the would is going to listen to you say you're sorry, you were mistaken when the events described by climatologists start happening OR do you think they're going to see something criminal in the actions of the CEOs and media mouthpieces who took to the air waves and tried to block the appropriate action? Because it's NOT going to be up to those CEOs and mouthpieces how they're seen or how they're dealt with any more than it was up to the Nazis.
The temperature rise precedes the CO2 rise by about 600-800 years -- Facts my dear, facts. Why is that? Because CO2 is not the cause it is the result of the sun warming the solar system. Else why would other planets and moons be melting as well. The author needs to study more science and stay out of politics. The global warming scam is a hoax, simple as that.
If you want to regulate CO2 as a greenhouse gas, don't stop there. 95% of all green house gases is water vapor -- clouds.
at. Your timetable is a bit off.
Learn some more facts
uh speaking engagement abroad where she can engage in group
think with others like her.
Most likely the trip is paid for by taxpayer money.
And, should anyone in the department dare dispute her and do
not have tenure well, bye bye tenure and promotion.
and there are animal and plant biologists. One thing ALL biologists study is the way the environment influences the organisms in their particular field.
She's the exact right person to talk about this, and it's sad that the uninformed statements above are being made.
I am sick of overconstruction!!! I am sick and tried of every available piece of land having to be built on in the city and suburbs whch just destoys property value and pollutes the neigherbood. Makes kids fat because they stay on video games and don't play outside and explore! That's CHILD ABUSE. How can parents be blamed when the townships are at fault for overconstruction so they can just reap more property taxes? You're all fat and out of shape because you annihilated your neighborhoods.
It doesn't bring any more value to the neighborhood except more toilets and pollution.
Stop making excuses for operpoulation and immigrant influx because you're to lazy to help India modernize so people want to build resorts and hotels there instead of here all the time. We have too much of everything and are SPOILED! It's because of reactionary isolationists Conservative AND Liberal that we now have these problems overseas and here!
So once the human race has finished destroying the planet and become extinct the planet will then sort itself. Reset and start again?
Specifically on Global Warming. I believe humans are a huge part of the problem and the only organism on the planet that can knowingly make a difference.
Plant trees, use renewable energy, reduced waste. Every day every one of us can do something to reduce our personal impact on the planet without affecting our quality of life. To me this makes sense. In a way it?s like those signs you seen in public parks. ?Take Only Pictures, Leave Only Footprints? If we all tried to do that then the planet will not be affected and future generations can enjoy what we have today.
Stop looking at the world from a snap shot view! There is a forest (not to mention forest fossils)... so stop analyzing just a single tree.
Science Panel Calls Global Warming ?Unequivocal?
PARIS, Feb. 2 ? In a grim and powerful assessment of the future of the planet, the leading international network of climate scientists has concluded for the first time that global warming is ?unequivocal? and that human activity is the main driver, ?very likely? causing most of the rise in temperatures since 1950.
They said the world was in for centuries of climbing temperatures, rising seas and shifting weather patterns ? unavoidable results of the buildup of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere.
But their report, released here on Friday by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said warming and its harmful consequences could be substantially blunted by prompt action.
While the report provided scant new evidence of a climate apocalypse now, and while it expressly avoided recommending courses of action, officials from the United Nations agencies that created the panel in 1988 said it spoke of the urgent need to limit looming and momentous risks.
?In our daily lives we all respond urgently to dangers that are much less likely than climate change to affect the future of our children,? said Achim Steiner, executive director of the United Nations Environment Program, which administers the panel along with the World Meteorological Organization.
?Feb. 2 will be remembered as the date when uncertainty was removed as to whether humans had anything to do with climate change on this planet,? he went on. ?The evidence is on the table.?
The report is the panel?s fourth assessment since 1990 on the causes and consequences of climate change, but it is the first in which the group asserts with near certainty ? more than 90 percent confidence ? that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from human activities have been the main causes of warming in the past half century.
In its last report, in 2001, the panel, consisting of hundreds of scientists and reviewers, said the confidence level for its projections was ?likely,? or 66 to 90 percent. That level has now been raised to ?very likely,? better than 90 percent. Both reports are online at www.ipcc.ch.
The Bush administration, which until recently avoided directly accepting that humans were warming the planet in potentially harmful ways, embraced the findings, which had been approved by representatives from the United States and 112 other countries on Thursday night.
Administration officials asserted Friday that the United States had played a leading role in studying and combating climate change, in part by an investment of an average of almost $5 billion a year for the past six years in research and tax incentives for new technologies.
At the same time, Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman rejected the idea of unilateral limits on emissions. ?We are a small contributor to the overall, when you look at the rest of the world, so it?s really got to be a global solution,? he said.
The United States, with about 5 percent of the world?s population, contributes about a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions, more than any other country.
Democratic lawmakers quickly fired off a round of news releases using the report to bolster a fresh flock of proposed bills aimed at cutting emissions of greenhouse gases. Senator James M. Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican who has called the idea of dangerous human-driven warming a hoax, issued a news release headed ?Corruption of Science? that rejected the report as ?a political document.?
The new report says the global climate is likely to warm 3.5 to 8 degrees Fahrenheit if carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere reach twice the levels of 1750, before the Industrial Revolution.
Many energy and environment experts see such a doubling, or worse, as a foregone conclusion after 2050 unless there is a prompt and sustained shift away from the 20th-century pattern of unfettered burning of coal and oil, the main sources of carbon dioxide, and an aggressive expansion of nonpolluting sources of energy.
And the report says there is a more than a 1-in-10 chance of much greater warming, a risk that many experts say is far too high to ignore.
Even a level of warming that falls in the middle of the group?s range of projections would be likely to cause significant stress to ecosystems, according to many climate experts and biologists. And it would alter longstanding climate patterns that shape water supplies and agricultural production.
Moreover, the warming has set in motion a rise in global sea levels, the report says. It forecasts a rise of 7 to 23 inches by 2100 and concludes that seas will continue to rise for at least 1,000 years to come. By comparison, seas rose about 6 to 9 inches in the 20th century.
John P. Holdren, an energy and climate expert at Harvard, said the report ?powerfully underscores the need for a massive effort to slow the pace of global climatic disruption before intolerable consequences become inevitable.?
?Since 2001, there has been a torrent of new scientific evidence on the magnitude, human origins and growing impacts of the climatic changes that are under way,? said Mr. Holdren, who is the president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. ?In overwhelming proportions, this evidence has been in the direction of showing faster change, more danger and greater confidence about the dominant role of fossil-fuel burning and tropical deforestation in causing the changes that are being observed.?
The conclusions came after a three-year review of hundreds of studies of past climate shifts; observations of retreating ice, warming and rising seas, and other changes around the planet; and a greatly expanded suite of supercomputer simulations used to test how the earth will respond to a growing blanket of gases that hold heat in the atmosphere.
The section released Friday was a 20-page summary for policymakers, which was approved early in the morning by teams of officials from more than 100 countries after three days and nights of wrangling over wording with the lead authors, all of whom are scientists.
It described far-flung ramifications for both humans and nature.
?It is very likely that hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation events will continue to become more frequent,? said the summary.
Generally, the scientists said, more precipitation will fall at higher latitudes, which are also likely to see lengthened growing seasons. Semi-arid subtropical regions, already chronically plagued by drought, could have a further 20 percent drop in rainfall under the panel?s midrange outlook for increases in the greenhouse gases.
The summary added a new chemical consequence of the buildup of carbon dioxide to the list of mainly climatic and biological effects foreseen in its previous reports: a drop in the pH of seawater as oceans absorb billions of tons of carbon dioxide, which forms carbonic acid when partly dissolved. The ocean would stay alkaline, but marine biologists have said that a change in the direction of acidity could imperil some kinds of corals and plankton.
The report essentially caps a half-century-long effort to discern whether humans, through the buildup of carbon dioxide and other gases released mainly by burning fuels and forests, could influence the earth?s climate system in potentially momentous ways.
The group operates under the aegis of the United Nations and was chartered in 1988 ? a year of record heat, burning forests and the first big headlines about global warming ? to provide regular reviews of climate science to governments to inform policy choices.
Government officials are involved in shaping the summary of each report, but the scientist-authors, who are unpaid, have the final say over the thousands of pages in four underlying technical reports that will be completed and published later this year.
Big questions remain about the speed and extent of some impending changes, both because of uncertainty about future population and pollution trends and the complex interrelationships of the greenhouse emissions, clouds, dusty kinds of pollution, the oceans and earth?s veneer of life, which both emits and soaks up carbon dioxide and other such gases.
But a broad array of scientists, including authors of the report and independent experts, said the latest analysis was the most sobering view yet of a century of transition ? after thousands of years of relatively stable climate conditions ? to a new norm of continual change.
Should greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere at even a moderate pace, average temperatures by the end of the century could match those last seen 125,000 years ago, in the previous warm spell between ice ages, the report said.
At that time, the panel said, sea levels were 12 to 20 feet higher than they are now. Much of that extra water is now trapped in the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica, which are eroding in some places.
The panel said there was no solid scientific understanding of how rapidly the vast stores of ice in polar regions will melt, so their estimates on new sea levels were based mainly on how much the warmed oceans will expand, and not on contributions from the melting of ice now on land.
Other scientists have recently reported evidence that the glaciers and ice sheets in the Arctic and Antarctic could flow seaward far more quickly than estimated in the past, and they have proposed that the risks to coastal areas could be much more imminent. But the climate change panel is forbidden by its charter to enter into speculation, and so could not include such possible instabilities in its assessment.
Michel Jarraud, the secretary general of the United Nations World Meteorological Organization, said the lack of clarity should offer no one comfort. ?The speed with which melting ice sheets are raising sea levels is uncertain, but the report makes clear that sea levels will rise inexorably over the coming centuries,? he said. ?It is a question of when and how much, and not if.?
The warming and other climate changes will be highly variable around the world, with the Arctic in particular seeing much higher temperatures, said Susan Solomon, the co-leader of the team writing the summary and the section of the panel?s report on basic science. She is an atmospheric scientist for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The kinds of vulnerabilities are very much dependent on where you are, Dr. Solomon said in a telephone interview. ?If you?re living in parts of the tropics and they?re getting drier and you?re a farmer, there are some very acute issues associated with even small changes in rainfall ? changes we?re already seeing are significant,? she said. ?If you are an Inuit and you?re seeing your sea ice retreating already, that?s affecting your life style and culture.?
The 20-page summary is a sketch of the findings that are most germane to the public and world leaders.
The full report, thousands of pages of technical background, will be released in four sections through the year ? the first on basic science, then sections on impacts and options for limiting emissions and limiting inevitable harms, and finally a synthesis of all of the findings near year?s end.
In a news conference in Paris, Dr. Solomon declined to provide her own views on how society should respond to the momentous changes projected in the study.
?I honestly believe that it would be a much better service for me to keep my personal opinions separate than what I can actually offer the world as a scientist,? she said. ?My stepson, who is 29, has an utterly different view of risks than I do. People are going to have to make their own judgments.?
Some authors of the report said that no one could honestly point to any remaining uncertainties as justification for further delay.
?Policy makers paid us to do good science, and now we have very high scientific confidence in this work ? this is real, this is real, this is real,? said Richard B. Alley, one of the lead authors and a professor at Pennsylvania State University. ?So now act, the ball?s back in your court.?
http://cesp.stanford.edu/people/terrylroot/
http://cesp.stanford.edu/people/stephenhschneider/
The source of all this change? It's complex but we think it has to do with greenhouse gases. The obvious solution therefore is to reduce the gasses at their source. Since the largest source is Mammoth farts we plan to hunt Mammoths to reduce their numbers and hopefully forestall this impending doom.
The point? Global warming occurred about 15,000 years ago and indeed changed the balance all over the earth which resulted in mass extinctions and massive rises in sea levels.
Now the question: What caused the ice age to end since it was much more dramatic a change in global climate than is being forecast now?
Given that the *normal* state of this planet is for it to have huge ice sheets (warm periods are short vs how long the cold ones last) why is another small increase in temperature so frightening?
Why are the alarmists ignoring the fact (as shown by their own data) that at several times in the last few thousand years it's been even warmer than today?
Why are we worried about glaciers in Greenland melting when we see evidence of human settlements now being exposed by those retreating glaciers? Doesn't that point out a simple fact that the glaciers first moved forward onto those settlements before retreating again?
Why are all these so-called scientists ignoring data which correlates much more closely to the actual changes in temperature than CO2 levels? Why are they fixated on CO2?
Its been much warmer, and much colder both before Humans rise to prominence and industrialization, and after.
So much data exists to refute the latest theory that it is our industrialization, and emission of carbon dioxide, "causing" the warming, that no reputable scientist can claim the theory "proven".
This post mentions the ancient settlements in Greenland from the LAST time things warmed up...
Other data include the vineyards of the Benedictine Monks in the UK dating back to the 1300s warm period (it has NOT been warm enough since to grow proper red wine grapes). There was certainly NO industrialization emitting ANYTHING then!
It is the pinnacle of human hubris to believe that WE are the cause of what has happened repeatedly throughout Earth's natural history.
That said, we are called to be good stewards of the environment. So, should we be more efficient with energy - absolutely! Should we not pollute - absolutely! Should we panic and cut off our nose to spite our face? Absolutely NOT!
Everyone needs to "cool down" on Global Warming!
Yes it is getting warmer
Yes it always has (followed by getting colder)
Yes it always will.
Get used to it. Don't panic. Be sensible
Mammoths and the like evolved millions of years ago. The earth has had prior interglacial periods (like this one we are presently in, and warmer times as well in them) that did not kill off the mammoths, mastadons, etc.
I serously doubt that this most recent warming from a glacial period did what previous warmings did not.
We have much more to lose, and nowhere to migrate.
Wait... The other planets are getting warmer, too? The Mars icecap is melting sooner?
Oh... Never mind.
http://news.com.com/Report+Feds+manipulate+release+of+climate+change+research/2100-1008_3-6171500.html
How nice to be able believe what you want to believe rather than what the empirical evidence would lead you be believe. And after all, the state of the earth that we leave behind to future generations isn't your concern, is it?
warming is the elimination of greed and tribalism. No wonder
there is such a lack of credibility with the "sky is falling" crowd.
I agree with anyone who wants to limit the amount of junk we
pump into the air, water and earth. But infusing the debate with a
bunch of socio-babble does not help solve this problem.
Tribalism...huh?
Warming is a GOOD thing.
However, would not go as far as you and do not believe I should be forced to.
- Introduce strict fuel economy regulations for new cars. This seems like a no-brainer. We have the technology to AT LEAST double the fleet fuel economy while making virtually no difference to anybody's lifestyle.
- Set aside wildlife reserves and don't plunder the ones we have.
- Limit urban sprawl and stop building new freeway infrastructure.
- Focus on new hydro, solar, and wind sources.
- Stop pretending that "biofuels" can eliminate the need to improve energy efficiency.
http://news.com.com/Report+Feds+manipulate+release+of+climate+change+research/2100-1008_3-6171500.html
Sorry, but you are the Nut Job.
I am assuming you are referencing the US economy.
If the US was to move to clean energy and green technologies it would provide a lot of commercial benefit for the US.
Being a leader in the development of new technologies this would provide many opportunities for business.
You also have the practical which is the implementation of all this new tech into your environment which will provide a lot of jobs for both skilled and unskilled workers.
The reduction in dependence on oil would reduce the impact to your economy on the back of oil price increases.
It would also give you some strategic advantages security wise. eg money not going to countries which are not friendly to US policy.
But even if you don't agree with all that, does it really matter as the rest of the world moves to these techs the US will be left further and further behind and in time will be unable to compete on the world stage.
So how are these things going to wreck your economy again???
End result desired? A centralized government with a new nobility, a priviledged class calling the shots and collecting all the loot.
The people who denied the Killing Fields of Cambodia are also pushing "Humans Cause Global Warming". Support them, and become one with Nature, prematurely.
Chemistry. They ARE the study of Thermodynamics, in large part.
Repeat and return my friend: time to re-educate.
Based on the comments here its pretty obvious there is no consensus at all. Plenty of rational folks, including very respected scientists, have looked at the global warming hoax and realized it for what it is. Enough that its pretty clear that the debate really is now over...
...there's NO consensus.
Ms. Root, if all human based emission ceased, ALL, at 2400 hours tonight, when would global warming stop?
Repeat and Return: time to re-educate.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?
docid=4340135300469846467
Some of the scientists interviewed are:
"Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Patrick
Michaels, professor of Environmental Sciences at the
University of Virginia; Nigel Calder, former editor of
New Scientist; John Christy, professor and director of
the Earth System Science Center at University of
Alabama; and Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute."
From Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle
Consider the relationship between CO2 and global
warming. Have a look at some facts (from
Wikipedia):
http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Earth's_atmosphere
"Earth's atmosphere is a layer of gases surrounding
the planet Earth and retained by the Earth's gravity.
It contains roughly 78% nitrogen, (normally inert
except upon electrolysis by lightning[1] and in
certain biochemical processes of nitrogen fixation),
21.12% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide, and
trace amounts of other gases, in addition to about 3%
water vapor. "
http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Greenhouse_ gases
"The major natural greenhouse gases are water vapour,
which causes about 36-70% of the greenhouse effect on
Earth (not including clouds); carbon dioxide, which
causes 9-26%; methane, which causes 4-9%, and ozone,
which causes 3-7%."
"Water vapor is a naturally occurring greenhouse gas
and accounts for the largest percentage of the
greenhouse effect. Water vapor concentrations
fluctuate regionally, but human activity does not
directly affect water vapor concentrations except at
very local scales."
Doesn't it seem very strange that a gas that forms
only 0.04% of Earth's atmosphere, and is considered to
cause only 9-26% of Earth's natural greenhouse effect,
is suddenly supposed to have a massive and negative
effect on our climate, when it has never done so in
the past? Doesn't this seem like a very irrational
concept?
Throughout Earth's history, rises in Earth's temperature predate
corresponding rises in CO2 levels by roughly 800 years.
Consequently, carbon dioxide cannot be the cause for global
warming.
- GEL Initiative: true engineering solution to environmental problems
- by Alexander Bell April 3, 2007 12:36 PM PDT
- While heated debates still persist about Global Warming problem/resolution mainly focused on presumed GASEOUS contamination, there is one particular heavily-overlooked issue of Global Environmental Contamination by the SOLID STATE WASTE coming from improper Batteries disposal. This issue is REAL and URGENT as the need for ENERGY STORAGE components (currently ? Batteries) will continue to grow.
- Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (161 Comments)Full ENERGY consumption cycle includes not only Generation, but also STORAGE, Transmission and Conversion. True Engineering solution should not be just focused on and limited to the first stage (Energy Generation), but also take into consideration other parts, i.e. Energy STORAGE. Green Electricity (GEL) Initiative, addressing this issue and proposing the comprehensive systematic solutions, which include the replacement of the Batteries with Ultracapacitors (A.K.A. Supercapacitors) in conjunction with alternative renewable primary energy sources, is detailed at:
http://www.alexanderbell.us/Initiative/GEL.htm
http://www.alexanderbell.us/Project/GreenElectricity.htm
Modern technology has all necessary prerequisites for the transition to the Battery-free Ultracapacitor-based Energy storage systems. Capacitors are mostly RoHS-compliant (while most of Batteries are not) and have operational life (charge-discharge cycles) several orders of magnitude longer than Batteries. The solution is rather universal, applicable to any type of portable, automotive and stationary applications. What is also very important ? this is true engineering solution in nature, based on the fundamental time-tested physical principles and mature technology, proven to work.
Such revolutionary technological transition from Battery-to-Capacitor Energy storage on a massive scale requires coordinated efforts of many industries and should be taken into serious consideration by technology leaders and decision makers on every level all over the world.
Read the ?GEL Initiative? folks (it?s now topping Google? search list) and discover plenty of meaningful engineering ideas on how to make the planet cleaner and safer.