It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Global warming 'irreversible' for next 1000 years: study

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance


Our best estimate of their combined imbalance is about 125 gigatons per year of ice, enough to raise sea level by 0.35 millimeters per year. This is only a modest contribution to the present rate of sea-level rise of 3.0 millimeters per year. However, much of the loss from Antarctica and Greenland is the result of the flow of ice to the ocean from ice streams and glaciers, which has accelerated over the past decade.



I am sorry I really dont understand how that data supports a "global warming is a scam" position. They are actually saying that the rate at which the ice is melting in Greenland and Antarctica is increasing, which supports the global warming theory. Is it because you think that the extra 0.35 millimeters a year in sea level rise is not big enough of an increase to be worrisome? If so, you are right that it isnt enough to drown whole continents in the near future, but I dont think anyone credible is saying we will all drown in a couple years.

That amount per year the sea level is rising is pretty well known. It is included in Wikipedia,

en.wikipedia.org...


The sea level has been rising at a rate of around 1.8 mm per year for the past century,[1][2] mainly as a result of human-induced global warming.[3] This rate is increasing; measurements from the period 1993–2003 indicated a mean rate of 3.1 mm/year.[4]


Your source says 3.0mm per year, Wikipedia says 3.1mm, so one source is not differing greatly from the other.

You know I do agree that those who are claiming that for certain we are all going to die tomorrow are scare mongering. But just because this will take 100 or more years perhaps to make a big impact is not a good reason to ignore it. Lots of people have children. They hope for grandchildren. They know that those grandchildren are going to have to live with the any mess we leave them.

Technology may arise that will help reverse the issues we are facing. But it is unwise to spend like you have won the lottery until you actually have that winning ticket. Why is it problematic that science is telling us, "hey guys, we see a pretty good sized problem here, and we arent sure how fast it will happen or how bad it will be, but we are sure it is going to make it difficult for humans. Maybe we should stop messing stuff up worse until we get this figured out." How is that scare mongering? It just seems to me the reasonable thing to do to exercise caution and at the very least slowing down the rate at which we contribute to the issue.

No one credible denies there is a natural cycle at play here. They are simply saying we are pushing that natural cycle into unknown territory. Humans have raised the CO2 level beyond any measurable level in the last 800,000 years. They have raised it far past what we consider the natural cycle to be. That means that we dont know what to expect. We dont know the cause and effect relationship between CO2 and temperature but we do see a correlation. Until we know more, we need to tread carefully.






[edit on 28-1-2009 by Illusionsaregrander]




posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 02:56 AM
link   
I think there is two things happening. A natural change,and a unnatural change made by our way of creating things and living.

I think that what we create and the way we live makes a unnatural change,because what we humans do is not in order with the natural cycle of nature.

I dont think any amount of money will ever buy us into the natural cycle of nature. And i dont think we can create any technology that will balance with nature in the way we chose to live and create. We cant bribe nature and we cant fool it.

As long as we chose to walk on this rode of life that we do. We just have to accept the changes we see or create.

We cant make natural things adapt to us. We have to adapt to them.





[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 03:02 AM
link   
I believe global warming is a real phenomenon but because of pollution (global dimming) we are being protected from the real effects its an odd situation as we need the pollution now to help keep us cool cutting out either one without the other could be disastrous.

I can't see the world even getting a chance to restore itself until we have drained and used all the fossil fuels who knows what the damage will be by then most people don't think they will live that long so don't care.

Maybe it's us maybe its the sun maybe its both truth is as individuals it's out of our hands.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 03:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Venit
 


this is the fault of USA, and americans should pay for it,americans have polluted with massive suv like cadillac escalade ,tha gw holocaust is happening



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Venit

Global warming 'irreversible' for next 1000 years: study


www.google.com

WASHINGTON (AFP) — Climate change is "largely irreversible" for the next 1,000 years even if carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions could be abruptly halted, according to a new study led by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
The study's authors said there was "no going back" after the report showed that changes in surface temperature, rainfall and sea level are "largely irreversible for more than 1,000 years after CO2 emissions are completely stopped."
NOAA senior scientist Susan Solomon said the study, published in this week's Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal, showed that current human choices on carbon dioxide emissions are set to "irreversibly change the planet."
Researchers examined the consequences of CO2 building up beyond present-day concentrations of 385 parts per million, and then completely stopping emissions after the peak. Before the industrial age CO2 in Earth's atmosphere amounted to only 280 parts per million.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
news.slashdot.org

[edit on 27/1/09 by Venit]


Susan Solomon...the lead author..works for the government..of course she will say things are terrible..



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Your source says 3.0mm per year, Wikipedia says 3.1mm, so one source i


while i'm certainly trying to take the wind out of GW sails, i think i made it very clear what the issue is, these numbers are small, very small when put into context. when you read a PR release, these are of course never mentioned.

with known technologies, you simply cannot measure sea level to millimeters, because land masses are not an absolute point of reference, despite the appearance. even more absurd is the claim that Antarctic glacier melting (which i won't go into detail about now) is contributing to 0.35mm/a.

now i urge you to take a ruler and mark 3mm and 0.35mm (hint, hint) on paper, then imagine an ocean, with tides and waves. it's pointless, as simple as that. even 100 years of 3mm/a (extrapolation) would yield 30cm or about 12". while that amount of rise might show up on radar data, it would still not change a whole lot for countries like Holland, if they did nothing (which they won't) they'd lose 12" of margin in case of heavy weather or 0.3 out of maybe 10m.

btw, islands vanish through erosion alone, just think of the Hawaii chain.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by stinkhorn
reply to post by Venit
 


This is all crappola, thats all these freaks want is more money to study climate change from you and i. I hope the world does heat up, its pretty cold here.

Oh, if we cannot change it for 1000 years, they why try, why keep talking about, why not try to restore the economy instead?

C02 is not pollution, it is inert and cannot trap more heat than H2o, thats right, water vapor or clouds.

Their computer models are always wrong, they have been wrong for the last 30 years, they are lucky if the can predict the weather for next week.

We humans have done this? LOL Blood on our hands from all the animals dying? Good, then we can eat them all up...yum!



[edit on 27-1-2009 by stinkhorn]

[edit on 27-1-2009 by stinkhorn]


...the cold is a symptom of global warming.....yes....that's it.....snow and cold are caused by "warming trends" caused by Humans.

Just kidding....I agree with everything you said.

and to add:

Our weather guy can barely predict weather from day to day. How long have we been studying the climate of the earth? And now we are ready to say that it won't correct itself for the next 1000 years.....after all of us are dead and buried....nice self supporting delusion. That ought to guarantee money for the next 100 years.

[edit on 28-1-2009 by wdkirk]



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by rizla
 


Methane, they haven't even factored in clouds, they state that they have left out cloud data becuase as of today, they do not understand clouds...duh, the earth is mostly covered in clouds or water vapor. You would think they would maybe study that first? No, they will just leave them out altogether, no one will notice.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 08:24 AM
link   
This result suits the teller.


I'll bet $ 50 that they are wrong.

And they can bite me.


Very sick of doomsayers.

Sorry bout that

Mungo


Edit Bout $25 US as we stand .... but who's fault is that....... another day baby

[edit on 28/1/2009 by mungodave]



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297

Originally posted by FlyersFan

There is evidence however that CARBON DIOXIDE traps terrestrial heat, such as on VENUS. This occurs because CO2 transmits visible light but absorbs other spectrums such as UV and infrared.
This absorption increases molecular oscillation via friction with the energy transfer resulting in heat.
There is also proof that burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide as a by product.
There is also the concept that humans burn plenty of fossil fuels everyday.
Thats 1+1+1 + plus a little extrapolation - maybe third grade level science.

This equation does not equate to = AL GORE, LIBRALS or TERISTS

Of course there has to be a political imperative that suddenly exempts this science.




Not even third grade; sorry. If you take off your shoes, maybe you can count higher than 1+1+1.

The most abundant greenhouse gas (as noted by S. Solomon, the subject of the OP article) is WATER VAPOR. There are chlorides, sulfides, sulfates, nitrides and fluorides from vulcanism (see same subject earlier in this thread). And of course, there's solar activity itself; and extra-solar activity.

CO2is only 38.5 parts per 100,000 of the atmosphere.

Add in the cash incentives of research grants, sequestration studies (all very expensive failures so far- each adding to the CO2 load in the process), elimination studies and subsidies, taxes and credits.

Mix that up with 400,000 years of geologic records from tree rings and ice cores (see Solomon (again!)); and, you will see that the equation = Al Gore = Lib[e]rals = "Terists" (who's that, anyway?) = cap and trade =$$$$ to Anthropogenic Global Warming fearmongers, MINUS $$$$$ from consumers, farmers and small businesses.


Check my math, but your's is absolutely wrong. It leaves out the biggest parts.

If man can change the weather, please warm it up over here, make it rain in the mid-West and Texas during the Spring, stop the snow in the East, help the desertified areas of N. Africa (there since the end of the last Ice Age), get rid of the smog on the West Coast; and, what's that smell over St. Louis?

I'm waiting.


[edit on 28-1-2009 by jdub297]


You turned a simple scientific concept into a MONEY subject,

Then you used that to harpoon the science ... It does not work that way. Yes water vapor is the largest portion of grass house gases, however the Earth and its bio systems do not operate without water vapor. Your lack of science fails to recognize that the EARTH now has to compensate....

Anyhow, the fact that your politics blinds you from the science is frightening. I understand being against a carbon tax, but that does not eliminate the truth of the science. My father studied VENUS for nasa, it is much hotter than Mercury despite the fact that it is farther away.... DUE to a higher saturation in CO2, not gaseous H2O.

Once again the fact that you have politicized the science is sickening, go back to speced



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


You still do not get it, they are inputting data into their computer models that were written by man, ever hear the term garbage in, garbage out? Their models are flawed, skewed and biased. The data they are inputting is not based on science, but on fear, what if Co2 were this, well lets add more, now lets add more still, now lets say the ice melts all over the world...the model shows that in 2050 we better be living in noahs arc, we are doomed.

The IPPC report is bogus, it was written by laywers, statitians and political hacks, some scientist have come forward to say their data was skewed to make it look worse, while some 6,000 real scientists say its all bullsnhits.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 10:13 AM
link   
I believe we don't have global warming so much to worry about, but instead global cynicism.

Western science has been dumbed down so much our regular detractors can't tell it apart from politics.

Yeah, its those greedy evil liberal scientists' fault! Lets get 'em boys!



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Bald Champion

You turned a simple scientific concept into a MONEY subject,


If it was "a simple scientific concept," there wouldn't be world-wide disagreement and international conferences and treaties.

It IS a money subject, as you'll find out when you have to pay more for food, fuel, utilities. Who do you think gets to pay for the carbon credits and caps? They get passed to the idiots who endorsed this crap in the first place, and those who didn't know otherwise.

Please explain to the 7,500 Chinese villagers who lost their homes, land and jobs to a dam project susbsidized by a German power plant why this is not about money. (IPCC now agrees that the cap/trade/credit program FAILED in this, one of the first and biggest AGW carbon-credit projects!)


Then you used that to harpoon the science ... It does not work that way. Yes water vapor is the largest portion of grass house gases, however the Earth and its bio systems do not operate without water vapor. Your lack of science fails to recognize that the EARTH now has to compensate....

I don't even understand this. It sounds like you're saying I advocate eliminating H20 to "cure" the problem. NO ONE has ever said such a thing, even the most ignorant AGW advocate.
What 'science' there is is pretty clear that this 'bio system' is largely subject to solar influences, not man's.

The Earth will compensate by killing us off. It has truly been there, done that. Even when we survive, Earth recovers from our pollution and destruction very quickly.

IT IS A NATURAL CYCLE, not anthropogenic!


Anyhow, the fact that your politics blinds you from the science is frightening. I understand being against a carbon tax, but that does not eliminate the truth of the science. My father studied VENUS for nasa, it is much hotter than Mercury despite the fact that it is farther away.... DUE to a higher saturation in CO2, not gaseous H2O.


You do not know my politics. Do not presume to. Do not presume to preach me pseudo- science or your Daddy's job history. Did Pop tell you that Venusian atmospheric and geologic dynamics are nowhere near those of any other planet, much less Earth's? Did he take you out of the institution to go to work with him, or did you just inherit his genius?

Did you know that along with CO2, H2SO4 and COOH are primary constituents influencing Venus' climate? That its' days last 300 Earth-days, thus allowing it to BAKE, while Mercury rotates to account for the heat/differences?

Deny ignorance.


... go back to speced


The same one that held you back before expelling you for holding the rest of the class back?

Deny ignorance.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by stinkhorn
now lets say the ice melts all over the world...the model shows that in 2050 we better be living in noahs arc, we are doomed.

The IPPC report is bogus, it was written by laywers, statitians and political hacks, some scientist have come forward to say their data was skewed to make it look worse, while some 6,000 real scientists say its all bullsnhits.


Well, post a link to the data compiled by these "real scientists" so that we can see for ourselves.

I personally have not seen any scholarly articles or studies suggesting we begin ark building. Maybe it is the sources you choose to look at that are the problem, not science itself. If your idea of a science journal is an online blog by either a left or right wing author, that would explain much. Because in the reputable journals there really isnt a lot of disagreement. At least not in terms of the fact that it IS happening and that human activity is having an impact. The disagreement is primarily over how fast we will see the changes and how profound they will be.

"Real" scientists admit that we simply dont have enough data to predict those things with certainty.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297

IT IS A NATURAL CYCLE, not anthropogenic!



Are you denying the validity of the ice core samples that show CO2 levels far above the natural cycle? Or are you claiming that those core samples simply are missing that part of the cycle?

Even if you were right, and it were a completely natural cycle and humans had nothing at all to do with the increase in CO2, are you saying humans should do nothing to plan for climate change that can impede our ability to live and produce food in certain areas?

Should we ignore it completely? Or should we be studying it to see if there is anything we can do to increase our chances of surviving?



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


Nah, they are all right. They can't produce one peer-reviewed article, and all the other climate specialists in the world are idiots.

ATS! Slowing down progression one issue at a time!



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Irish M1ck
 


Are the 31000 scientists that dispute the theory of man made global warming idiots as well?

tadcronn.wordpress.com...

Global Warming Review Paper. Peer reviewed.
www.oism.org...



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Erasurehead
 


Conclusion from peer reviewed paper signed by 31000 scientists. You can view the signatures yourself.
www.oism.org...

There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape. There is no reason to limit human production of CO2, CH4, and other minor greenhouse gases as has been proposed (82,83,97,123).
We also need not worry about environmental calamities even if the current natural warming trend continues. The Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic effects. Warmer weather extends growing seasons and generally improves the habitability of colder regions.

As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people.

The United States and other countries need to produce more energy, not less. The most practical, economical, and environmentally sound methods available are hydrocarbon and nuclear technologies.

Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not harmfully warmed the Earth, and the extrapolation of current trends shows that it will not do so in the foreseeable future. The CO2 produced does, however, accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permits plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also flourishes, and the diversity of plant and animal life is increased.

Human activities are producing part of the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of this CO2 increase. Our children will therefore enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life than that with which we now are blessed.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Erasurehead
 


Thank you for finding that. I had been told there weren't any, but I had a feeling that wasn't correct. But here's the real truth:

The truth about global warming

She analyzed 1,000 research papers on climate change selected randomly from those published between 1993 and 2003. The results were surprising: Not a single study explicitly rejected the idea that people are warming the planet.

That doesn't mean there aren't any. But it does mean the number must be small, since none showed up in a sample that represents about 10 percent of the body of research, Oreskes said.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   
I used to debate global warming here on ATS until I got tired of hearing the same people make the same tired and canned Grist Mill AGW debate arguments. It is disingenuous to state that there aren't scientifically peer reviewed papers that disagree with AGW. If you know anything about climate science at all, you know that Richard Lindzen of M.I.T. and many others have written peer reviewed papers and articles against AGW. I have presented them here before when challenged to, then heard nothing but more excuses from the AGW alarmists.

Over 40% of degreed scientists working in the field disagree with the simplistic notion that CO2 is the essence of global warming by virtue of its large IR transmission windows causing the ecosystem to retain more heat. Atmospheric science very complex and there are still many, many unknowns involved. Science is not about consensus anyway. Many times in history the very small minority of scientists have been the ones who were ultimately correct. The ranks of scientists who are now AGW skeptics is rising rapidly now that large pieces of the AGW alarmist evidence have been proven to be incorrect.

I have had my say, and don't intend to get into another prolonged debate.
Good luck to you all.

This scientist is a proud signer of the Oregon Petition.





[edit on 1/28/2009 by TheAvenger]




top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join